Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion Review)
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 (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  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. If a speedy deletion is appealed, admins should treat a lack of consensus as consensus to list at the appropriate forum since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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

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

Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, 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:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 April 20}}</noinclude>.
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 April 20|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>.

Active discussions[edit]

20 April 2017[edit]

Food Future, Inc.[edit]

Food Future, Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Unable to engage in conversation as to why the page was deleted. After suggestions were made the page was deleted without applying suggestions. I am affiliated with the company but am actively trying to get the page re-instated so that I can provide sources for an admin or other editor to review so that they can update the page as they see fit. After my suggestions were made the page was deleted. Sgj 524 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. It was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Future, Inc., which didn't have a lot of participation but was unanimous. It is STRONGLY suggested not to directly edit articles on any company you work for or are otherwise compensated by, as it would represent a serious conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Looking atthe now-deleted article, perhaps part of the reason for the limited participation was that the case for deletion was so obvious, given the overtly promotional nature of the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD closure. Not much participation, but it was sufficient to delete under our guidelines. I can't see the article, but based on the conversation and the comments here, I doubt it would affect my comment here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

19 April 2017[edit]

Tomas Gorny[edit]

Tomas Gorny (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with the admin's decision to delete this article. While the closing admin believes that there are not enough sources for Gorny to pass WP:GNG, I disagree. Several good sources exist about Gorny ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). WP:GNG does not require that subjects have many sources covering them. They just have to be reliable, not connected to the subject, and have the subject as their main focus. Some of the sources used may not have met the criteria, but these do. One could argue that Gorny is borderline GNG, but he is GNG nonetheless, and it would not do any service to readers to have his article deleted and have zero mention of him on Wikipedia considering his notability and considerable accomplishments. It should also be noted that in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 17, Gorny's article was restored after another deletion attempt. I believe this AfD should be overturned to keep. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Overturn The consensus formed at the AfD, which just closed earlier, was the exact opposite of the conclusion made by the closing admin. Some editors pointed out that a few of the votes were likely a result of meatpuppetry, thus further decreasing the number of “actual” delete entries. As I mentioned at the AfD, Tomas Gorny has 8,120 Google hits—this alone demonstrates that he passes WP:N.--Jobas (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn I didn't vote, and don't see any supervotes, so it should have been closed as NC or keep. L3X1 (distant write) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully understand the delete close. The sources are pretty poor and [6] is, IMO, the best of them (I think interviews by significant sources are good indications of notability). But I think it's debatable and that's just not the direction the discussion went. It's not an open-and-shut case for notability, so counting noses matters. Even if you ignore the few users who appeared to return from a wikibreak just to comment in the AfD, I just don't think you can find a consensus for deletion. overturn to NC which I think was the view of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn I think, based on what all has been transpiring around this article and the multiple DRVs here, that there's clearly some advocacy, paid or not, going on here. Having said that, advocacy is not a reason to fail to follow our policies. That was a bad delete close. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hobit, I counted arguments as well as votes, but the arguments won. Jclemens, I didn't delete it for advocacy reasons. Here's what I said in response to the editor who disagreed, on my talk page: "it's not a vote count: as I noted, many of the "keep" votes didn't present evidence, only statements. That Entrepreneur article was brought up. The sourcing is a lot thinner than you suggest, as was argued well in that AfD." Drmies (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I understand. But IMO the case for meeting the GNG is a close one (as you know, I lean toward inclusion so perhaps am a bit more likely to see the GNG being met) and so numbers and arguments matter. The deletion arguments focused on either promotional issues or the GNG. Keep !votes were largely GNG and "just notable". Only the GNG arguments were strong enough to be heavily weighted. And at that point we had a split (leaning keep). I just can't get to delete from that discussion. Though honestly I might well have !voted to delete here (it's a close thing--even the good sources feel like PR spam). Hobit (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh dear Hobit, I know where you stand, and you know I frequently wave at you from the other side, which is sometimes really close. The comments on the (what I call) "thinness" of the sources is what brought me over to the side of deletion. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse as absolutely sufficient delete in considerations to past promotionalism and then the current defense of somehow tolerating it, all of which is sufficient in policy-base, usable anytime. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn I am not sure if I can vote here since I voted in the deletion discussion, but I would vote to overturn and keep. I don't think there was a clear consensus to delete. If anything, it was clear that the consensus was, at the very least, "No consensus" and that the discussion was closed with a unilateral delete decision. To be fair, I am not sure what the protocol is for closing deletion discussions either, but it would seem that if an admin had been favorable to keeping the article, it would have stayed. I know a lot of thought and consideration probably went into the decision, but the same amount of thought and consideration could have reasonably gone into a "Keep" or "No consensus" decision from a different admin. In other words, the decision was subjective (and maybe a bit hasty). Users left plenty of detailed, substantial arguments in support of keeping the article, and I know that mine may have been entirely overlooked because the discussion was closed soon after I posted it. All I'm saying is, this discussion was at least a "No consensus." Gargleafg (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning Endorse. A very tough call. Would have been more easily defended as a "no consensus". Arguments are weak on both sides. The closer risks WP:Supervote by engaging directly in source analysis. I agree, source analysis reveals the superficially good sources are promotion. On the other hand, thepromotion is not blatant. I am reminded again that Wikipedia is not good for covering current business. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AfD was rife with problems not least of which was as Coffee noted in his relist pretty clearly some form of canvassing that all but necessitated the closer to engage in an analysis and weighting of arguments that includes evaluating the claims of the arguments. Drmies evaluated and discounted arguments on both sides, and explained as much in his close. This was a difficult close that probably could have justified any number of outcomes as being within the closer's discretion. Drmies used his in this case, and I think it was a good close for a difficult case. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn, or else, what was the point of a discussion? It is undisputed that the person has done some notable things, and the argument is only about how good the sources are in support of the facts. Everyone seems to agree, some are better than others. If there's a line this is on, let's err in favor of being more informative. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse, the closer essentially had two options: delete and no consensus. Choosing the easy option of no consensus would have just been kicking the can down the road, to an inevitable 5th AFD in a couple of months, and likely a bunch of promotional shenanigans once again (see this for a sock farm discovered during the AFD, for example). Both options would likely have the same eventual result, and one would waste a lot more of editors' time. I can't say the close was incorrect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • But aren't there in fact more than just two options? Seems to me a number of creative alternatives could have been come to. Or the finding could have been "keep" with "no consensus" as the compromise position. Kicking the can down the road with no consensus can be effective if it's to be expected that more sources will develop, as seems sure here. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Relist At the previous afd to this I commented "Rewrite" -- there is sufficient notability, but the article was extremely promotional--as have been a number of related articles. Despite the comments that it was unfixable, the most recent version however was adequately rewritten. It is quite rare that I defend an article written with any degree of promotional intent, and extremely rare that I disagree with the closer, but I don't think the close adequate reflected the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse (as AfD nominator). This debate reminds me of a similar discussion on E3 Media; after several AfDs and a deletion review, the article was ultimately deleted: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 1#E3 Media. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus - The discussion was in no way inclining to a delete as suggested by the closing editor and other editors above who decipher the same from that discussion. It is also worth mentioning that sources like the Chicago Tribune, Forbes, Huffington Post and the Business Insider are WP:RS and they are good enough to establish notability for the subject in question. Seems the person deleting forced a compromise on what was a neutral position between those who wanted the article deleted and those who believed it should be kept as per policy. I also think it is not good practice to compare a deletion or keep discussion of another article, editors should scrutinize each discussion on merits and facts otherwise that is a dangerous path to take. The person who made the last changes that led to the AFD stated his reasons just as an example "... As a former professional in the hosting technology space..." as rationale of the information he added which is against policy thus reinstating this up to the time when editors agreed the content of the article was right is the right road to take here. TushiTalk To Me 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse--Starblind put it beautifully!Winged Blades Godric 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Formula One driver numbers[edit]

List of Formula One driver numbers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer seems to have made a simple head count instead of weigh up the merit of the different arguments. WP:PERNOM, WP:USEFUL and WP:DGFA explain why four of the five keep contributions should have been given little consideration. If those instructions are correctly followed little meaningful arguments in favor of keeping the article remain. I have discussed with the closer, but was unable to find a solution with them.Tvx1 12:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC))

  • Comment. This user is a participant to the contested AFD.Tvx1
  • You are the closer. You can't come here to endorse your own close. That's really poor behavior. Of course you support it. DRV is intended for independent editors to judge the closers actions, not the closer themselves. Besides if you are convinced that none of the presented arguments at all were very meaningful, then why did you cherry-pick keep as a closing action? Wouldn't relisting have been a far better option then? Tvx1 16:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse clear keep close. Nothing else would be justified here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse keep. Based on the discussion, no other close was really possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please read my DRV rationale as to why were here and why I think the keep arguments were given to much consideration. The closer has now admitted that they don't consider any argument to be very meaningful per the AFD guide. In that case at the very least relisting would be the far better option instead of closing as keep or delete.Tvx1 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

18 April 2017[edit]

Picture This (New Zealand band) (closed)[edit]

Natasha Wilona (closed)[edit]

Siberian Republic[edit]

Siberian Republic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Republic. This article is not only restored in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Сибирская республика and ru:Википедия:К восстановлению/18 февраля 2013), but also got the status of a good article there (ru:Википедия:Добротные статьи). On this topic the following is found:

  5. 245
  6. 241
  7. 493

--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

17 April 2017[edit]

15 April 2017[edit]


Balkrishna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page is about one of the richest billionaire in India. Suddenly the user @jzg put it to speedy deletion under G11 policy. We are requesting continuously for a justifiable reason from him but most of the time he is not replying and if he replies its all a dismissive response. How can someone delete a page directly and in fact when its the case about a highly reputed person. If something was promotional he could have highlighted that section or could have informed the modifier to look after it. Page has more than 80+ highly reliable sources including Forbes and many other international and national level publishers. Please restore it. Didgeri (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Temp undeleted, but it reads as really promotional - and thus as a G11 candidate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Not really a G11, as it survived an AFD debate. It could be sent to AFD again, but G11 no longer applies. - Bilby (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The article has a couple of instances of promotional language which can easily be fixed. This isn't a case of unambiguous promotion, which G11 requires. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist at AFD -- this isn't the first time JzG has unilaterally speedy-deleted a fully-fleshed out and well-sourced article without explanation, nomination, or review. His responses to polite requests for explanation here and then here were met with terse non-helpful non-answers. Spam? Where? As a general rule, admins shouldn't take unilateral action to delete an article except in the most obvious circumstances, and this wasn't it. The community, not JzG, should have an opportunity to decide if deletion is justified. What justified the hurry? It isn't all that hard to put a db-g11 or afd template on an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn. It was previously kept at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkrishna - so it is ineligible for speedy deletion, regardless of anything else. user:JzG should know far better than this, and the non-response is unjusifiable. 'm wondering if they continue to hold the community's trust as an administrator? Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    I'm wondering about that myself. Glancing through JzG's logs, I find:
    That's just from a brief look. I know JzG has been combatting articles from a particular band of paid editors, but these (especially the A7 ones above) don't seem to have been deleted for any valid reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Intralase SBK was an article on a commercial brand for a specific type of optical laser procedure, entirely written by two people who sell the treatment. The main sources for Countable included iTunes and Google stores. To You, Moscow, appears, from the tiny amount of text in the actual stub, to be web content, not a film, and thus eligible (I did check, and the source was a Russian animation website). Ball of Wool, you're right, I thought it was web content because the sole source was again a Russian animation website, so I undeleted it, thanks for pointing out my error. Marc Dennis may or may not be notable, but this article was basically a PR bio. I don't have a problem with people reviewing these things though. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Try to remember that a conflict of interest is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Thanks for correcting, but in the future please avoid unilateral deletions like this. And when you are asked to explain on your talk page, please reply with details and civility for a change. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn as G11 is not a speedy criterion applicable to previously-kept articles. The plethora of inappropriate speedy deletions is concerning, especially from an administrator whom we all know knows better. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn as an open and shut case of ineligibility, considering it survived an AFD. But I don't see any indication that this was anything other than a minor and correctable error, lets put the torches and pitchforks down shall we? Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC).
    • I think 'pitchforks' is unnecessarily inflammatory. JzG has another DRV open on this page for a similar G11 deletion, just two days ago. Trends in poor administrator tool use are best addressed directly and promptly, and in a factual manner, focusing like you just did on the difference between expected and actual processes. This is not ANI or RFArb, but rather a forum in which feedback is focused on getting the outcome and process right. I know firsthand what DRV pitchforks look like, and these aren't them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the issue is that has been an outbreak of spamming - the article below was written by a PR person about a book authored by a friend of his and who he promoted widely on Wikipedia, and DGG concurs that it's spam, so I don't think it's at all reasonable to conflate the two. But I don't have a problem sitting back and letting other people judge. I try not to feel ownership here. I saw the article as egregious puffery, others don't, that's fine. However, I might be a bit burned out after the Vipul business, so maybe it's time for a break from focusing on abuse of the wiki. That does tend to induce paranoia over time. I will go back to read-only for a while I think. That is usually the best way. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Highly preferable to burning out! Been there, started seeing everything as vandalism... Be sure to go do something you enjoy, rather than needing to 'protect the wiki'--it's good to feel pride in ownership, but bad to let the vandals steal your joy. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
how did you figure out that it was written by a PR person and his relation with the author of the book and all. Really didn't get your weird logic Didgeri (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rich Hickey[edit]

Rich Hickey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Additional sources added to Talk page, though there are more out there to be sure. In addition, he is the creator of Datomic (which meets notability guidelines, though I will admit the article as it currently stands needs some work) and ClojureScript (which currently redirects to Clojure, but is also potentially a debatable redirect given precedent set by pages like CoffeeScript). As such, it no longer makes sense to simply redirect to the Clojure page. I am not a frequent wikipedia contributor, but I feel that merging and redirecting to Clojure was a mistake, and that in light of additional notable work by Mr. Hickey, it is appropriate to have a page that references not just his work on Clojure, but also Datomic, ClojureScript, his persistent hash-array mapped trie implementation which was picked up by other language communities, and so on. Devin Walters (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Start a draft. I'm not sure this needs to get dragged through the heavyweight DRV process (especially since the AfD was five years ago). Discussing it on the article talk pages and gaining consensus there seems like it would be sufficient, and certainly less administrative overhead. Be that as it may, I suggest that the best way forward would be to write the article in draft space (i.e. Draft:Rich Hickey) and then start a discussion of it (either here, or on the talk pages). If there's a concrete article for people to look at and evaluate, it'll be easier to gain consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Start a draft. I closed this AfD nearly 6 years ago - the version that existed then didn't show much independent notability, but there's no harm in creating a new draft and submitting it, especially as some extra sources appear to have surfaced. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow reversion of the redirect, based on new sources, and the old AfD decision being a very close call. No need for drafting in DraftSpace. Devin will bring it up to scratch immediately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

13 April 2017[edit]

Recent discussions[edit]

12 April 2017[edit]

United Express Flight 3411 (closed)[edit]

David Dao (closed)[edit]

Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids[edit]

Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is an improper application of CSD G11 by JzG. I'll post my position from my discussion with JzG on their talkpage (slightly edited):

From WP:CSD#G11 If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. The WP article is simply the synopsis of the book, followed by its reviews in various publications, including the WSJ, The Guardian, NYT "Economix" blog and the NYT parenting blog. The WP article doesn't say so, but there was an article on the book in the National Post as well. There are 25 citations to the book on Google Scholar; to take a typical one, this article in Psychological Bulletin.

Leaving aside notability, CSD G11 is only in the case of unambiguous promotion, with little chance of dissent. JzG is free to believe that the article is completely promotional, but I don't think so; and I doubt I'm alone in this opinion. If it goes through AfD, I won't object.

Here is a link to the version of the article before it was deleted. Kingsindian   11:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have left a notice on Wikiproject Economics. Kingsindian   12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Nothing could possibly be more important than giving SEO spammers their link juice (especially when it also boosts their friends), so fill your boots. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't find the article in Google's cache. Can we get a temp. undelete? Hobit (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My comment: this could probably be re-written without the spamlinks, which are primary sources anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Could you elaborate on what spamlinks do you mean? Kingsindian   04:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The EconLib stuff written by Caplan himself, for a start. Actually, the more I look at it, it's not massively notable and should probably be redirected to Caplan's article. You could sum in up in two sentences. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I see that the article has 32 references. I count exactly four EconLog posts by Caplan there, about his own book. Even if you remove everything written by Caplan (others are in venues ranging from the WSJ to NYT parenting blog), that still leaves around 24 references. Even if you arbitrarily remove half of the remaining references, that still leaves more than 10 references. How many articles about books have this?

I went to Economics and finance book stubs and clicked on five links randomly. Knowledge_and_Decisions, The_Second_Bounce_of_the_Ball, Economics_and_the_Public_Purpose, The_World_Economy:_Historical_Statistics, Other_People's_Money_and_How_the_Bankers_Use_It. None had more than three references, and even if you include external links, none had more than five.

In my Wikipedia career, I have started three articles about books. The Man Who Loved Only Numbers (my very first contribution to Wikipedia), Anarchism: From Theory to Practice and Leg Over Leg. None have more than three references.

From WP:Notability (books), a book is notable if: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Isn't this condition easily satisfied? All I'm arguing is that CSD is not the correct way to deal with such an article. If the article goes through AfD (and people think it ought to be redirected to the Caplan article), I would have no objections. Kingsindian   12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think the fact it does have 32 references (many of which are, as Stifle says below, regurgitated press releases) would be suspicious in itself, though. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore and fix seems like a reasonable article, and other than what does look to be spamlinks, it's a decent article. Don't think it qualifies for G11. That said, I think we may be at the point that sanctioning editors for doing things like this is past due. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sanctioning someone for fighting spam? Brilliant ideas, there. As for the article itself, it looks more like a reasonable press release than an actual article, and I'm not seem any sign that of any actual impact other than a few book reviews. So arguably fits as a CSD G11. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, should have been more clear. If people are using articles for SEO and that's a known problem by known editors we should do something about it on a larger scale rather than stretching G11 to cover something that (IMO, apparently not shared by those below) it doesn't fit. I am suggesting sanctioning those creating SEO-focused articles. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Borderline, but certainly not an "improper application of CSD G11". --Calton | Talk 04:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, basically a linkfarm to regurgitations of press releases. No objection to anyone recreating an article from scratch. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    • This confuses me. G11 is for stuff that that can't be easily recovered. Most of the sources sited are reliable including the Guardian and the WSJ. It would be trivial to remove the linkfarm references. I'd do so, but it's generally considered poor form to edit an article that's been temp restored. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
      • OK, I've created a cut-and-paste draft to show what such an article might trivially look like. It does result in two relevant sentences not having cites, but I think given the nature of the claims, I'm not overly concerned. And I don't think it's G11. Link to draft. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse I agree it is borderline, but applying G11 to it isn't an improper application of the criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Bad G11, though consistent with current practice of bold admins having wide discretion to force issues by misusing CSD. Bad G11 because some content could be used. The article should be redirected to Bryan_Caplan#Selfish_Reasons_to_Have_More_Kids. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Overturn. Bad G11. Some wishing for G5 to apply doesn't broaden G11. Until paid editing or other COI editing become objective and speediable, these things can only be sent to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse Good G11. If the book is notable someone else will write about it. Material like this is better removed than kept and edited, because advertising should not be left in the edit history. However, I do not really support single = handed deletions like this. If intead the delting nom had just tagged it and let some other admin delete, I doubt that it would be even questioned here. Avoiding doubt is one of the purposes of having someone else check, not just avoiding error. I feel just as strongly about article like this as the deleting admin, but I don't do it this way. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
They are not the same person. Vipul knows Caplan and is friendly with him, and vice versa. From a quick skim of the mind-numbing detail on Vipul's paid editing activity, I don't think that there was any payment for the article. Even if there were, it wouldn't be a problem, since it was disclosed. Kingsindian   09:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
If a PR writer write to help their friend, the result will almost inevitably be PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

*I can't believe I'm reading this. This is insane. Not only can you not CSD this, it should not even go to AfD where it would certainly be kept. The book was written by a George Mason University professor. It got a full review in the Guardian and NPR, so just that alone is enough to meet WP:GNG (and there's a lot more). And it's not even that promotional. It's pretty much matter of fact. (Maybe it's been fixed -- must have been.) Since it easily flies past GNG it would most probably be kept... you're going to take an article that would pass AfD and speedy-delete it? Really? That is not what speedy deletion is meant for. I mean... I get it, I heartily dislike the author, to put it mildly. But there's no CSD criteria for "I don't like this guy or his book, deleted". And it doesn't matter how many "Endorse" votes there are; it's not a vote. You can't CSD this period. Stop even thinking about it. This is not what speedy deletion is for. Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Striking my vote and comment above. I did not realize that the article was written by Vipul Naik. Obviously, like all his edits, it should be rolled back on sight. Herostratus (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether it should be salted, or just deleted and let someone write a new article from scratch... that's an interesting question. The book itself passes WP:GNG... but there are other questions here, related to the defense of the Wikipedia. If the connection between the article author and subject is true, and the subject is an anarcho-capitalist... this is not a good situation. Anarcho-capitalism is not another kooky political belief, it's more like... you have to deal with an anarcho-capitalist editor as you would with a Sandy Hook truther editor or Jews-did-8/11 editor... You can't be a good anarcho-capitalist and not not feel fully justified in twisting and subverting the Wikipedia's rules for your own pecuniary ends... you can't shame or embarrass these people.
Given that, salt. It's a matter of WP:IAR and defense of the project against overt attack. Salting the article will deprive us of one single article on one notable book, but will discourage further attacks, so its a net benefit to the project. Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: That is quite an astonishing turnaround, if I may say so. What "attack" happened here? Someone wrote an article about a book, two years after it came out? What Wiki-crime did they commit? Contra DGG, it is not always the case that "if the book is notable, someone will write an article on it", as is evident here. As far as I can determine, this article was not written for pay. And even if it was, they broke absolutely no rules here; everything they did was openly disclosed. Your comment about "all [Vipul's] edits should be rolled back on sight" has no basis in policy or practice. Finally, what is this action supposed to prevent? Vipul has already suspended operations, and it's unclear if they plan to continue. I urge you to rethink your position. Kingsindian   15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes sorry about the 180. I did not realize that the article was written by Vipul Naik, a toxic editor. I'm also basing this on an assertion made above. That's all I can really say about that since we're not supposed to discuss these things. I thought it over, and I changed my mind, based on WP:IAR and defense of the Wikipedia, is all. It's a bad look for me but I can't worry about that and I'm not going to defend my initial mistake.
If "this article was not written for pay" then so much the worse, actually, under the circumstances. If it had been written at random, just somebody picking up an entry on the notable-books-we-havent-covered-yet list, that'd be fine. Was it? No, I don't think so. "broke absolutely no rules here"... man, you don't know who you are dealing with here. You cannot have anarcho-capitalists in your system is all. It's no end of pain and will not end well. They have to be discouraged. Just as we'd delete an good article on a notable subject by a banned user, so we should delete this, for much the same reason, and possibly salt. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Promotion spam, could potentially be re-written completely from scratch by a previously un-involved, non-conflict-of-interest, third-party, editor, NOT using same material of the promotion spam as the starting point for such a new article. I've looked over the drafts and still, even in the very subsection titles themselves, reeks of promotion spam. Sagecandor (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: Keep in mind that this is a CSD, not an AfD. Let's compare this article to the last book you AfD'ed, Snakes in Suits. The article version when you AfD'ed it had zero, yes, zero links to any reviews or any indication of notability. Yet people found a few reviews of the book in the press (fewer than this book, by the way), and the AfD was closed as a unanimous "Keep". Almost everyone's !vote rationale (correctly in my opinion) was based on the notability of the book, not the article content (see WP:ARTN). Even now, after the AfD, the article reads much more "promotional" than the article for this book. AfD has a much higher bar to clear than CSD, which is meant for unambiguous cases. This is because CSD bypasses consensus, unlike AfD. I would urge you to reconsider your position and support sending the article to AfD instead (if you think it is worth deletion). See also my comment below, which is addressed to the page in general, rather than you in particular. Kingsindian   02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here are five reviews of the book: the WSJ, The Guardian, RealClearMarkets, Wired and National Post. None of them are "regurgitated press releases". I have already noted 25 citations to the book on Google scholar, including one in Psychological Bulletin. I find it surreal that this is a CSD we're talking about, not even AfD; and people are saying that it is ok to blithely delete an article on the book without any discussion at all. From WP:CSD: Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.. Also Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Even looking at the discussion here, WP:SNOW would not apply in an AfD. Kingsindian   02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn The question is if (1) subject is notable in this case I would say it is, notability for books requires at least 2 independant commentary or reviews about it. In this case I count 7 RS's discussing the book [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] including Washington Times and NPR, so there are more than enough mainstream press that have discussed it. The second requirement is that the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, which in this case I think is at least plausible. I'm not even sure it qualifies as Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. This is not a WP:LINKFARM there is no listing of links or anysuch thing that would qualify it as that. And if it was written by Vipul Naik, that doesn't change anything about what the content of the article is. Obsidi (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

10 April 2017[edit]

9 April 2017[edit]

8 April 2017[edit]

29 March 2017[edit]

Timeline of Monsanto[edit]

Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter, the closing admin wrote:

G11 speedy deletions overturned. The articles can be nominated at AfD by anyone inclined to do so. I am only restoring the articles mentioned in the review request because only they were the subject of substantial discussion here.

I am listing in this new DRV the pages not mentioned in the 18 March 2017 DRV nomination.

These timeline pages were not listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter:

  1. Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  2. Timeline of GitHub (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  3. Timeline of Airbnb (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  4. Timeline of online advertising (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

These redirects to the timeline pages should be restored if the timeline pages are restored:

  1. User:Simfish/Timeline of LinkedIn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  2. Twitter timeline (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  3. History of Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  4. Instant Personalization (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  5. Facebook timeline (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  6. User:Simfish/Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Why? User pages redirecting to spam articles written for money> Really? Guy (Help!) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

These talk pages of the timeline pages should be restored if the timeline pages are restored:

  1. Talk:Timeline of GitHub (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  2. Talk:Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  3. Talk:Timeline of online advertising (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Pinging deleting admins: JzG (talk · contribs) and Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs).

Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter participants: Kingsindian (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Ethanbas (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), and Jclemens (talk · contribs).

I recommend restoring the pages since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter has shown that the speedy deletions are controversial.

Cunard (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy Overturn all Look, the default action for a contested speedy should be 'send to AfD', and Sandstein's closure is unfortunately, and I believe unduly, narrow. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No objection to sending to AfD, I only deleted one of these anyway I think. ♠PMC(talk) 11:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore with liberty to list at AFD individually. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore some may be usable for merging, some not. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, blatant spam, violation of Terms of Use, and frankly this determination to give the spammers what they paid for is mystifying to me. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I've yet to hear a full-fledged argument for why people think that. The other articles by-and-large looked fine and spam free. Is there actual spam in these articles? If so, can you point at it? Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reserving my judgement on this until I see some sort of explanation of the claim that these were the work of undisclosed paid contributors. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC).
    • I'm not intimately involved with the situation, but this archived ANI thread is a pretty comprehensive discussion of the situation. ♠PMC(talk) 07:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I find it understandable that an admin could think this obvious enough to delete. But once they knew it was controversial, why force a deletion review instead of just taking it to afd? DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • restore all. Once a CSD has been objected to in good faith (excluding copyright issues) then the page in question is not eligble for speedy deletion, regardless of the content of a page, who authored it and why. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • restore all per above. I'm not seeing why this is spam, and if it is, it isn't clear enough for a CSD to be dealing with it. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


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
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
  1. ^ Giudice, Teresa; Baker, K.C. Turning the Tables: From Housewife to Inmate and Back Again. Gallery Books. ISBN 978-1501135101. 
  2. ^ Leonetti, Phil. Mafia Prince: Inside America's Most Violent Crime Family and the Bloody Fall of La Cosa Nostra. pp. 289–90, 295. ISBN 978-0762454310.