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 11}}</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 11}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 11|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

5 June 2018

Joseph Kevin Bracken – 2015 deletion endorsed, but recreation allowed. We are not normally relisting three-year-old discussions. – Sandstein 18:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joseph Kevin Bracken (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I think this was a poor close as it's clear there was no consensus. The closer completely ignored that someone found info as to why J. K. Bracken himself was notable, including the detail from the book about his son that there was considerable reference to him in Irish newspapers (which I also found via britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk), understandable as the co-founder of the Gaelic Athletic Association, in addition to being a monumental sculptor[1] and political figure in Tipperary. The closer's rationale was that people saying it should be deleted were citing Wiki guidelines on notability by inheritance, but that's only relevant if the subject is not otherwise notable. It appears they failed to actual look for any reference to him being notable himself and the closer did not take this possibility into account. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC) This is a three year old AfD. Does a review have any point? Standard procedure is that anybody can create a new version of the article, as long as it addresses the issues raised at the prior AfD. Go forth and edit. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC) I don't see why a deleted article on someone who died 100+ years ago should have to be entirely recreated. He has not increased in notability since the AFD that (I feel) was inappropriately closed as delete. The reason the article was nominated was the mistaken assumption that his notability came from his son. A person who bothered to actually look him up found info on his own notability yet was ignored. That's a faulty close. I am happy to improve the article, but the people who originally created and worked on the article should have their work restored. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC) The participants in the AfD found the sources wanting. If you're willing to find better sources, I'd certainly have no objection to userfying the existing text so you can work on it and then move it back to mainspace once you've added better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Undelete due to new information. The AfD was not about a deceased outstanding jurist. [2]. Usually try WP:REFUND for things like this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC) The article was not about a deceased outstanding jurist, either. And while the source you (both) link is, it contains all of a dozen words about this person. There's nothing in the nomination here that was not in the article at the time of deletion. —Cryptic 00:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry, Donal Barrington is obviously notable and I got them mixed up reading sources. Nevertheless, I read the AfD as having a very weak consensus to delete, and find many sources on this Joseph Kevin Bracken (1852–1904), an historic person with multiple notable descendants and a defining relationship with the History of the Gaelic Athletic Association. User:Kraxler's 19:37, 5 July 2015 !vote was strong and not countered. The "delete" close was a stretch. If Wikimandia (talk · contribs) want to have a go at it, let him. Undelete. I note the multiple incoming redlinks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Request temp undelete, as we are talking about what was in the article at the time of the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Tempundelete done. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks. At AfD, I would !vote "keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Endorse but allow recreation from the previous version (which was rather feeble). Although I don't like the close I think it was within discretion. I feel a bit vexed when closers say things like "policy compliant" in reference to notability. It suggests a lack of understanding of the basis of our notability guidelines. But maybe it was just a momentary lapse. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Allow recreation - not the best written article, but there have certainly got to be many more sources out there given his various positions. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Relist I don't see that a consensus to delete was reached in the original AFD. Relisting as a new AfD would allow for more thorough discussion and the ability for the community to come to a consensus. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Allow recreation I would advise restoring the previous version and moving it to draft space pending the citation of additional and bette sources, but it soen't have to be done that way. It could be restarted from scratch. i would still advise starting in draft, but that is optional, except for unconfirmed users. I see no need to review the long-ago AfD at this time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Comment I clicked through the sources in the article and one of the book sources is actually pretty solid and include significant discussion about the subject.[3]. I did a Google search and was able to find more sources which I believe increases the subject's claim to notability, and adds to the argument to undelete or relist the article.[4][5][6][7][8] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 June 2018

Draft:History of Thailand since 2001 – Close overturned, discussion reopened per Criteria 1 and 2 – Primefac (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:History of Thailand since 2001 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was closed by a very involved editor. It was closed on the grounds that the draft's author had requested userfication. What was actually written was But since clearly no one else is interested in contributing, and its existence in Draft space is deemed so harmful, just move it under my user page if you must. I don't think that quite counts as a request to userfy. In any case this page, like all Wikipedia pages, belongs to the community, which can decide where it belongs. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Overturn and relist: "just move it under my user page if you must" is not necessarily a request for userfication (the author was clearly disheartened by the nomination). Even if it were, the community had expressed very strongly that the draft should be kept in the draftspace. The closer was clearly involved and actually bludgeoned the discussion, which expressly shows that their close was not impartial. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Overturn and, I guess, relist. I suppose it complies with the letter of the law but this seems like a spurious nomination, part of the current bloodthirst for deleting drafts. User:Paul_012 has been contributing good articles since 2006, what's the huge rush to force him to finish this article? I concur that User:Hasteur had no business closing a deletion discussion which he himself had nominated. That does not fly in any deletion forum and never has. A Traintalk 18:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Frank Rouas

Frank Rouas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted even though there were an equal amount of Wikipedia user who fought to KEEP it.