Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer 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 closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. 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.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here 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 page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. 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= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 July 13}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 13}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 13|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• 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.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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

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 everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. 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 closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

phi technology

Phi technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admins are mantaining a blind-deletion behaviour against our page, they say we are infringing some copyringhts but this is very false since we are the producers, the owners and the only legal holders of those copyrights. Phi Technology page has been locked now, and this may lead to a some damage, please undelete it as soon as possible since it's my duty to have that page online. Paolo.russian (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

12 July 2024

Beuys (disambiguation)

Beuys (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

G14 is not applicable, Joseph Beuys does disambiguate the term "Beuys". Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse: I'm not sure I understand the issue here. The page was created as a redirect (to Joseph Beuys), despite the confusing "(disambiguation)" in its title. Joseph Beuys is an article about the man, not a disambiguation page. It includes a hatnote to Beuys (film), but that doesn't make it a DAB. You could argue that Beuys (disambiguation) should have been speedied under R3 rather than under G14, but that's hardly worth arguing over. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment (by deleting admin): G14 permits deletion of "A redirect that ends in '(disambiguation)' but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)." Paradoctor relies on the phrase in italics, saying that Joseph Beuys performs a "disambiguation-like function" simply because it contains a hatnote linking to an article about a film. However, they ignore the parenthetical -- Joseph Beuys is plainly not a set index article or list, or even remotely similar to either of those. If merely having a hatnote were enough to justify a "(disambiguation)" redirect, then the majority of substantive Wikipedia articles would require such redirects. And once nearly every article has a "(disambiguation)" redirect pointing to it, I'd suggest that such redirects would have little to no value. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• No, I think G14 does apply since Joseph Beuys does not satisfy this criteria : A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page (such as set index article or list). Such redirects with {{R to disambiguation}} are expressly intended for use in links from other articles that need to refer to the disambiguation page. Using this redirect in such a context to identify an intentional disambiguation would be misleading if not outright incorrect. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page

  If you really don't see the contradiction in terms here, then there is really nothing to say. SMH Paradoctor (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Joseph Beuys doesn't look like a set index article or a list to me, either, and it never has. The entire purpose of ... (disambiguation) redirects is when there is no primary topic for a term and so links to that term normally need to be disambiguated, but there's occasional need to deliberately link to the disambiguation page (such as in a see also section in another disambig). Endorse. —Cryptic 19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - The entirety of set index and list articles perform a disambiguation like function whereas the article on Joseph Beuys performs an information article function that has a hat note at the top. -- Whpq (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Send to AfD. Slap User talk:R'n'B for not having done so immediately on challenge at his talk page. Speedy deletion is for where deletion is Uncontestable. Someone wants to contest it. Either the deletion was wrong, or someone needs a discussion to have stuff explained. This discussion belongs best at AfD, and does not belong at DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Normally, you would be right and I would support XfD for a challenged speedy. But there's simply no value to the not-disambiguation redirection in the first place, so there's really nothing to RfD about: a page ending in (disambiguation) which neither is a disambiguation nor redirects to a disambiguation page isn't a valid page. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse G14 seems to clearly apply based on all of the facts. There's no reason to send this to further discussion when this was a technical deletion, properly performed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Clearly correct application of G14 clause 3. Slapping a hatnote on a page does not make it a disambiguaton page. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

National Popular Consciousness

National Popular Consciousness (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the arguments put forward by the participants to deletion discussion do not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. The main argument was that if the article was not notable it would not have so many sources -I think the issue is not the quantity of sources but the engagement with the subject. The article has many sources that simply reproduce each other, without going deeper.. Also, I pointed out that the sources that do exist do not refer to the party but to its leader, which is not the same thing.

I have the impression that the user who closed the discussion was just counting votes not arguments. D.S. Lioness (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, unanimous save for the nominator. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, unanimous agreement on retaining the article. Michalis1994 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse , unanimous agreement to retain . None of your arguments make any sense. Also this is number 1 on the NOT to do list AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse there's no other way that could have been closed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but allow immediate renomination. While superficially unanimous, two of the Keep views relied on weak arguments, which isn't surprising considering their limited experience on the project. Discounting those two would leave us without a quorum. A fresh AfD will hopefully attract better participation. Owen× ☎ 14:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Read advice at WP:RENOM. Get some experience participating at WP:AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  RENOM advices includes a six month moratorium. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse and I oppose an immediate renom. Overwhelming consensus to keep including reasonable arguments presented. Frank Anchor 02:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - The right closure. Even if I agreed that some of the !votes should be ignored (and I do not), that would be an AFD round 2 argument rather than a DRV argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

11 July 2024

Infobox person

Infobox person (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am not challenging the closure per se, but as I want the redirect's suitability reviewed, and recreating it is presently impossible, as the page is create protected. Consider this a criterion 3 or WP:IAR nomination. Of course, if recreation is allowed, the redirect can still be challenged with a new RfD nom; I just don't think a 13 year old discussion should permanently block off re-evaluation. If you want to know why I would like this redirect to exist, it is for the same reason existing cross-namespace redirects like cite web and cite book exist:

1. Being very popular and highly visible templates, new users unfamiliar with namespaces are likely to want to look them up in the search bar, and will be frustrated when the search doesn't work for reasons they don't understand
2. The title is specific enough that no one would input it expecting an actual article; this is why cite web doesn't redirect to Citation
3. People want quick access to the template page so they can copy and paste the syntax

Even if you disagree with my reasoning, a new RfD should be held to debate about it. Mach61 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

On second read, I think this discussion should have been a "no consensus" closure on the merits. The last two delete votes say the redirect has "no purpose" without elaboration, despite Metallurgist explaining that it improved accessibility, and thus hold no weight. Two valid delete arguments, (nom and Thryduulf), two valid keep arguments, and two invalid delete arguments is not a consensus to delete. Mach61 15:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse RfD closure and salting. The linked RfD is from May 2011 and could not have been closed in any other way. Subsequently content at this title has been deleted three times:
  • October 2015: A single-line "article" (consisting only of a malformed reference tag) was deleted under criterion A7 by RHaworth, criteria A1 and arguably A3 would also have applied. It's probable the author did not intend to place the content at this title.
  • January 2017: A page consisting of just "This is My site" was correctly deleted under criterion G2, again criterion A1 would have been applicable too.
  • February 2018: An article consisting only a filled-out infobox was deleted by RHaworth under criterion A3. This was the incorrect criterion (as there was content) but deletion under A7 would have been correct as there was no assertion of importance. The author clearly did not intend to put the content at this title.

  Following the last deletion, RHaworth salted it to prevent further recreation. This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfD. If the desired content was an article or something else I'd almost certainly be recommending the appellant create something in draft to be moved to this title which could then be unprotected (the history suggests that keeping the title salted until content was ready to take its place would be beneficial). However, what the wants to create is a redirect identical to the one that was correctly deleted at RfD - and if that were created I would be nominating it for deletion again using the rationale I gave as my comment in 2011 as nothing has changed since then. Bare infoboxes are not content that is useful to readers, and an editor who has not yet learned about namespaces is not yet ready to deal with even basic template syntax (and template:Infobox person uses some pretty advanced syntax). Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse and keep salted per Thryduulf. This should not be a cross-namespace redirect, nor should anything else exist here that's not a cross-namespace redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and keep salted there's absolutely no reason for there to be a page here, and I can't see a new RfD reaching a different result. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It probably makes more sense to look at cite web at RfD. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Relist per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_30#Cite_web. The very different results for CNR's with, IMO, very similar low utility suggests that consensus may have changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between a citation template and an infobox template so I don't think one is applicable to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse per Thryduulf. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse the RfD, endorse the SALTing. Procedurally, the request to removing SALT should not come straight here, but should go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Come to the Review page if you think the request for deSALTing is improperly rejected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse the RFD, Keep Salted - Close was and is correct. Agree with Jclemens and with Thryduulf. The argument about cite web is other stuff exists, and Sporting Flyer may be right. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

8 July 2024

Akshay Kharodia

Akshay Kharodia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The article was deleted and directed to redirect because it was unsourced. However, the subject has become notable now with his multiple lead roles in Kandy Twist, Pandya Store, Suhaagan (TV series) and his prominent role in Awasthy Vs Awasthy. I have created a draft Draft:Akshay_Kharodia which supports all these roles with reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES but a reviewer has rejected the draft. Please move the draft to the mainspace and relist it in AFD. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse both the deletion at AfD and the rejection decline at AfC. None of the sources presented offer SIGCOV per GNG, let alone the elevated requirements for BLP. Most are Bollywood gossip column blurbs, or routine press releases. Whether they are reliable or not is beside the point, as they offer nothing in terms of notability. Pinging Robert McClenon who reviewed the draft. Owen× ☎ 10:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer, not much to say beyond I believe my close at the time accurately reflected the consensus of the debate, and the protection of the redirect was in line with both the protection policy and with the support of a number of participants in the debate. On the second matter at hand, I would tend to agree with OwenX above that the draft rejected at AfC does not meet the GNG criteria. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. A decline permits editing and resubmission. A rejection does not. It is true that I advised the submitter to obtain advice before resubmitting, because the title is a locked redirect that was locked due to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Duly noted and amended. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse the AFD - Requesting Deletion Review of the deletion of an unsourced biography of a living person is vexatious litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  We don't have a separate venue for contesting the declination of a draft at AfC, which I believe is what the appellant is seeking here, rather than contesting the deletion at AfD. While I believe their appeal is without merit, I don't think it rises to the level of vexatious litigation. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  The AFC Help Desk exists for submitters to ask about declines of drafts. Questions about drafts can also be asked at the Teahouse. I didn't say that the questions about decline of the draft were vexatious. It does appear that the unregistered editor is both asking to have the draft moved to article space and to have the AFD relisted. The latter is the vexatious appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I declined the draft because, in my opinion, it does not satisfy acting notability, which requires multiple major roles. The title is redirected to the major role in Pandya Store. I did not consider the coverage of their role in Suhaagan (TV series) to be sufficient, and paid very little attention to roles in series that do not have their own articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse largely based on the comments of the AFD closer and AFC reviewer. The sources provided were not sufficient for a standalone article at the time of the AFD and still are not. I do not consider this request to be vexatious litigation as it appears to have been made in good faith. Frank Anchor 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)