Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent: Difference between revisions
(BOT) Updating discussions: May 8, 9, 14. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DRVClerk |
|||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 9}} |
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 9}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 8}} |
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 8}} |
||
== [[Vascon Engineers]] == |
|||
Reference to the discussion at [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_April_26]]; We had no such intention to promote our company [[Vascon Engineers]] on Wikipedia. We wanted to have a Wikipedia page just like other real estate company. [https://www.linkedin.com/in/imansoorshaikh Mr. Mansoor] (LinkedIn) has left the company in March and it was not coincidence. We are not here to promote our company, even if the article has only two sentence, we are okay with it. |
Revision as of 12:02, 22 May 2018
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
![]() | 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. |
{{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:
|
3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
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.
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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
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 or sockpuppet 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".
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Since the deletion decision in June 2017, Cook has continued to be reported in reliable sources. He has been the leading scorer in the National League (the feeder league to the Football League) in the 2017/18 season - here - and scored in the final that saw his side promoted to EFL League Two for the 2018/19 season - here and here. Independent sources include here and here. There is also an anomaly in that no fewer than 23 other players in the Tranmere Rovers F.C. squad have articles, but not the player who is not only the team's leading scorer, but the entire league's leading scorer - included in the league's team of the season here. The reason given, per the guidance at WP:NFOOTY, is that unlike the other players he has so far not played at Football League level. In my view that guideline should not be imposed inflexibly in exceptional cases, and discretion should be used to recreate the article in this case (and any similar cases in future). Further, it is clear that (per criterion 3) "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". To put it bluntly, we are here to provide information on notable individuals, not hide it. This has been discussed with the original closing administrator and others at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990), with no consensus and the suggestion that it be raised here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2018 (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. |
This page was speedily deleted under section G11. The page was created as a stub by myself in 2006 as one of several hundred articles on national trade union organizations around the world in an effort to increase international labour presence on W. In speaking with the editor who tagged the page for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Largoplazo#Re:_Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Convergencia_Sindical) – the page had apparently devolved into a promotional page. This does not seem to be a reason for G11, but rather a need for editing or rollback of inappropriate edits. The Admin who executed the deletion entered the conversation but seemed to opine that if G11 was not appropriate then A7 would suffice. I’ve been away from W for a good number of years (although I still have the watchlist… :), but I am confident that national labour organizations qualify as notable. Convergencia Sindical is a trade union centre in Panama. Ave Peru Final, Casa Np. 3936, Apartdao 10536, Zone 4, Panama City. Phone 507.225.6642 (from Trade Unions of the Word, ICTUR, John Harper) Bookandcoffee (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (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 closing admin has probably interpreted the consensus incorrectly by discarding keep votes completely while giving too much weightage to delete votes. The keep votes, which were based on relevant Wikipedia guidelines, were sidelined by delete votes that basically said fails WP:RS, WP:GNG were considered better arguments. The article is supported by these Dawn References, Brecorder Sources, TheNews, PakObserver,etc. In addition it is also supported by Urdu sources like this Jang_Source, Nawa_i_Waqt and Daily_Pakistan. I believe all these sources are reliable sources (in addition to many other sources mentioned in the deleted article) are sufficient to support WP:GNG. The result could have been no consensus or relist but it was not certainly a delete in haste. I also tried to take the matter to closing admin’s talkpage twice. M A A Z T A L K 20:57, 9 May 2018 (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. |
This article was nominated for deletion and merged over one year ago. However, the subject has received an additional wave of press coverage because a second bust of Cristiano Ronaldo was created by the same artist. There are now two original works of art that have received significant secondary press coverage. I've tried expanding the article further, and asked one particular editor for help getting the community to reassess notability, but the article keeps getting redirected, and I don't know what other options I have. I'd be fine with someone renominating the article again for deletion, but Number 57 seems to prefer redirecting and advising me to "[do] something productive". See Talk:Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo#Merge and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Public_Art#Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo for related discussions. If this is not the correct use of this venue, I do apologize, but I don't know what else to do at this point. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 9 May 2018 (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. |
I think this deletion was done in error since Rosa Honung is one of the more known indie labels, not just because their production[57] that includes artists such as Asta Kask, Mob 47, Strebers, Radioaktiva räker, Livin' Sacrifice, Incest Brothers and The Troggs among others. Rosa Honung is also notable for their controversial business practices such as registering a band name as a trademark and refusing the band to use it.[58][59] The admin deleting the article also claimed "all references are dead links" and that I believe is incorrect. Wikipedia defines an important indie label as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" and Rosa Honung matches that. // Liftarn (talk)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Reference to the discussion at [[71]]; We had no such intention to promote our company Vascon Engineers on Wikipedia. We wanted to have a Wikipedia page just like other real estate company. Mr. Mansoor (LinkedIn) has left the company in March and it was not coincidence. We are not here to promote our company, even if the article has only two sentence, we are okay with it.