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.

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 September 25}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 September 25|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]

25 September 2016[edit]

24 September 2016[edit]

David Merlini[edit]

David Merlini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content
Hi Sandstein. I do not see sufficient discussion of the sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merlini for a "delete" close. No one responded to my argument that:

This 1,354-word article from The Budapest Sun and this 624-word article from Hetek are solely about David Merlini and contain detailed biographical coverage about him. They are not "routine notices or reviews about an unusual performer". According to a Greystone Books–published book, David Merlini in 2009 set a "world record for assisted breath-holding". That his world record was covered in a book strongly indicates it is not routine.

Only DGG expressed an opinion about my sources. (It is unclear if Appable reviewed the sources.) None of the previous participants returned to the AfD discussion, so nothing can be concluded from their silence. That DGG and I disagree on the sources is insufficient for a "delete" close. I ask you to either reclose as "no consensus" or relist the debate since the AfD had been relisted only once. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You have a point, and your sources do look good. But there was sufficient opportunity for discussion - the sources were available for more than a week, were presumably read by several people, and the only person to comment on them was unconvinced. I see no reason to believe that things would be any different after a relist.  Sandstein  21:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources mentioned in the AfD:

Extended content
  1. Boyd, David Richard (2010). Dodging the Toxic Bullet: How to Protect Yourself from Everyday Environmental Health Hazards. Vancouver: Greystone Books. p. 16. ISBN 1553656210. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The book notes:

    In 2008, a remarkable world record for unassisted breath-holding was set by Germany's Tom Sietas, who held his breath for ten minutes and twelve seconds. In 2009, a world record for assisted breath-holding was set by David Merlini, who held his breath for more than twenty minutes while submerged in a tank full of water at a Formula 1 auto race in Bahrain. He gained an edge by breathing pure oxygen for half an hour before his stunt, thus super-oxygenating his blood. Unlike Sietas and Merlini, most people will past out after being deprived of oxygen for two or three minutes. After a brief period of unconsciousness, the heart will stop pumping. Within minutes, electrical activity in the brain will come to a halt because neurons are deprived of oxygen. This is the modern definition of biological death.

  2. Balázs, Eszter (2004-12-02). "Escaping his dreams". The Budapest Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The article notes:

    Eszter Balázs meets David Merlini, the Hungarian escapologist who made everyone shiver when he was plunged into the Danube... encased in concrete.

    HE IS only 26-years old, but has already seen more danger and been in more perilous situations than most of us encounter in a lifetime. Could there be anything worse that suffocating, being burnt alive or being eaten by piranhas and sharks? For David Merlini, such risks are selfimposed and commonplace. Defeating them is his profession - a typical day in the office. "This is my job, my life," the young escapologist said in answer to a question about what motivates him to encase himself in concrete and ask to be lowered into the Danube. In fact, this very job almost cost him his life. But still there is no better explanation for the whys. Merlini simply dreams up a challenge and then realizes it, moving from one death-defying situation to another.


    Born to an Italian father and a Hungarian mother, and raised from the age of three in Italy, Merlini was interested in the structure of the locks that he so skillfully dismantled. When he one day was given an illusionist's kit, his future career was founded. Remote-opening locks, electronic constructions and smoke machines were handmade in Merlini's laboratory. Electro-shocks were part of the daily routine, he added.

    Ten years later Merlini enrolled in night classes at the famous illusionist training institution, the Circolo Amici della Magia of Turin. "Lessons took place starting at 9pm as the students all had daytime jobs," Merlini remembers. "One night I was sitting in the library of the CADM reading about the great escapologist Houdini -born in Hungary as Erik Weiss - and I found that I was born exactly 52 years after his death at the age of 52 in 1926."


    His second fishy adventure involved piranhas:

    aired on the music channel MTV, Merlini was strung up on an iron cross and then lowered, upside down, into an aquarium full of the predatory fish. He was nibbled a bit, but escaped. "I am not afraid during action, it is more before and after," he said. When he was lowered into the Danube this August, the worst moments were those when he was just at the level of the river. "This river floats by at between 6.5 - 7km/h. A cold and mighty flood that just makes you feel very, very small." He spent three and a half minutes at the bottom of the Danube before he was back on the surface again, this time having escaped a concrete cube that he had spent 11 hours in previously while it set. Five million people saw the "production", he proudly informed me.

  3. "Illúzió vagy titkos tudomány?" [Illusion or secret science?]. Hetek (in Hungarian). 2004-09-03. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The article notes:

    A tanévkezdés előtti napra világraszóló produkciót hirdetett meg David Merlini huszonhat éves illuzionista. Budapesten, a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia előtt az önmagát „a világ legfiatalabb szabadulóművészének” tituláló olasz-magyar származású Merlinit egy akváriumba engedték, majd rázúdítottak négy tonna betont. A betonba öntött férfit tíz órával később egy daru segítségével a Lánchídról a Dunába eresztették. Merlini jó két perccel később jelzőfénnyel a kezében felbukkant a víz színén. Az élő televíziós közvetítést kétmillióan nézték végig. David Merlini a múlt század leghíresebb, szintén magyar származású illuzionistája, Harry Houdini reinkarnációjának tartja magát. Egy nemzetközi hírű szakember, Rudy Steffish szerint Merlini „a harmadik évezred legnagyobb szabadítója”.

    From Google Translate:

    The day before the school year starts on the day the world David Merlini announced a twenty-six-year-old illusionist. Budapest, in front of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in itself Merlinit Italian-Hungarian descent, "the world's youngest szabadulóművészének" tituláló allowed an aquarium and rázúdítottak four tons of concrete. The man poured concrete ten hours later, a crane lowered the Golden Gate Bridge into the Danube. Merlini good two minutes later, the lights turned up his hand upon the water. The two million people watched live television. David Merlini most of the last century, also Hungarian-born illusionist, Harry Houdini reincarnation hold up. An internationally renowned expert Rudy Steffish according to Merlini "in the third millennium largest Savior."

  4. "Chilly water beats record attempt". The Daily Telegraph. Australia. 2007-10-11. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The article notes:

    LOS ANGELES: He had the water tank, the handcuffs and even the hooded wetsuit.

    But Hungarian escape artist David Merlini just didn't have the ability to withstand cold water yesterday when he failed to break the world record for the longest time underwater without air.

    Setting out to beat a time of 8 minutes, 55 seconds, he abandoned his attempt after just 1 minute and 12 seconds due to the chilly water temperature.


    Merlini's capitulation stunned fans, who recalled his amazing past feats -- one of which included, ironically, being frozen inside a huge block of ice.

    He has also been buried in concrete and has escaped from a rocket's demolition.

    Merlini first mastered the art of escape in Hungary in 1995.

  5. "New Houdini wannabe escapes from burning car". Deseret News. 1998-10-30. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The article notes:

    A 20-year-old escape artist who wants to be the next Harry Houdini has performed his greatest death-defying feat ever, emerging unscathed after being handcuffed inside a burning car.

    David Merlini performed the escape Thursday in Budapest. He said he models himself after Houdini, a native Hungarian who migrated to the United States. Houdini thrilled crowds with his improbable escapes until his death in 1926.

    Merlini was handcuffed to the steering wheel of a white Mercedes. The doors were shut, the car covered with jelly gasoline and set on fire as it was hoisted by a giant crane. It was dropped from 66 feet.

  6. "A stunt to take your breath away". mX. 2007-10-11. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 
  7. Cary, Tom (2009-04-27). "Motor sport: Intense heat fails to derail Button". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The article notes:

    The afternoon had begun in bizarre fashion when F1 commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone, Richard Branson and other VIPs gathered on the home straight to watch a Hungarian escape artist by the name of David Merlini break the world record for holding his breath underwater.

    Submerged in a Perspex tank, Merlini managed 21mins and 29secs before being carried out virtually unconscious, prompting Ecclestone (78) to totter towards him to offer his congratulations. Merlini, no doubt deprived of oxygen, planted a smacker on the diminutive maestro's forehead.

  8. Leporatti, Claudia (2016-06-24). "UNGHERIA: Il mago della fuga David Merlini apre il Museo di Houdini" [HUNGARY: The Wizard of David Merlini escape opens the Houdini Museum]. East Journal (in Hungarian). Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The article notes:

    In un’altra epoca, un altro prodigio: a 4 anni colleziona lucchetti e manette, a 13 già si esibisce con un numero tutto suo. Record mondiale di apnea con 21 minuti e 29 secondi (2009), lui è David Merlini, di professione escapologo. Siamo a Budapest, lato Buda, nel quartiere del castello, dove poche ore fa Merlini ha aperto il museo “The House of Houdini”. Noi di East Journal lo visitiamo accompagnati dal David in persona e non possiamo fare a meno di raccontarvi anche la sua, di storie, quella dell’uomo che si è fatto imprigionare in un blocco di ghiaccio per uscirne dopo 33 ore, davanti a mezza Budapest riunita per lui nel Piazzale degli Eroi.

    Nato a Budapest nel 1978 da padre toscano, David Merlini ha vissuto a lungo in Italia, a Torino, prima di tornare in Ungheria per debuttare con i suoi spettacoli, che oggi lo portano in tutto il mondo. Nel 2007 è stato premiato come “Best Escape Artist” agli World Magic Awards di Los Angeles, gli Oscar della magia. Due anni fa, durante la produzione americana “Houdini”, girata a Budapest, ha insegnato all’attore Adrien Brody (anche lui ungherese, di origine) a trattenere il respiro e ad evadere dalle manette, lavorando come consulente per la miniserie premio Oscar. Nel 2015 è stato protagonista di uno show in memoria di Houdini per la chiusura di Expo 2015, a Milano.

    From Google Translate:

    In another era, another prodigy: 4 years collects padlocks and handcuffs, to 13 already performs with a number of her own. World record of apnea with 21 minutes and 29 seconds (2009), he is David Merlini, the escapologo profession. We are in Budapest, on the Buda side, in the castle district, where a few hours ago Merlini opened the "The House of Houdini" museum . We at East Journal visit it accompanied by David in person and we can not help but tell her also, the stories, the man who became imprisoned in a block of ice to get out after 33 hours, in front of half-Budapest gathered for him in Heroes' Square.

    Born in Budapest in 1978 by Tuscan father, David Merlini has long lived in Italy, in Turin, before returning to Hungary to debut with its shows, which now carry him around the world. In 2007 he was honored as "Best Escape Artist" at the World Magic Awards in Los Angeles, the Oscars of magic. Two years ago, during the American production "Houdini" , filmed in Budapest, he taught actor Adrien Brody (who was also Hungarian, source) to hold your breath and escape from handcuffs, working as a consultant for the Oscar-winning miniseries. In 2015 was the protagonist of a show in memory of Houdini for the closing of Expo 2015 in Milan.

  9. László, Szabó G. (2015-09-20). "Külföldre viszi mutatványait David Merlini" [David Merlini abroad takes mutatványait]. Új Szó (in Hungarian). Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11. 

    The article notes:

    Tíz éve nem látta a magyar közönség, tíz éve nem is nyilatkozott David Merlini, a világszerte ismert és elismert, édesanyja révén magyar szabadulóművész. Hivatását azóta sem adta fel, a világ különböző pontjain mutatja be lélegzetelállító produkcióit.

    From Google Translate:

    Ten years ago, the Hungarian public has not seen for ten years not commented David Merlini, a well-known and recognized by the Hungarian mother szabadulóművész. He has not given up his profession, shown around the world in a breathtaking performances.

The closing admin wrote "the sources were available for more than a week, were presumably read by several people, and the only person to comment on them was unconvinced". When one editor lists sources and another editor disagrees that those sources establish notability, that is "no consensus". Because AfD is a discussion rather than a vote, that several other people "presumably" read those sources but declined to explain their thoughts about them in the AfD does not make the consensus "delete".

Overturn to no consensus or overturn to relist.

Cunard (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It is a fallacy to presume that the sources available for a week were read, when they may or may not have been read.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reclose  I can't tell what the decision was from the closing or the subsequent discussion.  What were the WP:DEL-REASONS for the deletion?  Without knowing why the article was closed as delete, it is difficult for editors to know how to fix problems.  Were !votes taken down?  If not, why not?  My quick analysis without access to the article is that the WP:DEL8 argument raised after the nomination was resolved.  The WP:DEL14 raised in the nomination was supported with a 2nd suggestion to Incubate, but was not resolved.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Cunard's position is quite arguable, and it's plausible that the reason so little attention was paid to the sources he presents is because participation at AfD these days is so low. Would a fresh listing attract some more substantive comments? It's worth a shot, although I fear that Sandstein might be right and it could well go by without anyone bothering at all. I'm afraid the root problem----lack of editors----is getting worse and we'll see more and more of these, with flaky decisions coming out of almost unattended discussions.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

23 September 2016[edit]


Template:OSTI (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This template is part of a family of templates for citation identifiers, like {{hdl}} and {{bibcode}}. Not having it is detrimental to citation style flexibility. Additionally, one of the users who supported deletion is fine with undeletion. As for the other user's comment, this is not at all like {{cite doi}}. {{cite doi}} put the citation information in subpages to be transcluded on the article, which made it awful to maintain and edit. This is an external link template in the same line as {{doi}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Restore This seems like a Tempest in a teapot. If somebody wants to use it, I can't see any valid reason to prevent them from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • no objection from me if you are going to use it [1]. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The template was unused at the time of its nomination. Where is the evidence of likely use in the future? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • A better question is if all other identifiers have templates, why shouldn't this one. Even if they aren't used in article space, these are useful in talk and other namespaces. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm perfectly happy with my original question. I note you didn't answer it. Endorse deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There was a consensus that it failed WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 at the time, and was deleted in accordance with the consensus, so of course DRV will endorse Plasticspork's decision. But TFD#REASONS point 3 is easily overcome; all you've got to do is re-create the template and actually use it. At that point, the only way to delete it would be to renominate at TfD citing different grounds. So, it seems to me that anything deleted solely under TFD#REASONS point 3 can and should be automatically restored if the requesting editor is in good standing (as in this case) and can explain where they're going to use it. I think that in that event we should be looking at an automatic and speedy restore, as we do with PRODs. (We should document that somewhere, I think.) But if the requesting editor doesn't have a specific use in mind, then how is it a good use of volunteer time to debate it?—S Marshall T/C
  • Restore and the fact that transclusions were removed (for example diff) and existed but were not removed (here) shows that the claim that it was unused was incorrect. And evidence of "likely use in the future" is that when a bot comes to restore the damage previously done (does this happen – I hope it does) this template will again become transcluded. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore per Thincat. This seems like a decision that should have had far more eyes. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore for now per evidence given, though I have yet to see use in article space, which may have been key words left out of the nomination (I am not opposed to renomination if a use isn't found, or making another template as suggested in the TfD) —PC-XT+ 06:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • "Evidence"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Quite often, the template's use in mainspace is short-lived, since people will routinely convert plaintext citations from "J. Smith (2006) "Title" {{OSTI|01234}}" to "{{cite document |author=J. Smith |year=2006 |title=Title |osti=01234}}. It's not quite a template that's often subst'ed, but it's more or less the equivalent situation. But the template's usefulness in metaspace is quite clear and overturning that deletion on those grounds alone is already sufficient. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Further evidence, if true (diffs, please), that the template is not needed. The only uses in metaspace seem to be documenting the the existence of the template, so your argument is circular. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        • The template's main use in metaspace is to create links to OSTI ressources (e.g. User:Headbomb/sandbox4). No instance is self-referential (save for the one that was on the doc, which is now deleted). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Again, diffs please. The use in your sandbox is "* {{para|osti-access|yes}} – to flag a free {{para|osti}} like {{OSTI|4435330}} [] which is quite clearly documenting the then existence of the template, and thus entirely self-referential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

22 September 2016[edit]

Timeline of popular Internet services[edit]

Timeline of popular Internet services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The no consensus interpretation of the outcome was a misguided decision by non-admin User:SSTflyer, whom refused to discuss the issue. --damiens.rf 13:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Relist so an admin can correctly close it. Per WP:BADNAC WP:NACD, non-admins should not be making close calls. This issue has been an all-too-common problem with SSTflyer. It's been brought up several times and she never engages in conversation every time it's brought up. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:BADNAC doesn't mention close calls, which is of course perfectly correct; there are non-admins I'd happily trust with a close call, and admins who aren't fit to make them. "No consensus" was the correct outcome. But a failure to discuss or explain the close on request is simply inexcusable. Overturn for someone who's willing to talk to re-close in exactly the same way.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I used the wrong shortcut. WP:NACD says Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That could have been either a delete or a NC--both would be reasonable. I've no problems with a NAC here (and have reasonable faith in this closer in particular), but not responding after 3 days while continuing to edit is a problem. If the closer doesn't respond shortly, I'd recommend a "reopen". Also, as always, an uninvolved admin could reclose also. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Vacate close. I probably would have closed this as delete. NC really seems like a stretch. I have no problem with the NAC aspect, but I have a lot of problem with the refusal to discuss it on her talk page. You don't have to agree to every request, but at least acknowledge that you saw the request and considered it. To say nothing is just wrong. I'm not sure the NC closure by itself is enough to make me argue to vacate (it's pretty close, though), but that combined with the refusal to discuss it certainly is. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist/reclose - Aside from no quorum scenarios, non-admins should almost never be closing deletion discussions they judge it to be no consensus which "should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus." It also means the discussion was a "close call". Not discussing it makes it worse, but it would be a reasonable objection either way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Admin note: I've undone SSTflyer's own closure, as "relisted", of this DRV request. Obviously, editors whose decisions are being reviewed here are not supposed to close the review discussion. I think we need to consider community sanctions to prevent SSTflyer from making more AfD closures, as I've now seen several of their closures, here and elsewhere, that looked very problematic. I'm leaving it to others to (re-)close the AfD, which SSTflyer reopened and relisted for a third time.  Sandstein  08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

20 September 2016[edit]

Category:Recipients of Order of Smile[edit]

Category:Recipients of Order of Smile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is a perfectly fine Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals subcategory, present on a number of other wikis ([8]). Pl wiki category lists 227 entries. It was deleted from en wiki due to, first, an argument that there are not enough subjects on en wiki for it to justify existence (WP:SMALLCAT), which is a), not a valid rationale (given that pl wiki clearly suggests there are numerous, just need to be translated, as they inevitably will be one day), and b), Order_of_the_Smile#Winners already lists more than enough for it on en wiki not to be an issue. Second rationale was an argument that the category fails Wikipedia:Defining, with some people specifically arguing on the example that it was not "defining" Nelson Mandela. Well, is he better defined by Category:Bands of the Order of the Aztec Eagle or Category:Freemen of the City of London? I doubt it (and I doubt anyone can be defined by them). Having reread WP:DEFINING, I can see how most award categories fail to meet it, but in my experience of 10+ years here, and having written 1000+ articles, many of them bios including GAs and FAs (and participating in related discussions), I have never ever before seen anyone complaining about "too many" award categories or seen one of them deleted. Major awards, orders and such as usually seen as notable, and they have their lists of recipients and categories for them. Creating categories for major orders or awards is the established practice, and DEFINING needs to be rewritten to reflect established practice. Now, I would agree that minor orders and awards may fail notability criteria (and many certainly do fail), and in turn also that they may not deserve their own category, but despite the somewhat condescending tone of the last deletion discussion where a number of people dissed the award as "an NGO award for making children smile", it is undeniably notable (the en wiki article is poorly referenced, but pl wiki has a long further reading section, and there seem to be at least two books about the award (ex. [9]), in addition to plethora mainstream press references, because in Poland at least receiving this award is no small deal (ex. [10], [11], [12], [13] - those are stories from a large Polish newspaper, an even a larger, national paper, a major magazine (Polish Newsweek-like publication), and Polish Radio, respsectively); it is also endorsed and reported on by pl government, ex. [14]), and in Poland it attracts much more coverage then most high-culture or military or civilian awards (it is also famous enough to be covered not only on pl and en wikis, but on a dozen more). It is not minor, it is notable, and it fits perfectly within the well-established tree of Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals, with 200+ notable recipients. So, in essence: please restore, it is a category for a major award with numerous eligible bios. PS. Oh, and it certainly defines Mandela more then "Order of the Aztec Eagle" - he had nothing to do with Aztecs, but made many SA children smile more... just saying. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not a category person, but my understanding is that we only have categories for things that are defining. That is said to be things that would be likely to be mentioned in the lede. Randomly sampling those that have Wikipedia articles, only one had it in the lede and many others didn't mention it at all. I don't know that that's a reasonable bar, but it appears to be the one we've agreed on. So endorse for now, but I'm happy to keep an open mind that I may be misunderstanding guidelines here. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What you are saying applies to most awards and decorations. It is clear that the common practice does not follow the policy - categories are commonly created and populated for awards and medals that are not commonly mention in lead. It is not common for awards and medals to be mentioned in lead, because they are usually discussed in the article's body. Unless you think we should delete most medal and order categories, we need to update the guideline to reflect this practice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Then it is time to do cleanup of the award categories. And BTW, speaking about "most", IMO most actually do not gave categories, especially the likes of the Order of Smile. Even not all state awards have recipient categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Consensus supports deletion. SSTflyer 05:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Delete votes did not address guideline-based concerns of nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you endorsing the deletion or the opinion of the nominator here? (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm just mentioning that the opinion of the nominator was guideline-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. A minor award of questionable notability itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse/uphold closure per above. If other cats are not defining, they too should be nominated. Neutralitytalk 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Dozens of categories for minor awards such as this have been deleted (for failing Wikipedia:Defining). Oculi (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

19 September 2016[edit]

List of start page services[edit]

List of start page services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No quorum: after the AfD was relisted twice, only a single vote was given to *delete*. The page author's comment was ignored because it was not properly formatted (even though the comment itself was crystal clear):

I disregarded the "Comment" statement because it does not express a clear preference in the form of "keep" or "delete", as is customary, and is furthermore unsigned.

Admin was contacted about this, but to no avail. High emphasis on procedure. Closing this AfD without consensus or a soft deletion would have been more appropriate outcomes. Michieldewit (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • You misleadingly omit to mention that the page author you speak of in the third person is yourself.
    As someone who categorically refuses to bold voting keywords in my deletion debate comments, and mostly don't use them even unbolded, I'm not a fan of Sandstein's response. Endorse nonetheless, since your comment on the afd wasn't policy-based, didn't refute the initial argument of notability (not of the list entries, but of the list subject) or the later argument of original research, and further implies a copyvio of that external link in your selection criteria. —Cryptic 14:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Closer's comment: Although I can see why my disregarding the unsigned, unlabeled comment could be considered overly bureaucratic, there's a good reason for why I normally do this in all discussions I close: signing comments in discussion is required by community norms, and without a signature it is normally not possible to determine whether a statement is by a possible meat- or sockpuppet, or is a duplicate "vote", both of which are frequent occurrences at AfD. I consider that it is incumbent on those who wish to participate in a discussion to conform to community norms and expectations in such a way that the purpose of the discussion (establishing policy-based consensus) can be achieved as easily as possible, and that those who do not do so must be prepared to have their opinions disregarded. That applies, in particular, to editors who have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, as Michieldewit has.  Sandstein  14:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for explaining your standpoint. I can see how your strict and procedural approach would be required in discussions with a lot of comments: all sorts of confusion might otherwise arise. In this particular discussion, however, there were only 2 comments and there was no risk of confusion at all. It would have hurt nobody to be a little more lenient here. Like some people would ignore a red light on an empty intersection at 3am. On the point of your assumption that I am a long time editor: although this is strictly true, the number of my edits is low enough to still consider myself a rookie. Duration is not a sufficient measure for experience.Michieldewit (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- "ignore a red light on an empty intersection at 3am"? Traffic rules are there for a reason. I hope not many people do that. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The message of course is that rules should not discourage people from using their own good judgement and applying rules only towards their intended purpose. Michieldewit (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Re-close. I can't agree that there was a good reason to disregard the page creator's comment, and since there were so few other participants, the closer's doing so can't be considered harmless. I suggest that Sandstein alleviate this concern by advising what his closure would be if that comment is given consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Eh. I'd have to decide between no consensus (because of the few and divided opinions) and delete, essentially because of the reasons articulated by Cryptic. I'd most likely still go for deletion because the (few) "delete" opinions do appear more persuasive in terms of policy: they raise substantial concerns of core policy (WP:OR) which the "keep" side does not address, and they invoke (if not explicitly) the notability guideline for lists, WP:LISTN, whose requirements the "keep" side also fails to take into consideration. Instead, Michieldewit makes a mistaken argument based on WP:LISTCOMPANY (which is about whether specific companies should be included in lists, and not about whether the list itself is notable), and otherwise argues only based on usefulness, which we know isn't a very good argument to make at AfD.  Sandstein  17:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And how about the soft delete option? Have you considered that? Michieldewit (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no "soft delete" option.  Sandstein  10:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So how am I to interpret the list of options stated for a no quorum situation? It clearly includes Soft deletion as an option. Michieldewit (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • relist or reclose I stand by my comment in the previous DRV where this came up that requiring a bold !vote (or in this case a signature) has no basis in policy, guidelines, or common sense. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there is. We're all volunteers, donating our time as experienced editors to the purpose of the project. I want to use this rare resource as effectively as possible, that is, to help process AfDs as efficiently as possible. Every minute I need to hunt through page histories to determine who might have left an unsigned comment and whether I should therefore take into account the opinion, is a minute I don't have for reading and considering arguments. If we expect admins to do that extra work, we de-incentivize compliance with talk page guidelines and other community norms. If we do not, we give people an incentive to follow the rules. That's why I will continue to disregard opinions that do not conform to the pattern that is customary and expected at AfD: I want to support the work of the people who want to help me do my job as closer and conform to community expectations, not others.  Sandstein  10:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It would probably be wise, then, to properly document these expectations and include a reference to these expectations somewhere in the AfD header. The precious time of new editors should not be wasted by having to dig through piles of rules and procedures, just to know how to respond to a certain situation. Michieldewit (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd take this a step farther, if you think this is acceptable, even though I believe everyone commenting here disagrees, I'd ask that you start a discussion on the generic topic. I do understand your point, but the "this is not a vote" mentality (which I favor) means that you really are supposed to be reading the arguments, not just the boldface !votes. And yes, people should sign things, but sometimes people make mistakes. If it was a common issue at AfD that would be one thing. But not signing things at AfD is, IME, very rare indeed. We've wasted more time talking about it already than I imagine skipping such cases would save you in a year. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't quite bring myself to say overturn, but.... I'm not a big fan of lists, tend to steer clear of closing list AfDs, and as a result, don't really understand policy and common practice around lists as well as I do for articles. I honestly don't know if I would have closed this as delete or NC. But, while I have much respect for Sandstein, I don't agree with his stance on the mechanics of contributing to an AfD. While putting a keyword in bold is good practice, it's not required. LIkewise for signing your post. When I'm closing an AfD, if there's an unsigned comment, I'll generally look through the history to see who it was (assuming sinebot hasn't identified it already), and then typically I'll go look at their contribution history to see if they're a WP:SPA or not. Sometimes people forget to sign. It happens to everybody. If this comment was dismissed because it wasn't convincing, or didn't cite policy, or had been clearly refuted, or something like that, I'd be more inclined to say that's within the closer's prerogative. But, to dismiss it simply because it was unsigned and didn't say keep in bold, seems excessive. So, I'm not standing here with a firebrand and a pitchfork chanting overturn!, but, yeah, if this close was voluntarily backed out and left for somebody else to reclose, I think that would be a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reluctant endorse- Yeah, not a huge fan of dismissing arguments just because they were unbolded. But arguments that the contents were original research, that directories like alexa do not confer notability, and that the scope of the list is unclear, are strong arguments. I think it's likely that the close would have been to delete regardless. Reyk YO! 07:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We got to the right outcome but I can't endorse the means of getting there. If someone says something, the closer needs to evaluate what they say. If the closer reads what they say with proper attention and understanding, and weighs it correctly, then neither the conventional word in bold, nor the conventional signature, are really necessary at all.
    • Well, that's not quite right. For example, the closer will certainly want to know whether the unsigned comment was made by someone who's already opined in the discussion or a newcomer to it, and to that extent, his or her time may be squandered in having to search the page history for that. I agree with Sandstein that the better practice is for editors to abide by the conventions of the XfD pages where possible. Where I disagree with him is regarding that a good-faith participant's comment should be completely disregarded for a presumably inadvertent failure to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • If the comment's worth reading, to what extent does it matter who made it? Ditto if it isn't worth reading? I think the identity of the commenter matters less than you and Sanstein contend. Signatures can't be trusted anyway, since Wikipedians (1) can usually rename their accounts on a whim; (2) don't have to use signatures that match their account name; and (3) can easily spoof signatures. When I close a discussion I generally look at diffs to establish who said things and in what order (since later comments are often placed above earlier ones).—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
off-topic discussion
        • @S Marshall: Why are you closing DRVs when you're not an administrator? WP:DRV reads- 'A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. Administrators @Newyorkbrad: and @Sandstein: might want to comment....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
          • They know, WilliamJE; they have eyes. I'm not even the most prolific non-admin closer of DRVs. I know we've clashed but I'd be grateful if you didn't try to stir up shit in future.—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
            • I know all about non-admin closures on XfDs. I actually hadn't realized they also take place on DRV, but if they do, I assume they're reserved for very clear-cut cases (e.g. where the closer on the XfD has agreed to a relist)? (This isn't meant to start a long thread on a policy dispute, if there is one; if that needs to occur, which I have no idea whether it does or doesn't, let's take it to a better venue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
              • If you want to start a discussion on this, I'd suggest [15]. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reclose, deliberately ignoring a relevant comment is not the best response to a mild procedural flaw like in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse but... dismissing an editors opinion solely based off of a procedural flaw (failing to sign posts, not putting "keep" in their comment even though they still argued to keep) sounds pretty off-base to me. Firstly, only 2 users commented, so Sandstein could've easily checked the page history to see whom left the unsigned comment, and closed the AFD in about the same amount of time, so his argument about not having the time to read does not stand up (in this particular instance anyway, but that's not even the point). Secondly, sometimes editors forget to sign their posts (happens to all of us), so not all editors whom didn't sign are really meat, sockpuppets, or duplicate votes. Thirdly, as per the points raised by S Marshall above, one shouldn't just blindly look at signatures either. And there's nothing to suggest that Michieldewit's comment being left unsigned was not done in good faith. So while Sandstein is absolutely correct that editors should conform to the norms customary to participating in discussions, Sandstein didn't take the time to evaluate the AFD thoroughly, and that's customary to closing discussions. Sandstein should've left this to another administrator if they couldn't take the time and patience customary to closing discussions. All bureaucracy aside however, whilst the rationale behind closing as delete was off-base, it doesn't change the outcome, in that, unlike the "delete" side whom addressed the various WP:OR/WP:NOTABLE concerns, the "keep" side failed to do so, in that since its the weight of the arguments that actually decides AFD's, one must actually back up their arguments if they want their opinions to be considered. As such, the AFD closure was justified irrespective of Sandstein's own mistakes. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 10:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. WP:RELIST precludes relisting a third time and closing based on the (thin) contributions to date was appropriate, as was the closure itself. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think the issue at hand is the justification for the close, not the outcome itself. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

17 September 2016[edit]

16 September 2016[edit]

14 September 2016[edit]

12 September 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