Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:36, 13 January 2010

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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.
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 19}}</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 19}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 July 19\|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

19 July 2024

18 July 2024

17 July 2024

Joe Lonsdale (closed)

Joe Lonsdale – Speedy close with permission to restore/recreate as desired. Combination of factors having changed (2024 sourcing) and sock farms and an admin with a desire to address the issues raised, which they have access and permission to. Star Mississippi 01:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page was deleted in 2021 with only two non-sockfarm !votes — one from an editor who wanted to avoid rewarding apparent UPE, and one from an editor who felt the coverage was trivial. I don't think the deletion was unreasonable given the !votes, nor do I think the trivial coverage concern was unwarranted given that some editors had stuffed the page full of ~60 references that were largely trivial. However, I think some of the old sources combined with substantial available new sourcing justify undeletion, and I'm happy to do the cleanup necessary after the page is restored.

Lonsdale is notable as a founder of Palantir and later OpenGov and University of Austin. He is also among a group of politically active tech financiers who are pretty regularly covered in the news (most recently in a spate of coverage about a new super PAC for which he is evidently helping to fundraise — see NYT, etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate, or undelete it yourself if there's anything you find useful in the deleted history. You are experienced and trustworthy enough that you don't need to go through a draft, which is what we normally prescribe in such cases. Owen× ☎ 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRV unneeded Any admin is trusted to undelete any article, to draft, sandbox, or straight to mainspace when they see that a past consensus no longer applies, and demonstrate that, through their editing, to the rest of us. Really, you've got the tools for a reason: go improve the encyclopedia and don't stop here to ask permission. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action. Agree with Jclemens. Undelete when ready to make the edits that prove the case. G4 won't apply if the result isn't a sufficiently identical copy.—Alalch E. 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it wise to bring this to DRV first before doing the undelete. But in any case, yeah, go for it, just avoid being a G4. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see the need or value for bringing things like this to DRV, because I don't see why it should be undeleted. If a requester doesn't know how to write a new article from scratch and has to have it refunded, then they aren't an experienced editor. The requester in this case is an experienced editor and admin and does know how to write a new article from scratch, subject to AFD. Oh, okay. The undelete isn't an undelete, but a view deleted article to verify that the new scratch-written article isn't a clone of the deleted article. And I have occasionally asked for a deleted article to be refunded so that I could compare a draft against it, and the usual result is that the admin tells me that the draft is a clone of the deleted article, so the draft gets rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding Comment - Can the checking of new articles when titles have been deleted be done at Requests for Undeletion rather than DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per all votes above, either as a draft or directly into mainspace depending on how quickly GorillaWarfare wishes to update the page to include new information. I commend GorillaWarfare for seeking clarification on this topic via deletion review rather than unilaterally restoring the article. Some users could consider that an abuse of administrative privileges (I do not). Frank Anchor 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader (closed)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader – The result was undeleted as uncontroversial maintenance. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I've created an undeletion request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader.

In the process writing up a reply to Template talk:New discussion#Edit request, I went to read up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and found that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader was its previous iteration.
Would it make sense to undelete the old revisions of the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader (and its talk page) to the current page title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, so that we have a longer history of how the header looked like, who edited it (attribution), and discussion about it?

Graeme Bartlett recommended (Special:Diff/1235028837) getting consensus here first. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably shouldn't be history-merged due to the parallel histories from February - April 2008, but I can't imagine why it shouldn't be restored and redirected. —Cryptic 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is quite similar to the old version and would have been based off it, so it is required for attribution. So I support some kind of restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an out-of-process deletion. There’s no good reason to have it deleted. If attribution is required, that’s another reason to undelete. Neutral on undelete and redirect vs history merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this makes sense. While I appreciate the referral here, I don't think that was necessary... unless you wanted us to publicly agree that our consent for such an undeletion wasn't necessary. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy undelete and redirect. This is uncontroversial. If it's undeleted and redirected it can still be history merged, and that does not have to be decided in a DRV.—Alalch E. 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group L.L.C

Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged 121.242.91.74 (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group was deleted last week as G11; I believe that is what this is referring to. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and this has been before us twice before and endorsed on similar grounds: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 9, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 8. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close and semi-salt all relevant draftspace titles so that only registered users can create drafts in the future. Enough is enough. Given the history, I'm not even wanting to ask to see the deleted material before assuming that G11 is once again valid. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't mention the company's "economic journey", but it has most of the other hallmarks. In particular, most of the external links in the absurd refbombing are showing up as already-visited to me (though I don't remember taking more than a cursory look in previous visits to DRV); this is typical of the new ones.
The sad thing is, the claims in the draft are such that I'd expect there to be usable sources on it somewhere, but you'd have to be daft to try looking for it among all the shallow promotion they've paid for.
I'll try to work out a regex less gameable than the one I tested in November, but something's changed such that these queries, which used to complete in minutes, have been running for more than an hour now and show no signs of stopping. For just an autoconfirmed+ blacklisting, it seems like wasted effort. —Cryptic 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(And, as usual, it completed almost immediately after I complained that it wasn't going to complete. The public version at quarry:query/84908 should eventually get populated, maybe quickly if it cached well, maybe not. There were a couple new deletions since the November try, no new false positives, and nothing that would be caught by the wider regex that wouldn't have been by the old.) —Cryptic 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, endorse and salt all relevant titles per Jclemens above. I would do this myself but I closed the last DRV so, with no pressing need to intervene, would rather another administrator do it. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Do not SALT. SALTing in draftspace encourages the game of cat and mouse with using variations on the title. Draftspace exists to attract and contain unworthy content, let it serve its purpose. It’s easier to keep deleting the same title than variations on the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, speedy close, and title-blacklist for non-autoconfirmed users. Enough now. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah... title blacklist is probably the better solution. Never used it myself, so I keep forgetting it exists. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER (a recommendation from the previous DRV). I feel like blacklisting is going to be robust enough of a solution to figure as a net postive.—Alalch E. 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: Tariq Chauhan slipped through. —Alalch E. 16:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Alalch E. - Not entirely off-topic. The one sentence that is left about Tariq Chauhan is not enough to pass general notability, and has been nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all previous deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title Blacklist and list at WP:DEEPER (as recommended in previous DRV). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Salt in draft space. Useless drafts that cannot be accepted are harmless in draft space. Salting in draft space encourages the gaming of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ECP Salt in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16 July 2024

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election – Non-admin closure reverted and debate reopened, per WP:NACD — "Deletion-related closes may only be reopened ... [ii] by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning". My reasoning is as per OwenX below, which I agree with. Daniel (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

A non-admin closure was performed after just two days on grounds of WP:SNOW, which is disallowed under WP:NACAFD. While I don't disagree with the outcome, there were several "redirect" !voters in the discussion who (a) might have changed their !votes on their own premise (once opinion polls began to be available) or (b) perhaps had reasons to maintain their positions during the remaining discussion period, who knows. Given the procedural error, I propose re-opening the discussion and allowing an admin to interpret whether a SNOW closure is appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too disagreed with the SNOW closure. In addition to the points raised above, there seemed to have been some manipulation of the keep !votes with two new members joining and immediately !voting in the AfD.

John B123 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacate and relist. The Redirect views present valid arguments. I don't see the need to rush and close this out of process. And if the BADNAC isn't bad enough, I'm also troubled by the closer's prior involvement in editing the page and other related articles. I do give them credit for admitting their mistake, but they had ample chance to revert it, yet failed to do so. And their suggestion of getting the nom to withdraw the AfD after valid !votes to delete or redirect have been entered also suggests the closer isn't familiar enough with the process to handle NACs. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ relist not a terrible close as consensus is clearly leaning keep, but there are valid redirect arguments and this close is probably better left to be done by an administrator. Frank Anchor 14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Removing "weak" after reading OwenX's vote and his concerns of the closer being WP:INVOLVED. Frank Anchor 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to keep an article like this needs to be created at some point and now we have the first opinion poll this is the time to do it, buy the end of August there will likely be around half a dozen. Kalamikid (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here is arguing that "keep" wouldn't be the outcome. We're discussing whether the early close was appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 July 2024

14 July 2024

Thomas Matthew Crooks – 1) Socks do not have standing to start DRVs. 2) Having said that, the consensus is very clear with the trend of endorse > relist > overturn that this DRV is not going to overturn the SNOW close in the short term, and so there is no benefit to leaving this illegitimate appeal run its course. Note that this is not a snow close, see #1, just answering a possible reason to let this run despite #1. 3) When all the dust settles, cooler heads will determine whether this should be a standalone article or merged into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BLP1E, and keeping in mind especially clause 3 thereof. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

A user SNOW-closed a discussion after just 5 hours, so short some people in certain time zones can’t respond, and on their talk page, refused to re-open the discussion. And while keepers cited how BIO1E does not apply, this does not take into consideration the WP:RECENTISM concerns, which went unaddressed.Downerr2937 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Relist Absolutely zero rationale for such an early closure. Based on the policy arguments there wasn't clear consensus for keep. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcmastrpc Which action do you support from WP:DRV#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – the consensus was quite overwhelming. Considering the deletion request was based on WP:BLP1E, it stands to reason the majority of 'keep' votes would be addressing it. I would also disagree that concerns regarding WP:RECENTISM were unaddressed; plenty of editors highlighted the article's notability and widespread coverage, particularly with reference to past assassination attempts. I fail to see the value in reopening it, to be honest. GhostOfNoMeme 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The close of this AfD was blatantly inaccurate. There were no "strong policy-based arguments" for an aricle, only for inclusion. Qwirkle (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer. WP:SNOW is a shorthand for taking decisive action to avoid "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions". I felt, reading over the discussion, that consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keep, and backed by policy-based arguments. From my point of view, we could spend a full week arguing over the AfD, which would then be closed as keep, or I could close it as keep immediately, reflecting the consensus and saving a lot of editors a lot of time. I did not see any scenario in which this AfD was closed as anything other than keep given the !votes of editors so far, our policies, and the simple fact that over the next 7 days, *more* information is likely to come to light about Crooks, and *more* reliable journalistic profiles are going to be written about him. This is not a case of WP:IAR, but it is a case of WP:NOT a bureaucracy. We are not a bureaucracy, and my close was intended to reflect the discussion's overwhelming consensus and save us all some time and thousands of words of argument. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which, put another way, was to ignore the strengths of the arguments, and treat this as a simple vote.Qwirkle (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was not clear, what I mean is that the policy-based arguments for 'Keep', specifically, were stronger than the policy-based arguments for 'Redirect' (by far the second-most common position). This was not a vote and I did not read it as such. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Looking at the first few votes, I see blatant "other crap exists" arguments. Mmoving downward, I see notability arguments - which do not, at all, justify a separate article, only inclusion . I see a great many people whose balls are apparently crystal, justifying retention because surely an article's worth of information is bound to surface in a day..or a week...fortnight...century.

Vote, done to lessen Dramah. That I get, but I do not think it s a good idea.Qwirkle (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is important due to the third condition of WP:BLP1E, on which the deletion proposal was based. The third condition is clearly not satisfied, owing to the significance of the event and the perpetrator's notability.

"John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented."

This is why the notability discussion.

Continuing the AfD seems like a pointless exercise considering the consensus and weakness (in my view) of the arguments to redirect. GhostOfNoMeme 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, the process was short circuited and closed with a rationale that clearly endorses WP:NOTAVOTE ideals than actually looking at the consensus of arguments for and against. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The vote was overwhelming. Also, I will add that it is a bit strange that the nominee has very few edits and the account was made only 2 weeks ago and they are already aware of terms like "SNOW-closed", "BIO1E" and "WP:RECENTISM"... suspicious is all I'll say.... Inexpiable (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be onto something. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - While it was preferable that the AfD be kept open longer, there was no way a consensus to delete or redirect were going to happen. --MuZemike 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a worldwide project, your comment fails to address the fact that editors in some timezones were never given a chance to participate. Your comment also fails to address that it was not a WP:SNOW close, as even by the numbers, there were a not insignificant number of !votes to merge, redirect or delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - It is possible the AfD vote can be revisited at a later time once the fire dies down, but the consensus to keep was there. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a WP:SNOW keep, which is what was done. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD was only around 2/3 in favor of keeping, with strong arguments on both sides. There is a consensus to keep at the time but that close, so early is inappropriate especially when certain editors will not even get to participate, myself included, who would’ve voted redirect if given the opportunity.Downerr2937 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of a strong consensus to redirect emerging were astronomically remote. 'Keep' was a clear majority, and the longer the AfD remained open the larger, IMO, that majority would have become as coverage inevitably grows over the coming week. That you didn't get to participate is unfortunate, but I question the value in relisting the AfD. The conclusion was never going to be anything other than to keep. It seems like an exercise in pointlessness. GhostOfNoMeme 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy close. Based on the discussion, and precedent on other attempted assassins, there is zero chance that the result would be an outright deletion. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that a "redirect" outcome could emerge, but that is a discussion for an article talkpage, and does not require an AFD to be open. Keeping the AFD open is a time sink. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the guy that shot Robert Fico on Wikipedia? Why are we giving the Trump assassin any publicity? He is not famous or notable. No reason he should be on Wikipedia. Kyūka96 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he has his own page on the Slovakian-language Wikipedia: Juraj Cintula [sk]. Donald Trump is the former president of the United States; considerably more notable, especially for the English-language Wikipedia. :) GhostOfNoMeme 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no reason to run 7 days when it predominantly snow. It was a clear GNG pass with sigcov. Bruxton (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the snowball close and Relist:
- - The appellant's point about timezones is well taken. Editors in some parts of the world would not have been able to participate in the AFD.
  - There is a distinction between a Speedy Keep and a Snowball close. The guidelines for Speedy Keep state that they should not be confused. The closer has confused them. A closer who confuses a Speedy Keep close and a Snowball close is a closer who has not reviewed the relevant guidelines in sufficient detail to be making either a Speedy Keep close or a Snowball close. There is no way that this could have been a Speedy Keep. It might have been a Snowball close, but calling the two types of close the same thing shows undue haste.
  - I have tagged the article with {{delrev}}.
  - 56-32 isn't overwhelming. There were policy-based arguments for both Keep and Redirect, and no need for an early close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/Keep, What a waste of time. The idea of RECENTISM is hardly a reason, as many historic and notable events are routinely cited with recent news stories and such. I've seen no "strong arguments" that support deletion of the article, before, or now. All assassins and would be assassins have articles for the same reason this one has. What is so unique about this article that it should be deleted?? If an another discussion was initiated, we would only have to relist the prior voters, and wait for the same overwhelming consensus to keep the article all over again. Someone should SNOW close this peckish and ridiculous discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/Keep For the same reason as the previous deletion. "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply when other stuff does not follow policy. Other stuff was used as an example of policy. Also, not all three prongs were met. More people saying the same thing more and more could not have helped the closed-circle discussion; it could only have progressed that way per WP:SNOW. BarntToust (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't necessarily agree with the KEEP decision (personally I think the redirect arguments based on WP:BLP1E have some weight), but consensus is never going to be anything other than KEEP even if the article is relisted, which is why SNOW was appropriate in this case. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Most keep votes assumed that there will eventually be enough info for a separate article, ignoring that there isn't such information now. Consensus on a bad position is not what we are about. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To note, the article has gotten much more expansion now. the most votes were right! BarntToust (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the expansion amounts to is point-scoring about his political position, what a great BLP compliant article we have! Traumnovelle (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already enough for a separate article; by the end of the AfD - 7 days later - there will be even more. It was always going to be a Keep vote. GhostOfNoMeme 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia gives this guy an article and a smiling picture, meanwhile Brenton Tarrant gets no article and no picture. Speaks volumes about Wikipedia's inconsistency and bias... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counter comment — In other words, we should give every perpetrator of a mass shooting his own article?? I don't think so. We are discussing assassins and would be assassins of presidents, etc. It is perfectly "consistent" and "rationale" to have an article for this individual on that basis alone. Even if we get a 50/50 vote between redirect and keep, it would result in 'no consensus' to delete. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, don't just bemoan it. Propose a split. WP:BEBOLD. BarntToust (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse More time wouldn't have changed anything. The involved editors on both sides had stated their case. Participation was high. Killuminator (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ...Unless most of the prior voters chime in again here, which is highly unlikely, this discussion will not amount to anything worth ever mentioning again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Strong arguments were presented throughout. Even if consensus wouldn't have changed with time, the discussion was closed prematurely, in my opinion. That being said, it'll probably take less than the standard 7 days to come to a clearer consensus. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The strongest argument we saw for a Delete/Redirect was the idea of RECENTISM, which, once again, is routine for highly notable historic events. Also, the whole idea of a SNOW close is to acknowledge the hopelessness of turning a 2/3 vote to keep into a 2/3 vote to delete and redirect., requiring about 200 additional votes above and beyond those that have already voted. Fat chance. Hence a SNOW close. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note - I'd just like to highlight that this review's creator, Downerr2937, appears to have just been blocked for sockpuppetry and ban evasion. I don't know whether the sockpuppetry extends to the AfD or this review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfNoMeme (talk • contribs) 2024-07-14T19:25:47 (UTC)
Comment - Nominee is a confirmed sockpuppet. Inexpiable (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, per arguments above. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As I said previously, there is absolutely no way that this person isn't going to be documented and/or written about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse further discussion will not lead to a different result; this is a poor time for pointless bureaucracy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as explained in a variety of places by Gwillhickers. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 July 2024

12 July 2024

Beuys (disambiguation) (closed)

Beuys (disambiguation) – deletion endorsed. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's not a contradiction, it's a statement of fact. Having a disambiguation header on an article does not equal said article being a disambiguation page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The value lies in learning, by the appellant, by others in seeing how the documentation of policy can be improved. If someone wants a discussion, within reason, let them have it. At AfD the discussion focus would be on the facts of the disambiguation page. Here, the focus is on whether the deleting admin did the right thing, which misses the problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What disambiguation page? —Cryptic 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s for User:Paradoctor to explain at AfD. It doesn’t belong at DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRV should not be the primary forum for discussing CSD minutiae. Send these questions to XfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Endorse if the page really was a redirect. A redirect is not a disambiguation page. A real disambiguation page, Beuys (disambiguation) is probably in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It really was. You can see from the creation log that it was created as one; the only other edit made to it was to correct the typo in its target. —Cryptic 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  To properly see, some of us need a temp undelete. Even if to see that there is nothing of interest to see. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Draft:Beuys (disambiguation), which is a draft of a real disambiguation page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought someone might yell WP:PTM at you. One needs to know about WP:PTM to understand why the reviewer Declined (not Rejected, implying some editing could improve it!) with the reason being WP:ONEOTHER. Oh the jargon! SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The draft was declined by an AFC reviewer, and the reason seems correct. That is even more reason why a redirect posing as a disambiguation page is not a disambiguation page, because, as the reviewer pointed out, we don't need a real disambiguation page, let alone a fake one. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because Joseph Beuys is simply not a disambiguation page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correct and proper application of speedy deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above.—Alalch E. 08:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

National Popular Consciousness (closed)

National Popular Consciousness – close endorsed, unanimously – Joe (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Endorse there's no other way that could have been closed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
RENOM advices includes a six month moratorium. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and I oppose an immediate renom. Overwhelming consensus to keep including reasonable arguments presented. Frank Anchor 02:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

This is a photographer who is known and there is no reason why he should not have a page. I see the previous deletions were because it was thought to be spam, but the references I will put will be to his own website, so that would not be spam. Please help me out here. I'm a big fan of Klaus Thymann.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j|-6 days}}|{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j|-6 days}}}}}}
 {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j|-7 days}}|{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j|-7 days}}}}}}
+This is a photographer who is known and there is no reason why he should not have a page. I see the previous deletions were because it was thought to be spam, but the references I will put will be to his own website, so that would not be spam. Please help me out here. I'm a big fan of Klaus Thymann.