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);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or

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



Before listing a review request, please:

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

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

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

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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

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

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

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

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


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 September 2}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 September 2|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]

2 September 2015[edit]

Paul Manners[edit]

Paul Manners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Paul Manners is a notable person whom is recognised from Britain's Got Talent 2015. the many sources used in the references are from well-known newspapers and articles. I can confirm that I was not paid in any way to create the article and I am actually a fan, writing from a neutral perspective. His page has simply been caught in the crossfire along with this scamming thing which is ridiculous; as these people are now spoiling it for the up and coming celebrities whom have many fans, such as over 190k followers on twitter and even a VERIFIED Facebook page: being a notable and public figure. There were over 14 references put into the article and Paul's name is now cropping up in the daily express and Independent (including his picture!). The sources were carefully considered and there has been no exact reason for the article to be deleted in detail. The page had met all notability requirements and his photograph even remains on your system. He is currently being approached by a BBC Radio station and journalists. Please kindly reconsider and undelete the page, or allow recreation from this misunderstanding. Claire Morgan 13:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse - Seems to be some nasty business surrounding this article, stories of blackmail and yet another paid editing scandal. I'd recommend denying any attempts by "new" editors to create anything listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse own deletion. Even apart from the OM affair, I have serious doubts about the notability of Mr. Manners. For someone whose principal claim to notability is an appearance on Britain's Got Talent (series 9), he's not even mentioned on that page. Also, the deleted version of the article contains a whopping 11(!) references for the sentence "He performed at Peter Andre's brother's wedding in Cyprus in 2014". T. Canens (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

31 August 2015[edit]

Mass killings in capitalist regimes[edit]

Mass killings in capitalist regimes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • Unsalt; allow recreation - The article has been improved since the previous attempts that judging by the deletion discussions, didn't use the best sources, may have violated NPOV, and other criteria. I'm willing to devote time, with others' help, to making an article up-to-par with the Mass killings under communist regimes one. There are flawed arguments from those against the article in the deletion discussion, such as equating free markets with capitalism, which is erronous. I also put a newpage template on the last-deleted attempt, to give it time to develop, and I was quickly making it up-to-par with Wikipedia standards. I'm very willing to have a constructive discussion with community regarding this article that continously gets deleted. We asked the user who deleted it, and he said to post here. Thanks. Socialistguy (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt; allow recreation - I too support the restoration of this article. I am a little surprised that it was deleted and salted. It is obviously NOTABLE, VERIFIABLE, it does not contain OR, it is not presenting subject matter with UNDUE WEIGHT, nor is it presenting a FRINGE theory. It is not a SOAPBOX, nor is it a POVFORK any more than the same similar article concerning socialist regimes. I think that upon fair-minded consideration the community will realize that perhaps the prevailing dominant political culture has injected itself into the debate in an unfair way in this instance. This happens to be a fairly serious matter, since the subject matter concerns war, mass killing and genocide. I hope that people take the Wikipedia Pillars and other community values of integrity seriously in considering this matter. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I deleted the latest incarnation, which has actually been under a couple of names, including Mass Killings under capitalist regimes and Mass killings in capitalist regimes, which seemed an attempt to bypass the WP:SALTing of the first. I salted the second. I recommended the users user AFC but that is backlogged. Userfying or putting in draft space might be acceptable if it was trimmed back and actually worked on with policy in mind. I can't see just undeleting over the AFD happening, but if the users had the ability to try to rehabilitate the article first out of mainspace, then come here, I would support that. This came to us thanks to a group at Reddit, and there is a lot of passion, but I would warn the users that passion can be problematic at Wikipedia: we are interested in facts, not social justice. Dennis Brown - 17:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Dennis Brown, which of the two namespaces do you recommend we use for this specific case? Socialistguy (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment I did save a version of the article in my sandbox, but the content was not authored by me. I wonder if this issue can be resolved with a few small changes. For instance, retitling it, or adjusting the focus of the lead. Perhaps changing "capitalist" to "liberal" or "classical liberal." Perhaps changing "regime" to "governments" or "administrations" Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - AfC is not terribly backlogged (in fact it's working decently if not as expediently as the advocates would like). I also question the disruptive point making that appears to be happening with respect to the parallel "Mass killings in Comunist regimes". Hasteur (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I will leave to the powers that be (the community here) to decide which method, if any at all. As for the cut and paste copy in your sandbox, that is actually violating copyright. You can't copy text that way, you aren't giving credit to the people that actually did the work, and claiming it as your own. You probably want to get rid of that, since it is against policy. I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying that you need to do it right if you are going to do it at all, with right being defined as "within Wikipedia policy" since they own the servers we all use. Dennis Brown - 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. My main concern is preserving the content. Can I be sure that it exists somewhere before I delete it? Also, I think "...liberal democratic governments" would be the most appropriate title if it is allowed to return. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You can save it on your own computer, but don't copy and paste from it back here (admin can see all deleted data and edits to compare). As far as titles, I have no opinion, but will note that a title that seems to inflame is a prime target for deletion. Again, this is all assuming. The community may dismiss and choose to not allow the article to be restored and moved. Dennis Brown - 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, do you have further advice about what the supporters can do about users with clear political bias who don't provide sources for their erronous claims, make logical fallacies, and who continue blocking our legit efforts? They're not following Wikipedia's standards, especially Tarc. Socialistguy (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
One thing I'm not going to do is getting in the middle of a pissing match with Tarc. I've not had any bad experienced with him personally, so can't offer an opinion, but naming "enemies" at this stage makes people want to oppose the undeletion to even begin with. I'm staying neutral on it since I did the deleting, but I recommend embracing those that disagree with you instead of fighting with them. Otherwise, you are headed for trouble. Dennis Brown - 20:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I have removed it from my sandbox, and I have it stored on my computer. But I still am not a contributor to its content at this point. Any person wanting to see it can message me. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Article temporarily undeleted for review - latest version here. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. The talk page discussion is also accessible. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we move the last version to Draft:Mass killings under liberal democratic governments so we can work on it? I made a formal request which is visible on the talk page. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That is what this discussion is being asked to decide. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore to draft for rework; when completed, relist at AfD. The present version is unacceptable and would certainly be deleted at AfD: it fails WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" by attempting to lump together under the umbrella heading "Mass killings in capitalist regimes" events as disparate as Hiroshima, the Boer War, the Khmer Rouge, race riots in the USA, Duvalier's Haiti and various famines from Brazil to China. I get the impression that the authors have simply collected together all and any deaths and disasters in the non-communist world, right down to an individual assassination in Burkina Faso. An acceptable article would have to be more tightly focused, and show that other sources have discussed the subject as a whole, not just the individual components. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry Im a bit confused. I want to see what article history there is that isnt on the current title, if any. Mass Killings under capitalist regimes is perhaprs a typo, as I dont see any deletions there. Also commenting that I have no previous association with this article, but I do remember the notorious Communist genocide and I assume this is related. Soap 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt; allow recreation I feel that if one article on Communism can exist based on the spurious findings in the Black Book of Communism, then there shouldn't necessarily be a problem with the article at hand. What I've seen looked to be well cited. Chomsky is definitely an expert in this field, as are several of the other cited sources. The deletion talks also comes off as incredibly personally biased by some that disfavored even mere discussion of the topic at hand. Sheeeeeeep (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: In the last form of the article, it said that capitalist regimes "refers to those countries who declared themselves to be capitalist states". Can anyone name a country that declared itself to be a capitalist state? StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
StAselm, I don't recall that. The copy I saved says "refers to those countries who declared themselves to be capitalist states under the liberal economic, democratic, or imperialistic definition (in other words, "capitalist states") at some point in their history." Socialistguy (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I think your question arising supports my view that we should rename it "Mass killings under liberal democratic governments" and remove the 'self-proclaimed' part of the definition. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In some countries "Liberal Democratic" has a more specific meaning - certainly in the UK, and probably other European countries, there are parties who describe themselves as "conservative" or "socialist" in contrast to Lib Dem. Perhaps just "Democratic"? Or "Non-communist" which I think is what this is really about? JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If Nazi Germany is going to be included, it would have to be "non-Communist". But that's a very tenuous thing for all those regimes to have in common, and it wasn't their not-being-Communist that led to the killings. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I am talking about the meaning of "liberal" that is well known and accepted among scholars and academics, not the popular, or self-proclaimed "Liberal" political parties. In general, we are talking about both classical and social liberals, that is that they agree on things like separation of church and state, free market capitalism, limited government, etcetera. This is Wikipedia, we should be mature enough and scholarly enough not to be dragged down into the popular conceptions of "liberal." Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. At this point, if there was an AfD, I would !vote delete, not because of WP:POINT (which was the reason for the original deletion) but because of notability and synthesis concerns - it has not been demonstrated that what these different killings have in common is being non-Communist in nature. Moreover, if that cannot be demonstrated here, I see little point in allowing the re-creation of the article just so it can be nominated for deletion. If reliable secondary sources can be found demonstrating the notability of the subject as a whole, I would be very happy to allow the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
StAnselm, it's been shown that the killings were done to maintain the capitalist regimes, like a certain amount of the killings by communist states were done to prevent the return of capitalist production relations. What source has the right to decide whether it's notable-enough to write about? Why's it notable-enough to write about killings in communism, and not in capitalism? Please explain. Socialistguy (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. The article on communist killings can be judged on its own merits, and stands or falls on its own references. The existence of that article doe not automatically imply the necessity for this one; there is no reason to suppose that things are equally balanced. For example, (if I can refer to something even more controversial), there is a consensus here that anti-abortion violence is a notable topic deserving its own article, but that pro-abortion violence is not. We don't have to be "equally balanced" in that sense - we follow the reliable, independent sources. It may well be that communist killings have more coverage in reliable sources than capitalist killings. In any case, I would like something more concrete than the assertion "it's been shown..." StAnselm (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
StAnselm, I looked at the abortion case, and it seems like there's no pro-abortion violence article due to the lack of violence motivated by anger against pro-life people. There may be more sources discussing communist killings because they were written (not to mention the anticommunist bias often based on false facts) by those who grew up in capitalist countries and have been educated to dislike communism (again, often based on misinformation), because implementing a communist government would overthrow the ruling class, and you and I know very well that rulers don't want to be overthrown. The capitalism article, though, discusses violence committed to maintain the economic system facilitating accumulation of capital from property ownership, which has been as plenty as with communism, if not more. This has been shown multiple times. If you look at the archived page, you can see plenty of cases in which regimes maintaining capitalism used violence to maintain the system. I don't know what more evidence you want to see. Socialistguy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Like "White History Month" or "involuntary celibacy" (too soon?), these are not things in and of themselves but rather concocted, point-making exercises in synthesis and original research. No amount of work or editing will make a fringe pejorative into an actual thing, so, no reason to un-salt. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, why is an article about killings in communism not a fringe pejorative, but one on capitalism is? Socialistguy (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Because murder, torture, "disappearances" and so have been the hallmark of totalitarian police states for the last century? What is routine is listworthy, what is the exception is not. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, so murder, torture, and disappearances haven't occurred in comparable numbers in capitalist countries, regardless of how democratic their governments claimed to be? Do you have sources proving that these events don't occur in capitalist countries at the degree at which they happened in nominally communist ones? Socialistguy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
No, they have not, and I have little desire to engage further with an editor whose very username suggests a degree of bias in the topic area. so consider my previous response the final one. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, please don't resort to arguments possibly classying as ad hominem, and you're also showing anticommunist bias. You also didn't respond to my inquiry about sources. You made a claim with no evidence, going against Wikipedia's standards, despite me having asked you to. Socialistguy (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to provide sources for simple incontrovertible facts that police states...from North Korea to the USSR to by dictators have murdered far more of their own civilians than any "capitalist" nation has. It's about as asinine as being asked to "prove" that Islamists commit more acts of terror than Christians. Now kindly do not ping me again, or I will just disable it. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, do you know that sources publishing death toll numbers for communist states have been debunked as exaggerated? Your argument's invalid due to this fact. Socialistguy (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, so you're a genocide denialist? Yea, we're definitely done here. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, no, you're the one denying violence of capitalist regimes. Socialistguy (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt; allow recreation -Verifiable and accurate. It could be argued it exists to make a point, but no more than the same page for communist governments. To maintain neutrality, either both or neither can exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt; allow recreation - I think that a lot of the semantic arguments regarding the title or content are being raised by people who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. A lot of the arguments regarding WP:SYNTH are unfounded, especially because there have been notable authors who have in fact lumped these many disparate global events together: see Le Livre noir du capitalisme, culture of capitalism, dependency theory, etc. A cursory search on Google Scholar finds thousands of sources that describe the nature of capitalism (especially its faults) from a global perspective. This article's existence will help fight against Systemic bias. Anti-capitalist literature, research, and views is very prominent in the developing world, and it makes sense that those in the west would be unfamiliar or even hostile towards acknowledging its existence. I didn't get a chance to see the article prior to it being deleted, but to say that it's impossible to write a properly sourced article on the subject seems ridiculous.--JasonMacker (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again, there are very few actual sources being offered. Of the three WP articles you linked to. Only the first - the book Le Livre noir du capitalisme - mentions death tolls. But that book has an obvious POV, so we come back to the issues of neutrality, notability, and synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
StAnselm, do books discussing the death-toll of communism not have obvious POVs? I can probably find more sources, but judging the POV of a source can be arbitrary. Socialistguy (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Lankiveil, why do you support Tarc if s/he continues making claims without sources? Socialistguy (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion this article has already been deleted twice, in 2010 and again in 2012 because someone kept recreating it, and this version was only created by altering the title to get around salting. The barrier for recreation should therefore be set quite high, as otherwise we're having another AfD on the topic every few years just because someone can't drop the stick. The article in anything like its current form is highly unencyclopedic as it consists of a huge pile of synthesis. Loads of incidents where anyone died in or because of a nominally capitalist country have been shoehorned in, from the Holocaust to the fate of indigenous Americans, including incidents where nobody was intentionally killed and one purported example where nobody appears to have died at all. It has obviously been recreated as a WP:POINTy attempt to protest the existence of Mass killings under Communist regimes, as can be seen from the comments above and from the fact that several sections ("Terminology", "Proposed causes" and "Inclusion of famine as killing") have been lifted wholesale from that article. There isn't anything worthy of consideration. To anyone who does actually want to write an encyclopedic article on this topic I would suggest starting from scratch in a draft and then bringing it here for review. Hut 8.5 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Much of this content will be back, with a serious re-work. I would like to preserve the edit history. But, we can do a substantial reset. The name will be changed to focus on "liberal democracies" and it will be rebuilt from the ground up. I would like to do so in a way that is acceptable to the community, but I think we have to admit, that there is at least a little systemic bias going on here. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
If the content is going to be rewritten from scratch then you don't need the edit history, if it's not going to be rewritten from scratch then I don't think the next version would be good enough. I don't see any systematic bias here, I see someone writing a lousy article in an attempt to prove that Wikipedia has systematic bias and then protesting loudly when it gets deleted for being a lousy article. Hut 8.5 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - It simply doesn't meet any form of WP:COMMONNAME, and is an intentionally WP:POINTy attempt to redress the Mass killings under Communist regimes. Yes, it's understood that the way "Communism" is used can be the equivalent of a sloppy catch-cry, but "Capitalism" isn't even a political ideology: it's an economic system, and currently is the global economic system. Please try to find some real teeth for real articles, otherwise you're going to be WP:SNOWballed over and over again. Wikipedia is not a venue for righting great wrongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This is why my proposal is to move the content to Mass killings under liberal democracies. I would like to do so properly, preserving the edit history. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Even the final versions admits that the best scholarly academic arguments for this are simply by mass-merging all sorts of loosely defined situations of murder and mayhem and calling those countries capitalists and thus being added to this list. Reviewing the "Terminology" section of this version, there is no source for the term "Capitalist regime" (which is pretty important to know what's qualifies and what doesn't) but instead there's a mix of synthesis of sourcing for various types of mass killings (which isn't really the debate) with a single alleged form of mass killing that would be on point: "Capitalist holocaust" which has a unsourced massive BLP violation but otherwise is a neologism sourced to a "Peter Cohen" and sourced to this blog from 2013 and thus not a reliable source. People need to present here some evidence of a reliable secondary source that actually discusses this topic as a whole rather than people just making up what constitutes this topic. Otherwise any recreation may consists of 0.1% useful information and 99.9% junk and the junk is pure ridiculous junk. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looking at the arguments for deletion so far, I think it would help debate considerably if users could specify what kind of evidence they would consider good enough to show that the article is relevant. Otherwise we'll just go around in circles. If we don't want this thread to be full of people giving long explanations that don't meet the standard of evidence expected, and people responding with equally long explanations of why they don't think it's good enough, then we need to set the terms of the debate. So, two questions from me. ONE, what level of interest is needed for an article to be notable? (ie how many people need to be interested in it and how strongly?). TWO, what kind of evidence is needed to support either view (ie what would demonstrate that the level of interest is either too low or too high for the article to be notable?). Personally, I found the content of the article useful and will be saving a copy so I can read it after deletion! But I do recognise that wikipedia isn't just for me - it's a community resource and needs a community decision :) (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The points put forward by StAnselm I find the most convincing. - kosboot (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt; allow recreation. StAnselm's argument is not valid. Not everything that is not communist is capitalist. Capitalism is a very well-defined ideology. bogdan (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Capitalism is not an ideology. The main problem with this article is that its title lies about what it actually is, which is not "killings in capitalist countries" (and the suggestion above to re-target it to "...liberal democracies" is just as problematic, but. What the creator(s) of this thing want it to be is Mass killings in non-Communist countries; that would be the honest title of what the subject matter is, but if it were named that then it'd be more of a slam-dunk deletion than it is now. You don't concoct a subject to simply be the negation of the one that you do not like, this sort of thing was tried years ago by those who hated the Israeli apartheid article. We had a spate of Jordanian apartheid, Saudi Arabian apartheid, Cuban apartheid, and so on. All were deleted or at best redirected/re-targeted, their creators topic-banned or chose to "retire" for their grand point-making disruption. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Folks, we're getting bogged down in all the wrong issues here. Yes, the world is not so simple as "communist/capitalist." In fact there are at least eight political cultures that can be used to describe all politically motivated activity (anarchism, oligarchy, tory corporatism, classical liberalism, social liberalism, democratic socialism, communism, and fascism). We could, and probably eventually should, respond to all of them. This account of political cultures is consistent with other organization of articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ideally, there should be all the same articles under all eight of these political cultures. My proposal is to preserve the edit history of the original article, move it to "Mass killings under liberal democracies" and pair the content down to what can reasonably be agreed to. Under this proposal, the "unsalt" proposal is irrelevant. My main concern is preserving the edit history out of respect to the people who put in a lot of work. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    Unsalting is exactly at stake if you want to preserve that article history and create a new article, even if under a new name. The key question is whether that article is worth salvaging, and if it is reasonably possible to make an unbiased articled based on it. Those are the only points up for debate. If not, then you would have to start from scratch, in user space, then submit that article here for review. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that is the same article. That is why I salted this article, because the version before it that had a slightly different title was salted. I was just extending the salt to the new title. Nothing grows where the ground is salted, my friend. Dennis Brown - 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


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

The article was provided with a fair number of independent reliable sources, and Toradex has some media coverage's on magazines [1][2][3]. There was no proper consensus to delete. Suniltx (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I Endorse the original decision to delete, reached on 26 August 2015. Prior to viewing the archived debate (which I have since done), I preformed my own research on this organization and could not uncover any substantial third-party coverage. In a case such as this, where the only available information can be found at destinations which are (either entirely, or in effect) reproductions of company-issued media releases, I cannot see a clear case for notability under any applicable guideline. It seems that even awards and prizes, issued by the company at various times, have not been independently covered by any reputable outlet within the industry or general media. I believe the closing Administrator's election to end the discussion, although against numerical consensus (as argued above), was founded on solid reasoning and is therefore valid. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I agree with UBI-et-ORBI's concerns, especially noting that this is not a vote but a policy-based discussion. The opposing discussions went through the actual sources and given the concerns with changing the titles of citations, I think the editors who spent that time should be given additional weight in their views. Further, providing lazy mass links to various search engines searches and telling us that "reliable sources which give substantial coverage exist within them" is not encouraging behavior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Greg Laughery[edit]

Greg Laughery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Recommend that Administrators Allow Recreation; new information (including convincing external sources) have been identified in the deletion discussion. These new sources were debated by a small group of editors, however deletion was executed before further opinion could be gathered. This subject area is unique (as the terms of WP:PROF distinctly recognize), and therefore the expanded time which elapsed between the Article's AfD submission and active editorial discourse is natural & fully to be expected — the tags presented at the Article's heading were sufficient to notify Wikipedia readers of this ongoing review, throughout the discussion process. Recreation is both possible and reasonable in the case of this Article. UBI-et-ORBI (talk)

  • Comment: I wasn't personally convinced about the new sources - which ones do you think demonstrate notability? StAnselm (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply: I likewise didn't see much substance at first, but found myself chiefly convinced by (a) his demonstrable role at the L'Abri Fellowship, (b) the the controversy thereof, and (c) his patent collaboration on other published works within his (albeit niche) academic community, as cited on the XfD Page. I believe it's important we judge his impact relative to the scale of the said community, and not on the scale of spiritual scholarship in toto (which would be quite a high bar for one to achieve). --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation as a draft article The problem feels circular to me. This is not an academic in a common field and while we should consider that, it feels like we're getting close to a walled garden where the sources are all related to being the former staff of L'Abri and/or within that. Nevertheless, the AFD close was a bit odd as all the delete votes (absent DGG) were before the sources were provided but I think it's worth re-creation and perhaps seeing how the sources work (if they tell us a lot about Laughery's research rather than are just relative to L'Abri or whatever). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse own close. As to Ricky81682's argument, the "sources" were carefully considered by Kraxler and StAnselm, along with DGG. All three found them wanting, and their arguments are well grounded in established policies and guidelines. T. Canens (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

29 August 2015[edit]

28 August 2015[edit]

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎[edit]

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I hadn't realised that this category was being discussed, and I am quite surprised that it was included in the bundle of other categories to be deleted. The Order of the Netherlands Lion article says that it "could therefore be considered the Dutch equivalent of the Order of the Bath," and "since 1980 the Order has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature." I can only assume that this was included by mistake, since the subcats of Category:Order of Orange-Nassau were not nominated. I would also like Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion restored. There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the discussion may have been open for two months, but I didn't know it was going on. The first indication I had was when I saw the category had been removed from Ellen van Wolde (for whom the category evidently was defining). StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This gets back to the content of all previous CfDs about awards. The argument is that it is not defining for her. It is her occupation that is defining - while the award is merely a sign of appreciation for the work that she did in exercising her occupation. This is the typical argument that has been used throughout all these discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I closed the discussion and just wanted to make a brief comment. I didn't elaborate on the reasons for closing it as I did, but note that this nomination was one of a series of several CFD discussions regarding these types of awards bestowed by countries. In all of the recent discussions, there has been a consensus to delete. By pure vote count, this one looks close, but taking all of the related discussions into account (which I did), and especially in light of the categorization guidelines, I don't think it's that close. (I endorse my own close, for what that is worth.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (as the nominator): the recent discussions that User:Good Olfactory is referring to are the ones that pop up in this [[5]] list. There are quite a few of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Alas, none of us can watch everything. I would have !voted keep on every one of the deletions. Categories are navigational deices and meant to be useful. Looking for other people who have received a notable award is useful. That they include major heads of state of other countries does not detract from it. For articles, we can overcome even a justified clear consensus deletion by writing a better article. There's no such mechanism for categories. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. From my reading, the nomination statement and the bulk of the delete comments on the CfD were about political honors, and inapplicable to categories such as this one devoted to artistic/scientific honors. So as an off-topic afterthought to a long list of other categories, it has not really had a proper discussion. No prejudice against relisting individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist for more discussion on this category. The reasons for deletion were too perfunctory given that there was opposition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn I think the CFD showed a divided opinion rather than a consensus for deletion. The keep arguments seem substantial to me. A good question was raised against the suggestion that people should be categorised only by their most defining characteristic. Moreover, the nomination had misconstrued WP:OCAWARD and the previous discussions seem to have done the same. The overcategorization guideline is towards listifying, and not simply deleting, when an award is non-defining. The discussion ought to have considered whether the award is defining for any (group) of its recipients. Instead it was being argued that it is not defining for some (or, indeed, many) of its recipients. Generally, each category neeeds to be considered separately. Finally, one of the delete rationales was completely irrelevant. Thincat (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

26 August 2015[edit]

What's 9 + 10[edit]

What's 9 + 10 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Has enough sources for inclusion, prematurely speedy-deleted Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse textbook example of non-notable web content. Had no sources at all at time of deletion, only reference was to knowyourmeme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • endorse fair close, and fair enough opinions at AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse the only source cited was [6], which is clearly not a reliable source. There were no assertions of significance, the article's only content was a description of the video. Hut 8.5 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Recreation Because Knowyourmeme is reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158#Know_your_Meme, and I've found another mention/source, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Struck the recommendation as this is the nominator and that counts as their vote. It might be helpful to explain how that single source meet the needs of WP:GNG ort is even a WP:RS. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Per this (and several similar discussions) Know Your Meme is a user-contributed wiki with some degree of oversight from an editorial staff. This particular entry has not been "confirmed" by the editorial staff, so it's effectively a page on an open wiki. An entry which has been confirmed might not be a terrible source for some information within an article about a meme but it's hardly something to use to demonstrate notability. The discussion you cite does not demonstrate that the site is reliable, only that one person thinks it's reliable. The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog, a very brief post there doesn't establish the notability of a meme. Hut 8.5 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy. Knowyourmeme is a reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content; I see no discussion to show that inclusion it in is a reliable source for notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Endorse and Salt. There's an extremely low chance of reliable sourcing with this one other than Knowyourmeme. Not notable at all and possibly a vandalism target. -- (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Valid application of WP:CSD#A7, and valid reading of the sentiment expressed in the AfD for a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse per above. If someone had a reasonable objection, it should be discussed for a week. I don't see a reasonable objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

25 August 2015[edit]

4shared (closed)[edit]

IFA Paris (closed)[edit]

24 August 2015[edit]

23 August 2015[edit]

22 August 2015[edit]

21 August 2015[edit]

20 August 2015[edit]


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