Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes 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.
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
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);
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);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 November 9}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 9}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 9|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
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.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE.
Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:
"Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."
Weak endorse First, AfDs frequently result in outcomes that are short of deletion, such as merges or redirects. Second, I agree with you on the WP:GEOBIAS. However, I'm not voting to overturn for two reasons: first, consensus was generally against keeping by a 2:1 margin, and second, it's difficult to distinguish this from an event which doesn't qualify for its own page, because WP:LASTING was not clearly met. I don't think it's that far away from a keep, though, and it can be merged into the target article and spun off again if additional coverage is found. SportingFlyerT·C00:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E.01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. FrankAnchor13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen×☎11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. FrankAnchor15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin closure with no reason stated other than "the result was keep." Attempted to discuss but was told to come to DRV. Relisting admin requested a source analysis which was then done and discussed between editors. Would feel more comfortable with an admin closure as the debate is about interpretation of WP:NMUSICIAN, with keep votes claiming an award is sufficient for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not a WP:BADNAC. The AfD nominator expressed disagreement with many keep !votes, so there was some contention, but that's about it. The close is inherently non-controversial because the discussion could not have been closed any other way, obviously. An explanatory closer statement is not required, and that should not be a reason to overturn a non-admin closure.—Alalch E.23:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse overwhelming consensus to keep and overwhelming rejection of CNMall41’s source analysis, despite CNMall41’s attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the process. This seems like a fine NAC and there is no requirement for an in-depth closing statement. FrankAnchor04:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review handles cases where a closer has failed to follow deletion process. It is not for cases where the deletion process was followed correctly but you do not like the decision that was arrived at. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Yundt – Restored to draft where it can be improved and mainspaced as soon as desired. Needed updates with time having passed negates any potential for G4. 11 year old AfD is not in force forever and we don't need seven days of bureaucracy. StarMississippi02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Circumstances have changed. Yundt entered politics and is now a state senator-elect (see here and here), which is normally a clear enough basis for notability. A proactive approach of restoring the deleted article and allowing it to be worked on before he takes office is preferable to the standard practice of letting deleted revisions stay deleted and recreating a vastly inferior new article at some random point in the future. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft I don't think we need to have a deletion review of years-old discussions when circumstances change and the article is not salted. --Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS: I don't think draftification is a bad thing at all here - it would just restore the old article, which would be 11 years out of date, to draft instead of mainspace. No one is going to oppose moving it to mainspace, this isn't "send to AfC." So we'd draftify the last version, you could update it to say he's a state senator and move it over. There's also nothing preventing you from just straight recreating it. SportingFlyerT·C17:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At minimum, all that is needed is for an editor to change the lede to "senator-elect" and restore it to mainspace. I don't think we need to overthink this (but the underlying reason for deletion was correct). I also note that WP:REFUND may have been used instead. - Enos733 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore to draft per above, to allow any interested editor the time to add more recent sourcing so it is acceptable to be moved into article space (with or without the AFC process). I think this is a largely uncontroversial WP:REFUND request that does not need a full seven days' discussion time. FrankAnchor16:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Draft, but this doesn't require DRV. In DRV Purpose, point 10 says:
Deletion review should not be used… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
The nominator claims this is a fork, but as was explained and unchallenged on the talk page, it is a subarticle. The nom does not seem to have noticed that explanation or the discussion at all. There may be a valid argument that some content should be merged somewhere, but probably from the parent article to this subarticle. Given rather minimal participation, I'd suggest this is at the very least relisted; if I was pinged (I was the one who commented and restored this before; I wasn't) I'd have voted to keep, and the result would likely be no consensus or a relist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we didn't have any participants arguing to Keep this article which is one reason why I didn't relist this discussion. It's possible that relisting could have resulted in a different outcome but based on the participation in this discussion after a week, opinion didn't seem to be divided enough to warrant a relisting. LizRead!Talk!02:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-ish if the argument had been deletion, there would have likely been enough consensus to do so. Three participants with a nomination suggesting redirection, one delete, and one merge/redirect is not a sufficiently anemic participation that we can assume consensus is invalid. But that brings us back to the question of how long and what sort of editing it would take to un-redirect an AfD-mandated redirect. What's the process for doing that other than DRV? I don't know that we have one. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the natural outcome in that AfD. Yes, zh-wiki, with their different guidelines and conventions, has a separate article on this. Is that a reason to fork it here? Relisting seems like a waste of time, but if that's what is needed to convey a sense of broader consensus, so be it. Owen×☎09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse there is consensus to not keep the article. With a split opinion between delete and a WP:ATD, the latter is usually the preferred option. However, I consider relisting to be a valid option as well based on the DRV nom statement and somewhat limited participation in the AFD.FrankAnchor14:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Editors agreed around "Most of the content here duplicates". It is possible to restore the article so that the content does not duplicate.—Alalch E.15:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid reading of consensus. It should of course be noted that redirection is not deletion and should there be sufficient content to support an independent article it can be spun out upon reaching consensus at the talk page or by application of WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moyrourkan Orange Hall is located within the townland of Drumnamether, surely this is enough notability for Drumnamether to have a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkzy (talk • contribs)
Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. If this is a DRVPURPOSE3 request, then it appears that the appellant is trying two different remedies at the same time, because they have also boldly restored the article and added a reference to the hall. I don't think DRV should decide whether the addition makes the place notable. That can be decided by normal editing or by another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close per the unclean hands doctrine. The article was created last month by the appellant, although their first attempt was REVDELed for copyvio, and turned into a redirect by Justlettersandnumbers. The appellant immediately restored it after changing a few words, at which point it was nominated at AfD.
The appellant, who participated in the AfD with an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type vote, could have discussed the issue with the closing admin. They could have submitted a new draft to AfC. They could have come here to DRV first. They didn't do any of that. Instead, they undid the result of the AfD one week after it was closed, and only when alerted on the Talk page, they finally came here with this surely AfD-round-2-type "appeal", without bothering to notify the closer. This isn't BOLD, it's disruptive and persistent, and shouldn't be rewarded with another kick at the can, especially as there is no material improvement in sourcing. Recommend temporary page-protect or p-block, as the appellant hasn't shown any intention of following process, and seems to have a single purpose in mind. Owen×☎13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and protect redirect. Draft space and the WP:AFC process are available for good-faith attempts of recreation. The current recreated version is similar to the deleted version, with a little more info and a reference about Moyrourkan Orange Hall. I do not support a speedy close. FrankAnchor15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the location of the hall doesn't make its location notable. If the Eiffel Tower were in Drumnamether, that wouldn't by itself make it notable either.The word "notability" is jargon on Wikipedia; the short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Nearly every word of that statement is itself jargon - see Wikipedia:Notability#GNG for the long version. The source added with the statement about Moyrourkan Orange Hall, whatever that is, was this database entry. In Wikipedia terms, it would be a stretch to call it significant coverage even of the building; the townland barely even gets a passing mention, so there isn't any question of it helping out with that. —Cryptic17:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See point 10 of Deletion review should not be used:to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. This is not the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close, but I honestly don't think this is disruptive per se. I think this is just a mis-understanding of notability from a relatively new user. Townlands are not considered presumptively notable, meaning they have to pass GNG to be able to have a stand-alone article. This means secondary sources have reliably reported on them. We could have an article on the townland if those sources can be shown to exist, but I'm not sure they do after a quick search. SportingFlyerT·C05:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse, notionally, as the close has not been challenged and no significant new information has been revealed. No opinion on protecting. This is a new editor situation. The editor was given useful and sufficient explanation in this discussion.—Alalch E.17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was closed as draftify despite the fact that, as I pointed out in the discussion, Takahashi passed WP:NBADMINTON having finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament stop. Since then, she has won the 2024 Vietnam Open (also part of the BWF World Tour, causing a red link). The !vote count in this discussion was 1 drafity along with my keep and a comment providing some additional sources.
Notably, Takahashi is competing alongside Mizuki Otake who was nominated for deletion alongside Takahashi. Star Mississippi closed that discussion as "no consensus" with 2 keeps and 1 delete. I don't think "draft" is necessarily a "wrong" outcome but with two BWF World Tour wins, the subject passes NBADMINTON and I would like to seek a consensus to undraftify this article. It is also odd that, of the two, more sources were identified for Takahashi yet her article is the one which is redlinked. DCsansei (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that factors have change since I closed the AfD. That does not require an overturn of the AfD. If you think she meets requirements now, improve the draft sufficiently that it won't be a G4 and move it to mainspace. Re-reading it, I could make a case for my having closed it as N/C but I read @JoelleJay:'s comment as explaining why yours wasn't quite the right reasoning. I don't see re-closing now as helpful when we have a different route back to mainspace, but would not object if others disagree. So endorse my own close, but support improvement and restoration since factors have changed. StarMississippi01:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that suggests AFC is mandatory (outside of specific cases of COI or where the article is salted in mainspace), however I would strongly encourage this go through AFC as well (refer to my !vote below). FrankAnchor13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the whole NSPORT guideline? Meeting the criteria in NBAD or any other sport is not sufficient to pass NSPORT: the subject must meet GNG, and an IRS source of SIGCOV must still be identified and cited in the article -- which is what I referenced in my !vote -- for us to even consider the likelihood of GNG sourcing existing. Coverage of high school-age athletes rarely passes WP:YOUNGATH, so any new sourcing will need to focus on her senior career. JoelleJay (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Draftification was the correct, "minimally-invasive" outcome to that poorly attended AfD. As Robert McClenon points out, the appellant conveniently leaves out the nom's Delete !vote. The appellant doesn't need our permission to improve sourcing and submit the draft to AfC. Owen×☎ 13:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (P.S.: I'm semi-involved as a relister on the AfD. Owen×☎14:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Endorse Sport SNGs have been functionally deprecated, so simply meeting one does not guarantee a page will be kept. The correct thing to do to be able to publish this article is to demonstrate sources exist. SportingFlyerT·C05:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. SNGs related to sports only suggest presumed notability and have lost a lot of influence after consensus at WP:NSPORTS2022 was implemented. Draftification is an acceptable outcome for a low-attendance AFD (two delete/ATD including the nom statement that the appellant inadvertantly forgot to include vs. one keep). The history is still available for improvement. The best course of action for the appellant is to improve the draft to a point where it would pass an AFC submission. This is not a requirement but I would strongly encourage going through AFC to ensure a quality article and avoid a second AFD. FrankAnchor13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This is a purely
WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal. I am requesting that recreation of this article be allowed, as I have completed an AfC review of Draft:Ivy Wolk, and the submission has passed my review. I believe that the draft speaks for itself, that the included references demonstrate notability, and that it's a little too late to claim "too soon". Since the last time this was at DRV, an additional article was published: The Cut, October 25. —Alalch E.02:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. The new sourcing, although not outstanding, is a clear improvement on the sourcing discussed at the AfD, and so G4 is overcome.
This should not come so quick to DRV. The AfC review approving the draft should first go to the protecting admin and request unprotection. If the protecting admin is unresponsive, then go to WP:RFUP. Reserve DRV for appeals against a process failure or a dispute. There is no appeal here. DRV must not become a routine tickbox forum for recreation where the reasons for deletion are overcome.
I agree that DRV must not be the article creation committee. However, this is here for the second time, and in the previous DRV comments included: "keep salted", "leave salted", "retain salting", "If this were AFD again, I would say to Delete again. If this were AFC, I would Reject it", and "the draft is not ready for AFC at this point", so I had a feeling that it's more stable to rediscuss this, or rather, to continue the discussion, as the last one was closed early and is recent. But you definitely have a point. —Alalch E.11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 16. You should have linked that DRV. Both that DRV and this DRV are out of scope for DRV, and I disagree with much of your closing statement there.
If this were a proper DRV, both User:Explicit and User:Liz should be pinged, and you should be explaining what they should have done differently.
Another common mistake is people believing that DRV will offer the recreated article some protection. It doesn’t, if the draft is mainspaced, it may be immediately renominated at AfD. AfD is the right place to reevaluate the new sources, DRV is not a good forum for source analysis.
I believe that as there are multiple new sources, and an AfC reviewer has approved, the mainspace title should be speedily unsalted on request and the draft mainspaced, without serious source review or second guessing of the AfC reviewer. See if it gets AfDed, and see how the AfD plays out. I will watch, mainly because I think the sources are of dubious independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say I agree. However, User:Cryptic said: It's already been G4'd twice and protected from recreation. This isn't just a DRV matter; there's no other place appropriate to discuss it. If someone explicitly said it was a DRV matter last time, the comments were majorly against recreation, which had been sought by an established editor, an NPP with autopatrolled (the nature of Hameltion appeal was the same as mine now), and responding editors weren't pleased with what they're being shown, would it really be ideal for this to be recreated based on what is objectively just one additional source, enabled by a purely formal unsalting from an AfC pass? There is a latent dispute around the eligibility of an article on this topic, and such actions did not feel like would have led to the stable point quicker than what I did with this DRV nom. —Alalch E.12:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean that an AfC reviewer should not ask the admin who protected the title to unprotect, and that a salted title means that the question must come to DRV? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was already at DRV; coming back here is fine. Asking the admin in question would also be OK, as I said this would be "an" appropriate venue, not "the" appropriate venue. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV is being used to reverse User:Liz’s SALT of the title. It is inappropriate that Liz was neither asked nor pinged.
If SmokeyJoe is referring to WP:DRVPURPOSE3, then I agree that it needs clarification. DRVPURPOSE3 is qualified by what DRV is not for, point 10: to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation.. Most of our requests to recreate an article to add information or add sources involve articles that have not been salted, and the author can either submit a draft subject to AFC or create a new article subject either to G4 if nothing is new or to AFD. What is User:SmokeyJoe recommending? Should we take this discussion to the DRV talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz participated last time this came up, commenting in part I wouldn't object to restoring this version of the article to Draft space so it can be reviewed by AFC. This is the standard procedure for putting an article back into main space after it has been deleted through an AFD but I'm guessing many editors do not know that this is the case. I see that as tacit permission for AFC to lead to unSALTing in precisely these circumstances. Liz has never struck me as an admin who would be opposed to this sort of an orderly, consensus-based unSALTing, but I'm pinging anyways because it doesn't look like anyone previously has on this thread, which appears to be an oversight shared amongst several of us. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno what this fixation on pinging Liz is about. She doesn't respond to them (one such statement), and has gotten a talk page pointer here as usual. I seem to recall Explicit doesn't see pings either. —Cryptic06:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz create-protected the title. Alalch wants it unprotected. Alalch doesn’t ask Liz to unprotect, but instead comes to DRV to have the create-protection reviewed and overturned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note some such sentiment. It is not binding. The most important facts are that an AfC reviewer (you) has accepted the draft, and that there are new sources that possibly have overcome the reasons for deletion, which were primarily a lack of GNG sources (my interpretation). It may be deleted again at AfD, but that is far from certain, and so I support it being mainspaced, and being freely AfD-ed by anyone at any time, without reference to or protection from these DRVs. The system here is working fine as it is, except how it has come needlessly to DRV twice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not have accepted this at AfC. There are seven sources. Three are tweets from the actor, one is a listicle, one is a mere mention of a character she's portraying, and two basically long-form interviews. I would have asked for an additional secondary source. SportingFlyerT·C05:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRV not getting many requests like this is not a reason to welcome them. WP:RFUP gets requests like this. Most people know that an AfC accept is sufficient reason for a speedy UNSALT.
I also am not particularly impressed with the new sources, I think they are not independent significant coverage, none of them, but I am now sure that it will be deleted again at AfD, which means it should get another AfD. (And DRV is not an alternative for a fresh AfD). SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SportingFlyer that the sourcing on the draft still leaves quite a bit to be desired; the only new source since the last DRV is an interview with limited independent analysis. I don't have an issue with unsalting (which I think should generally be done pretty liberally), but I'd probably still be a delete !vote at AfD at the moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is probably the way it should be. SALT is for persistent incompetent or bad-faith recreation. Unsalting should be a lower bar than being willing to !vote keep in an AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who has not participated should be closing this. Since it's ranged back-and-forth, it ought to be an admin. Finding admins who frequent here often enough but haven't commented on a particular discussion can be hard sometimes. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because no admins watch Wikipedia:Closure requests. (In fact, I'm the only person consistently active there.) I suppose I could close this myself and then make a request for unprotection citing this, but I've cross-posted to the main administrator's noticeboard. —Compassionate727(T·C)12:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I have dropped the protection level. If someone needs a salted page to be un-salted for AFC-related purposes, drop a note at WT:AFC or on my talk page; if a draft is good to go, we shouldn't need a DRV to get it to the article space. I am seconds away from going to eat so I'll unfortunately have to leave it to someone else to hat this formally (as I don't do enough of these to remember off the top of my head how to do so). Primefac (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
BusterD wrongly deleted a redirect with totally different target. If they wanted them deleted, they should have started a RFD process. Also, November 31 is mentioned in the target page, it would be easily kept if RFD'd. Web-julio (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the G4s. The recreated redirects have nothing in common with the ones deleted in the 2017 RfD. They might still suffer the same fate at RfD, but G4 does not apply here. But why wasn't this brought up with the deleting admin first, as required by policy? Owen×☎20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually says on this page to talk to the deleting admin first. It’s pretty rude to expect contributors to spend their volunteer time to review your concern when you either don’t understand the instructions, cam’t be bothered to resd them or don’t think they apply to you. Your snippy response to Owenx just reinforces that I won’t waste a second of my personal time helping such a rude individual. SpartazHumbug!21:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It asks to put a submit template in the talk page, but in WP:DRVPURPOSE it says (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.) The not in not required is originally in bold. Anyways, the submit template ask is unnecessary once you can use {{u}} and it notifies them. Web-julio (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this case, I'm happy to overturn on request. I'm sorry for short stroking; I should have looked further. In the moment, I thought the new redirect target List of non-standard dates was dubious (since those non-existent dates aren't considered at the target). I still regard these created redirects as dubious and wouldn't be surprised if some other editor put these up for discussion. But I apologize for mistaking this as disruption. That was my mistake. Undeleting. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, only November 31 is mentioned there, so I can understand the others being deleted. But in the other two cases, I think they are still helpful. Web-julio (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. I looked and missed it. There was another user involved, the CSD tagger User:MPGuy2824 (whose reports are generally reliable) so that's another reason I speedied without more investigation. Demonstrates the need for me to slow down. User:Web-julio, next time consider going straight to the admin involved. Usually we are reasonable folks. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BusterD. Whether required by policy or not, it's clear that had the appellant approached you first, this DRV wouldn't be needed. Feel free to close it. Owen×☎22:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
