Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DELREV)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.



Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.



Before listing a review request, please:

  1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

  • 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.

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[edit]

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

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 November 26}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 November 26|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:


Active discussions[edit]

26 November 2015[edit]

24 November 2015[edit]

Arena Solutions[edit]

Arena Solutions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've updated the page content to reflect notes form previous deletion discussions including additions to citations and removal of non neutral textIdaho.jim (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm assuming you've made a draft somewhere. Can you please provide a link to that draft? Stifle (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes thanks. Idaho.jim (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)idaho.jim
  • Endorse deletion This is not improved significantly over the deleted versions. Two not important prizes, refs are almost entirely routine notices. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Critical Badger (closed)[edit]

23 November 2015[edit]

Eric West (closed)[edit]


Huccha_Venkat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article rewritten with substantial references from various reliable and reputed sources. Rajannamysore (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft version is under Draft:Huccha Venkat Rajannamysore (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks quite different from the skimpy A7 certainty that I deleted. Peridon (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow re-creation and send to AfD. I am not sure whether there is real notability here, or just an energetic self-publicist who having failed to get anyone to watch his film is trying the rant-on-Youtube/get-thrown-off-reality-show route to "fame"; but there is certainly now enough to pass WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow re–creation certainly there's enough to pass A7 and likely WP:GNG based on the number of independent references. (unsalt and move draft back to article space) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow re-creation even if the revised version wouldn't pass AfD it would certainly stand a fighting chance there and it's clearly not an A7. Hut 8.5 21:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow re-creation - Just in case someone feels like this was canvassed, I was going to !vote anyway. In the current form, this likely meets GNG. It was deleted as an A7 so it is pretty safe to assume that the condition of the article might have been really shoddy. Great work on the improvements. Yash! 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow re–creation Notable enough, good start. Yann (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

22 November 2015[edit]


Philosothon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Request by Sydney59 for undeletion (incorrectly) at Refund and then my talk page as the deleting admin. I'm okay with my deletion, but I am happy if people think this should be relisted. -- KTC (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @SmartSE, Duffbeerforme, TomStar81, and Tokyogirl79: pinging since you either commented at the original AFD or at Refund. -- KTC (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Uphold Delete This is a promotional articles designed exclusively to advertise for the event in question. We didn't need it a week ago when it was deleted and we don't need it now. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn If this was a promotional article why does it include a section titled "Criticisms"? Also if it was designed specifically to promote the event why was much of content published by me later in a peer reviewed reputable journal; "The American Philosophical Association"? (page 13) This has been further edited by others since this article was first placed on Wikipedia...but the point is it was not written as publicity.

Finally if it was "designed exclusively to advertise the event" what evidence is there from the article that this is advertising? What phrases and quotes are there in the article that indicate it is anything more than an account of the history and nature of the event? It has never been stated by any editors what exactly is which case it could be removed. Suffice to say it is not advertising nor was it ever intended to be. Sydney59 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse, and suggest this DRV be speedy closed. The primary author of this article is an obvious WP:SPA who is currently under COI investigation, and is abusing Wikipedia for personal promotion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am finding some coverage out there. I found these articles from, Wells Journal, and Bournemouth Echo. However most of what I'm finding is primary: it's either by someone involved or an institution hosting the event. So far I'm not really bringing up a huge amount of things that would overturn the AfD. I'll check a few more places first, but offhand I'm leaning towards endorsing the deletion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's some more: Yahoo, Daily Echo. The Daily Echo is fairly short, so that'd probably be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source overall, though. I'm going to check my school database next. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's what's I've found from my school database. Since I can't link to those, I'm going to just list the citations. I haven't compared these against the ones above, so there may be some repeated cites.
Selleck, Amy. "New state of mind", Gold Coast bulletin, 24 June 2014.
Kumar, Anita. (Student reporter) "Pondering life's issues", Gold Coast bulletin, 07/24/2012.
Phillips, Yasmine. "Asking big questions", The Sunday Times, Oct 24, 2010.
I'll go through these a little more in a bit. So far this looks to be predominantly local coverage. I found some links that looked to be primary. For Sydney's benefit, I'll explain primary sourcing on Wikipedia: primary sourcing is anything that is written by someone/something related to the event. This means that anything written by Wills is primary, regardless of where it's posted. I'm undecided at this point and I may try going through and cleaning the article. While there may not have been an intent to promote the Philosothon, it's easy to have things come across as promotional when you're editing with a conflict of interest. Why? Because you're inclined to see things in a more positive light than someone that isn't related to the event at all. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment.Please note that none of the newspaper articles, ABC radio programs, nor the host schools coverage on their websites was authored by me. This article was originally co-authored by me, Professor John Kleinig (Metropolitan university of NY) Dr Alan Tapper (Charles Sturt University)and Professor Tzipporah Kasachkoff (Ben Gurion University Israel) and other academic editors. Again notability established I would suggest some editing but why delete?Sydney59 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The thing about WP:PRIMARY sources is that they don't have to be written by you. If a school hosts an event, they're considered to be a primary source regardless of whether or not you were involved with the event or were even aware of it. The same thing goes for schools that had students participate. They have a definite interest in writing about the event or students, as taking part in any educational event makes them look good and seem more prestigious - thus making it more likely that people will want to attend their school, give them money, or so on. They may genuinely be excited about everything and may not be thinking "money, prestige, power" necessarily, but because they're directly related to the topic they're also more likely to be more positive and cover the event. It's essentially impossible for them to be truly neutral or to be a good gauge of coverage/interest per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now what works against the sources here is that they're all predominantly local sources writing about local events. This doesn't mean that they can't be used per se, but they do tend to be greatly depreciated when it comes to judging notability on Wikipedia. They are secondary, but just like schools have an interest in writing about something they're presenting, local papers have a bit of an interest in covering local events or people. It's not something I always agree with necessarily, but this is one of the most prevalent arguments against articles that are mostly or entirely composed of local sources. It'd be helpful if there was secondary, independent coverage in something like an academic textbook or journal article, since those can show a bit of a wider coverage. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning relist. Nothing wrong with the close, no criticism of the closer, but no harm in relisting. Note that academic promotion gets more latitude than garage bands or for-profit corporations or their products. The claim of credentialled academic authors justifies taking a slow look.
The article has many references. However, many references to not make Wikipedia-notability. Deletion will turn on whether the independent coverage (which excludes involved schools' coverage) is secondary source coverage, or is little more than reporting of facts (i.e. primary source material).
Looking through media reports for commentary or analysis added to reporting takes time and care, and I haven't attempted this yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The discussion was not as thorough as might be desirable, but I do not see how it could have come to any other conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • DGG, given the boatloads of material on subjects like Robinson family, don't you think we should give some extra time to more worthy non-fiction, and populate categories like Category:Australian educational programs to maybe 1% of Category:Neighbours characters? The project has a clear pop culture bias. Criticism of "predominantly local coverage" is an exercise of majority bias. Promotion? Promotion of educational programs? I think the sources deserve better consideration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist without indictment against the original closure. This discussion has already brought up new arguments and sources which, if sussed out in the original AfD, could've changed the outcome. Deryck C. 15:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist Sources listed above are strong enough that they should be discussed. Hobit (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. My name is Professor John Kleinig and I am not a Wikipedia Editor so apologies for any lack of protocol. The currently disputed article on Philosothon, falls clearly within the ambit of Philosophy for Children. First of all, I think that the Philosophy for Children article is far too brief as it stands, and the current reference to the Philosothon that it contains would be uninformative were the Philosothon article not also contained in Wikipedia. Second, I don't see any dispute about the Ethics Bowl entry in Wikipedia, which is something of a US parallel to the Philosothon, though it is not as extensive as the current Philosothon entry. Should the Ethics Bowl article be expanded or the Philosothon article be contracted? That may not be for me to judge, though one of the things I've always like about Wikipedia articles is their attempt at comprehensiveness. Third, and of real salience, although the Philosothon began as the vision of just a few people in a particular place, it has expanded considerably over a relatively short time, and there is some reason to acknowledge this in the more extensive format that it currently has. I can envisage a time when the expansion is such that the competition/program gets to the point at which some of the tables might be eliminated and replaced by reference to other web sites, though when that will be is probably for others to judge. Fourth, some concern has been expressed about conflict of interest and the suggestion that the article is largely promotional. Certainly there is some conflict of interest, though as the Wikipedia editors will be well aware, Community of inquiry as such does not entail bias. For the most part the article is objectively written, whether or not it might also be used for promotional purposes. Perhaps there is room for a more extensive airing and development of criticisms, though I notice that the Wikipedia Community of inquiry article, on which the Philosothon is based, does not itself gesture toward any criticisms of that model. So, apart from the contingent criticism implied by a CoI, one might wonder whether there may be other factors at work in seeking to have the site deleted. It is certainly no discredit to Wikipedia to have the current article, and it does contain a fair minded if longish account of a growing movement/competition/program.

John Kleinig Emeritus Professor, Department of Criminal Justice John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2411N 524 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 USA Phone: +1 212 237-8415 Email:[email]='' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

18 November 2015[edit]

Leona Tuttle (closed)[edit]

Beyond Unbroken (closed)[edit]

16 November 2015[edit]

15 November 2015[edit]

12 November 2015[edit]


January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
  1. ^
  2. ^