Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
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. 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.

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).

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=2016 October 22}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 October 22|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]

22 October 2016[edit]

21 October 2016[edit]

Peace Revolution[edit]

Peace Revolution (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Re-proposing a completely new version of the page, due to subject having become more notable. At Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Peace Revolution, JohnCD has advised me to request undeletion here that in case the new proposal of the page gets through, this will make it easier to post it. He says, the involved admin is retired. However, I will inform the others involved in the 2009 deletion. Also, Robert McClenon says at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How to re-propose previously deleted article we should undelete the 2009 version of the page for comparison with the new, current version. Hence this request.S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is actually a request for Requests for Undeletion rather than for deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be that I have failed to communicate some details. Can you assist me at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Peace Revolution? Thanks Robert McClenon.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User:S Khemadhammo - I don't think that undeletion is needed, because the merge has done what is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Because the original article is so old, there is no overlapping history between it and Draft:Peace Revolution, and the draft is substantially different and well-sourced, I have performed a history merge, moving the deleted article history into the draft article. This DRV entry may be closed, because it satisfies the needs of the requester. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip[edit]

Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was non-admin closed as keep citing WP:NALBUM point 2. However, the closer did not take into account the rest of the notability guideliner that states that the subject "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The point about the coverage was explicitly called out by user:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in the discussion and even persuaded one of the keep !voters to acknowledge they were okay with a redirect. The close as keep is inconsistent with teh actual guideline cited and seems to be a bit of a supervote on the part of the closer. Additionally, even counting up the !votes, the discussion had 1 delete (nominator), 2 keeps and 2 redirects with one of the keep !voters also being okay with redirect. I am requesting that this discussion be overturned and closed as a redirect. Note that I left a note on the closer's talk page but it appears they may be on vation or otherwise not editting as there has been no response for over a week. Whpq (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • ENDORSE Overturn (my apologies). The closer clearly does not understand the guideline cited. The points listed on WP:NALBUM are NOT automatic indicators of notability. General notability requirements must be met. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you endorsing the close or saying that it should have been something other than keep? Sorry, just trying to be clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. NALBUM allows for an article about an album that charted. It charted, so let's keep it. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Also, Whpq put this on my talk page as "closer" for some reason when I was just one person who added an opinion.) NALBUM lists things that would indicate prima facie notability, i.e. would a reader plausibly look for this? It was a Top 10 video, so that's pretty clearly a "yes" - it's not like it was #99 on Heatseekers or something. It could have reasonably closed IMO as a keep or a merge-and-redirect, but either way there's no good reason to overturn this close - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Top 10 music video (on VHS even), not really close to a Hot 100 equivalent chart. No one in the world talks about these types of charts anywhere except the trade magazines ranking sales. Charting ≠ notability. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn to redirect. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.WP:NALBUM Charting does not imply notability; charting only indicates that it may be notable. Without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject the recording is not presumed to be notable. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was a Top 10 video, so that's pretty clearly a "yes" - it's not like it was #99 on Heatseekers or something.--88marcus (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn and redirect. The consensus was split between keep and redirect, and David Gerard had noted that he would have been open to a redirect. Relisting would also have been an okay option, but I think a keep close wasn't warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • endorse and feel free to start merge discussion on the talk page Meets a SNG which is enough as long as there is support in the discussion. I'd probably have closed as merge personally and I think that's likely the right outcome. But close was reasonable given the situation and the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse AFD nominator was apparently mistaken in thinking it hadn't charted. If it made #9 on the video chart, well, there's not a lot left to argue about really. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist. The WP:SUPERVOTE issue is clear, because discounting the nomination (based on erroneous info) and the first keep (a WP:PERX that could charitably be counted as half a !vote), the other keep agrees with a redirect.
This being said, is there really a consensus for redirecting? I think not, and the discussion above borders on AfD round 2. Relisting would have been reasonable (read: that is what I would have done) and the debate is not dead - so let's relist! TigraanClick here to contact me 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


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

The original article was deleted in 2009 as it was deemed that the artist was not notable. It looks like in the meantime he has had extensive coverage in the international press: Washington Post, Daily Mail and two articles in the Guardian newspaper. Other artists have individual pages with less press coverage. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This artist has had multiple coverage on different occasions from reliable independent international newspapers. He is also notable as he is the founder or the Cambridge Stuckists, a widely known international art movement. see the links for the artist on the page that should be re-instated:

I believe that the user who deleted/redirected the page is no longer active - so i can't add the note: DRVNote|Udaiyan (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse unless you can cite the exact sources about him here, which should have been offered alongside with this statement, because there is nothing to suggest we can in fact have a convincing article and there is not inherited notability simply because some news sources exist or in that they are simply from known news sources, and how he has founded his own company now. Also, as an artist, the best shots of notability would be permanent museum collections. If these new soufces can be listed, I may reconsider. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse consensus at AfD was clear, and there is nothing new that would need for it to be relisted. Like ST, I'd be open to reconsideration if additional sources can be brought here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation Here is a short list of references post 2009 about the artist Udaiyan. If you don't allow the creation of this artist as being 'not notable', then there are many artists who have less press coverage that should be deleted. The newspaper articles clearly indicate that he is known in the art world.

Article by Jonathan Jones criticising Udaiyan's painting Saatchi & Saatchi 2014 Article in the Independent newspaper Article in the Daily Telegraph Article in the Daily Mail Article in the Washington Post

Article by Jonathan Jones criticising Udaiyan's portrait of him in 2010,

Biography of Darren Udaiyan on the Hepatitis C Trust 2016 (Art on a Postcard) Profile of Darren Udaiyan on the Stuckism Website

Also the original reinstater wanted this page reinstated which has no mention about any company: (Note: The original article was deleted in 2009, but this page was created in 2016 but was autodeleted as it didn't go through deletion review). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Additional References Here is a list of exhibitions with references which includes Museum exhibitions and a Unesco exhibition.

Artists's own page


An Hero - A celebration of Beauty. Solo Exhibition. Curated by D. Udaiyan, Oct 13-19 2010 Nolias Gallery, London.

Enemies of Art Show - Group show at the XVIII JESUS LANE Gallery - curated by D. Udaiyan, Cambridge, Mar 17 - Mar 24 2010. This is mentioned in the Guardian newspaper.,.

Art on a Postcard Secret Auction 2016 to raise funds for The Hepatitis C Trust. Soho Revue, London, Nov 2016, ref:

Gargling Sky of Gergeri, Unesco's The International Year of Astronomy 2009 - curated by Polyxene Kasda, Chrysa Vathainaki, Pierre Chirouze, Donatella Bisutti. Aug 2009 Gergeri, Municipality of Rouvas, Crete, Greece. ref:

Art In Mind - Group show at Brick Lane Gallery - curated by Tony Taglianetti. Brick Lane, London, Nov 24-Dec 7 2009 ref: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse regardless of the sources above. The AfD was closed fair and square, without any extra protection (WP:SALT or something). If new sources do establish notability, recreation is allowed by default. Even sources from before the AfD but that were not brought up there would be enough to recreate (if demonstrating notability). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

N. Balasubramaniam[edit]

N. Balasubramaniam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is true that there is no consensus to grant ambassadors inherent notability. However, it is also true that there is no consensus not to grant them inherent notability. The issue is certainly not cut and dried and the debate on it has ground to a stalemate several times, with supporters on both sides. A number of editors consider that, as top-level representatives of their country, all ambassadors should be treated in the same way that politicians who have sat for one day in a national or sub-national legislature are treated (note that it has been argued by different opponents of this view that this should not apply both because some ambassadors are political appointees and because most ambassadors are career diplomats and are not elected, as though elected politicians are somehow inherently more notable than people with long and distinguished careers! I'm not sure why either should be the case, but that's not at issue here). Failing that, they consider that at least ambassadors to and from major countries or who have had long ambassadorial careers in several different postings should be granted this notability. In addition, this particular individual (as director-general of the foreign office) appears to me to fall into the second criterion given under WP:POLOUTCOMES, which does illustrate a general consensus to keep such senior sub-cabinet officials. Given all this, these AfDs come down purely to a matter of opinion and it was wrong for the closer to give less weight to the keep opinions, as they admit to having done. This was a clear no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Closer's comment: As outlined in the AfD, I think that closers must not only count heads – opinions in this AfD were divided – but that they must also weigh the strength of the arguments made, and that the basis on which to do so is the wider community consensus codified in our policies and guidelines. The issue about which editors disagreed here – whether ambassadors should be considered inherently notable – is one that has apparently been frequently discussed, and my reading of these discussions is that there has never been consensus at the community level to assume such inherent notability. I think that this broader global consensus (or lack thereof) must inform my closure of a divided local discussion among very few people. As to WP:POLOUTCOMES, it is an essay and therefore does not represent any project-wide consensus, and it must therefore be disregarded when weighing arguments. In any case, the non-ambassador aspect of the biography was only peripherally discussed. Accordingly I maintain the view that my "delete" closure was appropriate.  Sandstein  08:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not just about counting heads, but it's also not just about ignoring views that don't parrot policies and guidelines, especially where there has been so much debate on a subject. To claim that the keep arguments were not as strong on this basis is ridiculous. Re WP:POLOUTCOMES: not true; although an essay, it does illustrate broad consensus, is commonly taken to do so by editors (including closing admins), and should not just be ignored in this cavalier fashion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. If the question of inherent notability for ambassadors had never been discussed before this AfD, I would be arguing that the result should be overturned to "no consensus". But it has been discussed, over and over again, and a reliable consensus has been established (and reflected in guideline language) that ambassadors are not inherently notable. The AfD closer was correct to rely on this wider consensus when weighing the arguments made. It would have taken a better-attended, better-argued, and much more decisive discussion than the one we are currently reviewing to overturn that established consensus. Thparkth (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I, for one, would love to see this so-called "reliable consensus" that ambassadors are not inherently notable. All I've seen in a number of debates is no consensus either way. If there was such a consensus then I would agree with you. There is none. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse- When one side of the debate relies entirely on "inherent notability" (which does not exist), and the other side discusses the lack of sourcing, it's clear which side should be given more weight. Reyk YO! 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse I completely agree with Necrothesp that ambassadors to major states should be considered notable. But unfortunately the consensus is otherwise. It is not wrong to bring up the argument again from time to time to see if consensus is changing, but it seems clear that this is not happening. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

20 October 2016[edit]

18 October 2016[edit]

Gloucester dory[edit]

Gloucester dory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm opening this DRV for User:Anmccaff who originally posted it on AN/I and was correctly referred here. He said:

Salvidrim closed an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gloucester_dory, to merge, against the little consensus present, and adding an unrelated article, not discussed at all to the mergers. Could you have a look?

This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Banks dory. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page. was posed to Swampscott dory's page; which you can see at a glance was not tagged for deletion, and which you can see at an only slightly longer glance, is not a close relative of the subject he wishes to merge it to. —S Marshall T/C 18:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • If it stirs less shit to overturn to no consensus and open an actual merger discussion I frankly DGAF (and I've said as much in my AfD closure). I don't think the AfD needs to be overturned for a subsequent merge discussion to happen anyways though. And I certainly don' think we need a AfD, an AN thread, an ANI thread, and a DRV discussions when a simple merge discussion would've been better upfront but we are where we are.  · Salvidrim! ·  18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What's really being contested here anyways is the addition of a merger tag to one of the sub-articles (which Anmccaff has reverted many times and which I can't be assed to edit war forever over, so it's now gone). He doesn't even recognize that the AfD ended up being about the three sub-articles, let alone formulate a coherent argument against the closure.  · Salvidrim! ·  18:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
If you DGAF, then you certainly should not be doing drive-by AfD closures. That, and your cavalier edit-warring, was why this started at ANI, not here. Based on your actions since, I suspect this is a competence question rather than malice.
user:Salvidrim added a peripherally involved, undiscussed article to the AfD, which is the question at hand. Swampscott dory was not part of the discussion, except in passing, and was not tagged to notify interested parties. There was, and is, no reason to delete Swampscott dory, and next to none to merge it to Banks dory While it's certainly an ancestor of the bankers, it has a separate notable -and far longer -history of its own. Anmccaff (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Calm down. AfDs are supposed to be closed by previously uninvolved people, so I don't understand the objection to a "drive-by closure". Salvidrim's actions in enforcing his close are normal and proportional because a discussion close is an administrative action; unilaterally overturning the close using the "revert" button is a pretty extreme thing to do, and questioning his competence is definitely beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour here.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Perfectly calm, thanks. There is a real difference between disinterested and uninterested. The closer needs to see that the issues raised have been discussed -as opposed to simply voted on. The closer should also not widen the discussion, inaccurately tagging articles as subject to a successful Afd. As to the other issue, we'll have to agree to disagree. Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but... The AfD close was proper. However, it may have overstepped its bounds in suggesting that un-nominated articles should be merged as a result of the AfD. I suggest reducing any tags on articles other than Gloucester dory to being just merge-to tags, rather than the merge-as-result-of-AfD tags. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that, but the only reason I didn't do it this way is because the merge-to tag implies that I AM proposing the merge, which is false: the AfD is. Plus, I agree the AfD didn't start out as a multi-nom, but I argue that as you scroll down the discussion it becomes crystal clear most commenters see it as a group discussion about the three sub-articles.  · Salvidrim! ·  18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Merge to}} says "It has been suggested that." It doesn't really ascribe who made the suggestion; all it says is the suggestion has been made, so here's where to talk about it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Fair point. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse in the same vein as C.Fred. --Izno (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
why, exactly? There is, so far, a single member of the AfD discussion proposing this...or rather a non-participant in the discussion, since this was a bit of a drive-by closing. There isn't a consensus to merge Swampscott dory; there was barely even a mention of it. It should not be tagged in passing at all. Anmccaff (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you literally joking? How can you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory and seriously tell me Swampscott dory wasn't part of it? Are you trying to be funny or just stubbornly refusing to look at what's in front on you? AGF prevents me from assuming you're actually stupid so please stop trying to demonstrate it. Your claim that nobody argued to merge all three subarticles in the AfD is beyond comprehension.  · Salvidrim! ·  18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No. Can you show a single bit of substantive discussion of merging Swampscott dory? Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory  · Salvidrim! ·  20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Where's the discussion? Just some voting, closed shortly after its proposal. If the other articles deserved seven days, so does this one. Anmccaff (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yup, we can agree it would've been better if the AfD was a multi-nom from the start, with tags on each of the three pages, but I don't think this flaw would've resulted in significantly different consensus, hence my closure. But this is specifically why I urged, in the same closure, further discussion to take place on the target page specifically about the merge of the three articles, with the understanding that a different path than the initial AfD might end up being agreed upon at a later time via said talk page discussion.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I would think there is a very real possibility discussion might have led to a different result. Outside of Wikipedian OR, the Swampscott boats aren't terribly related, as discussed on the article's talk page. Anmccaff (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
While I've done my best to avoid commenting on the content itself so far, there's a small point I hope you realize: "merging" articles doesn't mean the three subarticles are about the same topic, it can mean that they are related topics best covered under a broader article. A concept article can easily cover variants in subsections which may better serve the reader than a series of related short stubs all with the same single reference anyways.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The broader article is Dory. It can easily encompass both the Bankers and the Swampscotts. Banks dorys diverge from their round-sided ancestors, and have a separate history that intertwines with river bateau. So do Cape Ann/Gloucesters (as the terms are used in these articles). Swampscotts don't, and reading the sources cited makes that abundantly clear. Anmccaff (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That is an excellent and coherent argument to make in a merge discussion as to what should be merged where. It is thus unfortunate that instead of discussing the consensus to "merge the subarticles upstream" you preferred opening threads at ANI then DRV.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Steady on.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close was fine. Yes, technically the other pages weren't "AFD merges" if we strictly go by the nomination. But the discussion in the AfD implied that the other articles were considered to be merged as well. The merge templates were clearly added in good faith. A chat with the closing admin and a simple talk page discussion would have sufficed here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Then the Swampscott dory page should have been tagged, and the clock reset to give it its seven days, I should think. The conversation hadn't even touched on it yet, really. Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close properly assessed the consensus. If anything, maybe there could have been notifications put on the talk pages of the articles added to the discussion and the discussion relisted for another 7 days, however I don't think that this would have changed any positions or the end result. I have to disagree with Anmccaff - I think having an admin who DGAF is the perfect one to close a discussion - it adds precisely zero of their opinion into the discussion and keeps the close focused on what they assessed the consensus of the participants to be. PGWG (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yupp, an newly mentioned article should be discussed, rather than just nuked in how does this equate to Endorse? I'vw raised the point about disinterest above, I think. A closer should not have a dog in the fight, no, but he should take the discussion seriously enough to close it correctly. Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's an Endorse because, a) this was an accurate representation of the consensus on the AFD, and b) while the process wasn't perfect, I am thoroughly unconvinced that improving the process would have resulted in a different consensus being reached - so, in the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, why re-do the process just for the sake of the process? As for disinterest, I don't think that Salvidrim was saying that he DGAF about the article or the result, but rather that he isn't firmly set on the label that is placed on the close, as his intent (evidenced by the text of his close) is not to chill discussion regarding such a wide merge. I read the situation exactly like his close statement says - the consensus from this AFD is to merge all those articles, however further discussion regarding such a wide merge could/should take place on the appropriate talk page. PGWG (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
And yet, surprise, surprise, one of the articles has already been summarily merged before this review is even over, a very predictable outcome of pasting inaccurate Afd tags on an article. Anmccaff (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse - An appropriate consensus read by an uninvolved party. I see no issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Like above I too would've preferred notifications to have been posted on each talkpage and relisted for another week but doing all of that now would be moronic (and In all fairness had the notifs been posted it may not have made a blind bit of difference), All that aside consensus was to merge them all and so I see no issue with the close. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse - reasonable read of consensus in a complicated situation. A good close. Thparkth (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Sergecross73 above. Miniapolis 22:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse good close. It was a weak AfD nomination that should not be encouraged, but the discussion happened and the conclusion was clear. Further discussion, including proposals to reverse the decision in re-spin out this variant article should be held at Talk:Banks dory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Eh probably right outcome, but an ideal thing for the closer to have done would have been to tag the new articles with a link to the AfD and relist for one more round. I dislike having articles go away when it's possible someone would have been able to explain why it shouldn't go away had they merely known of the existence of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that someone has already merged one of these articles, Cape Ann dory, without any prior discussion on either page, before this review was even completed. Anmccaff (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska[edit]

Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the discussion ended as no consensus, this article has been deleted from Polish Wikipedia (which usually has much lower crtieria for notability): pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2016:09:08:Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska. Closing admin there concluded that a minor/local parish magazine and an obituary are not sufficient. Over a week ago I asked closed admin at English Wikipedia (User:Sandstein) what he thinks of this argument (which was also raised in our AfD) at Talk:Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska, but he has not replied to this (nor to my question about which arguments for keep made him take this call). As I feel that the deletion arguments (the subject is not notable either as an architect - all she has here is a short online bio at professional association she was a member of - and as an artist - her work is only mentioned in a local, niche, parish magazine) are significantly stronger then the votes to keep (one of which argued that said parish magazine is a sufficient source, the other that women architects are marginalized so we should keep this article to reduce our gender bias in coverage), and as there is no discussion on article's talk, I believe DRV is the next logical step. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Closer's comment: I did address this issue on my talk page in response to another user, and refer to my statement there. I seem to have overlooked the ping by Piotrus; to be sure I notice your question please ask me on my talk page the next time.  Sandstein  13:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Given that it was No Consensus and a new argument has been presented I think you could reasonably renominate it. The fact that it was deleted in Polish does rather undermine the view that there might be Polish sources, which was one of the main Keep arguments. Hut 8.5 17:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete. The view that there might be Polish sources other than a parish magazine and a very short routine death notice was undermined in the deletion disussion by at least three editors who read Polish fluently - Piotrus and Electron have userboxes to that effect and I indicated such in the discussion. If a discussion about an article about someone in the anglophone world had come up with such a total lack of reliable sources it would (or at least should) have been closed as "delete", so this should have been too. (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. I must add that the way this deletion disussion was conducted on the Polish Wikipedia, without people putting bolded "Keep" or "Delete" before stating their opinions, seems a much better way of conducting a discussion than our adversarial system. (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - As the original nominator, I felt there were not enough sources to constitute keeping the page. I also felt the keep votes were undermined by the delete votes at the English Afd, and the fact consensus was "delete" on the Polish Wikipedia only strengthens my stance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse but new AfD. There was a deletion discussion. There was no consensus at the deletion discussion. An administrator closed it as "no consensus". So far so good :) There is no reason to overturn the discussion outcome. But now we have some information about another Wikimedia project deleting their article on the same topic. Sometimes DRV makes decisions based on new information, but this time the new information isn't really strong enough for us to say "OBVIOUSLY an AfD would now result in a delete outcome, so let's just skip to the 'delete' part". So I think there should probably be a new AfD to see if maybe the community could now reach a consensus on this article, in the light of the new information. Thparkth (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good close. Divergent opinions, and edits to the article were made during the discussion. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. The logical step, User:Piotrus, was not DRV, but a fresh, and better, renomination at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, there were divergent opinions, but neither of the "keep" opinions came with anything like a valid argument. One was that, because the subject is not anglophone, there might be sources in another language, but didn't actually point to any such sources beyond a routine death notice, and the other was by someone who does understand the subject's language and couldn't find anything better than a parish magazine. (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Those points prevent a close of "keep", but are not strong enough to discount the keep arguments. Reasonable arguments that there could be difficult-to-find sources are valid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse or relist - a NC close is certainly within the margin of discretion here. Electron wrote that the source says also that her paintings have participated in over 30 collective exhibitions and 3 individual (...), and none contested that - yes, the source itself was not enough as a support of notability, but that gives some indication of WP:NARTIST that none seems to have investigated. The result at pl-wiki is irrelevant, because it was not used as an argument in the en-AfD (all there is is a mention of "we should watch this"). Now, I do not think anyone would object to a relist, not because the close was premature, but because it is the logical next step. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Commet. I fully intended to relist it upon closure, as nobody seems to object to this, through if the closing admins relists it instead, I'd appreciate it. If not, a ping that this has been closed would be nice, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • endorse with leave for a new AfD Close seems okay, but a new Afd in this case seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

15 October 2016[edit]


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

I believe that deleted revisions of the article should be restored. Lava03 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Question, why? Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse and speedy close, as the page was well discussed, and the nomination makes no substantive points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse unless nominator provides reasons why they should be restored. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This activity exists in animal. This article was deleted because Wikipedians did not know its existance. They thought autocunnilingus is hyphothetical sex activity. This article had many references. Lava03 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Please can we have a proper discussion rather than a pile-on dismissal of this DRV, because it's genuinely arguable that G4 shouldn't apply to discussions that happened 9 years ago ago. Pinging @Yngvadottir: who I know took an interest in this article.—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The nominator gives no indication that he even read the last deletion discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not "pile-on dismissing" anything out of hand; I just asked for an actual reason to be provided why undeletion might be warranted beyond a summary "undelete because I said so, the end". It changes things if an actual explanation is given that can be discussed, but the original nomination statement that I was responding to offered nothing but "undelete because I said so". Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What? Wait a minute. I wrote an entirely new article, and it looks as if it was speedy deleted because a preceding article at the same title had been deleted after an AfD? You bet your brass buttons I advocate restore; the rationale was entirely inapplicable, as a glance at the history would have shown, and I was not even informed the article was nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks for the ping, S Marshall, and I'm going to ping Drmies, since my creation of the new article at this title arose out of a discussion on their talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lankiveil and Bearcat: Requesting temporary undeletion for this review.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks to Jo-Jo Eumerus for undeleting it for the purposes of this review. And pinging Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who made the mistaken nomination for speedy deletion as a re-creation. This is what the article looked like immediately before it was deleted as per the outcome of the third AfD. This is the redirect that was deleted on 1 September 2013 following the MfD that is linked there. And this is my new start; note the edit summary clearly stating that I am creating an article with sources. This was not a re-creation of the deleted article, and despite a lengthy history of editing since then, it did not resemble the article that was deleted following the AfD. The speedy deletion nomination and the execution based on that nomination were errors; the evidence of that is now visible. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore as clearly two different articles in substance; previous AfD's only apply to a particular version, not the topic generally. Muffled Pocketed 15:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we need to have a complex outcome here:- (1) I endorse WJBScribe's accurate close of the third AfD in 2007. (2) I endorse Ruslik Zero's accurate close of the RfD on 1 September 2013. (3) I feel we should overturn the G4 deletion in 2016, because G4 was misapplied. The deleted versions were not substantially identical and were in fact almost totally dissimilar in content and sourcing. Therefore (4) the outcome of this DRV should be that revisions from before 22 September 2013 should be re-deleted and the subsequent ones restored.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn the G4 speedy deletion. The articles were completely different, the recreation cited many more sources which weren't in the deleted version, and the AfD is nearly a decade old to start with. Hut 8.5 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What Yngvadottir says, and anyone who chimed in with her. Y's version bears no relationship to earlier versions whatsoever. Overturn quickly please. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn G4. Article is sufficiently different from that deleted at AfD in 2007 that G4 should no longer apply; the length of time also argues for reconsideration at a new AfD. Thparkth (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn G4, as the new version was not substantially similar to the one previously deleted per discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn and allow recreation, never should have been deleted a notable sexual act similar to autofellatio, clearly passes GNG, and may biases be damned. Valoem talk contrib 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Kumawat (closed)[edit]

MASwings Flight 3002 (closed)[edit]

Family Home Entertainment[edit]

Family Home Entertainment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was redirected to Artisan Entertainment last month because someone stupidly decided that the company isn't notable, but it is notable because it was a big name for VHS and a lot of its VHS's are collected by buffs. Most of the reliable sources found for the article came from Google Books, mainly the Billboard magazines, so it barely has reliable news sources. But here are more sources I found: (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

*Relist We usually do combine material under the latest title, but when there is extensive information as for entertainment companies, there's good reason to make an separate article. In this case I think the discussion was closed prematurely and should have been relisted, because it seems so contrary to common sense. The only way we have of recognizing what is or is not common sense is to have greater participation in a discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

DGG, what do you feel was contrary to common sense? The article's sources are particularly numerous, but most of them serve to support film-catalog style information and the rest is mostly unsupported by the cited sources or entirely unsourced (like the acquisitions section). The little information there is (like the brief paragraph history sourced to Veni, Vidi, Video: The Hollywood Empire and the VCR) is much better merged to the latest title, where it can be better placed in context. —0xF8E8 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Noting as the closing administrator that the IP did ask for a review on my talkpage as well yesterday and has been discussing it with a different IP too. I did ping the other participants in the discussion on my talkpage to see what they have to say on the new references provided in the draft. As for relisting, I didn't perform a relist because there seemed to be barely enough input in the AfD and there is nothing that jumps out as improper or against common sense that I can see - the discussion did explicitly argue that there is not extensive information that would justify a separate article. I have no objections against re-discussing the new sources provided, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse No evidence has been presented against the arguments advanced in the deletion discussion: that the company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or other relevant guidelines, as most coverage is limited to single-sentence or catalog mentions. There's just not enough well-sourced content to justify an independent article, and the numerous bad sources added to the draft show a deep misunderstanding of reliability and the fact trivial mentions don't help notability. The little properly sourced content is much more appropriately merged to Artisan Entertainment instead of cobbling together an article based on unsourced content and directory-style mentions. —0xF8E8 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • At least merge more of the contentLooking again at the original material and references, I see that it was in essence just an earlier name, and there is no reason why it cannot be incorporated. I don't think enough was merged. Though I doubt we should list every film a distribution company distributes, we should include the most important, and they were the original distributor of such series as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). (Looking at the added references, they seem to be meaningless mentions of the name). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Seriously, all of you, I'm TRYING to PROVE the company's existence as a DIVISION with those dang sources, so it HAS to deserve a separate article! (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse A lot of the content is actually present in the Encyclopaedia (See here and here). My suggestion to would be to selectively add a bit more of the info if required and improve the target article. It doesn't deserve a separate article on its own. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't care! It does SO deserve a separate article! There are LOTS of VHS's and others released by the COMPANY ITSELF up until 2005! If you keep saying that it's "not notable", then just get someone else like Ryanasaurus0077 to do the bloody research! (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • We have certain rules on Wikipedia - we don't create standalone articles on each topic unless absolutely necessary. However, if you still want to create the article, I suggest you to try other venues such as this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

TVPaint (closed)[edit]

Recent discussions[edit]

14 October 2016[edit]

13 October 2016[edit]

9 October 2016[edit]

8 October 2016[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
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December