Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion Review)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
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.

Purpose[edit]

Shortcut:

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 was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or

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

Shortcut:

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion[edit]

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

Closing reviews[edit]

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

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

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.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

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:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

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.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 July 7}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 July 7|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:

 


Active discussions[edit]

7 July 2015[edit]

6 July 2015[edit]

Draft:Akissforjersey[edit]

Draft:Akissforjersey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This now clearly passes GNG, for the latest reviews on their album New Bodies, along with the HM Magazine story. It passes BAND, due to the reviews, and the charting of their latest album New Bodies, by meeting Nos. 1 and 2 on the criteria list. The title has been blocked from creation, and SALT, refers me to this forum, where it states, "or use the deletion review process." The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

5 July 2015[edit]

MattyBraps[edit]

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

The article failed to follow WP:MUSICBIO at the time of the deletion (March 7th, 2013).

Since the deletion of the MattyBRaps article in 2013, this young rap artist has gained quite a huge global following. He now averages 90 million views/month on his Youtube channel, is the #1 music artist in his age group, has appeared on numerous TV shows and news interviews, and recently performed at Race to Erase MS. I believe the aspiring artist deserves to have an article on Wikipedia, and that his deletion deserves to be reviewed. --MichelleDson33 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse - Appears to be the same largely weak coverage as before; essentially "man bites dog" stories about a 10-yr-old rapping youtuber. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore - several of these in depth sources post-date the discussion, there's no way it could be applied now, and it was probably borked in the first place. The idea that he needs to meet a much higher standard than WP:N (articled in the AfD, and repeated by Tarc here) is foolish. For subjects with persistent, in depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, there's an onus to argue for deletion, beyond dismissing it with "There are only secondary sources because people find this entertainer entertaining". WilyD 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Francesco Schettino[edit]

Francesco Schettino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On June 5, 2015 an editor redirected the “Francesco Schettino” (FS) biographic article (about 18K) from the English WP to "Costa Concordia disaster", apparently on the basis of a still-standing decision that had been made in 2012, then a consensus opinion [1]. The 2012 cdecision was based on 2013 on BLP1E: [2].

It should be noted that the BLP1E guidelines include this section: “In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate “ (my bolding).

Currently the “Costa Concordia disaster” article has grown to 188K, and anybody who wants to know something about FS has to read through this overly lengthy article and try finding relevant information. Much has been published about FS since 2012 invalidating the 2012 decision. Further, by redirecting the reader, information has been lost including material about his background and his legal defense. I submit that FS, based on extensive and ongoing coverage since 2012 should be covered in a biographic article. He is clearly noteworthy and more famous than the vast majority of contemporary people covered by WP. Importantly, there is a real demand by readers. Since the FS article has been removed, about 4,400 hits have been registered on Francesco Schettino in the last 4 weeks.

I believe that WP is doing a disservice to its readership by redirecting the biographic article to Costa Concordia disaster and request that the biographic article about FS should be reinstated.Ekem (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore and relist at AfD. I compared the redirected version and the rewritten version. {{db-repost}} clearly does not apply because the new article is roughly four times the size of the redirected version. The new version uses 24 sources compared to the nine in the redirected version. Ekem advances a reasonable argument about WP:BLP1E that should be discussed in another AfD. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore. There is no doubt that this case is covered by the BLP1E exception that "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". The article will need updating, but it should survive AfD, and I am not convinced that automatic relisting is necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore as per JohnCD. Costa Concordia disaster is so large an article that Francesco Schettino can't be covered sufficiently within. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The AfD discussion appears clear, however, it was held in the few weeks following the event. Now that it is years, the subject is tried and convicted, and an historical perspective is available, it is appropriate to allow re-creation and optional retesting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore - with optional AfD if someone actually wants it. It's clear he's been the subject of ongoing biographical coverage, (e.g., the CNN profile that's the 2nd new reference) and the discussion's outcome hinged on the (now demonstratably) false assumption there'd be no such on-going coverage. WilyD 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the most appropriate venue would have been the article talk page, but enforcing a redirect after so many intervening events is foolhardy. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Atomium 320 by 240 CCBY20 flickr Mike Cattell.jpg[edit]

File:Atomium 320 by 240 CCBY20 flickr Mike Cattell.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria, see User_talk:Penwhale#Atomium_image. 9carney (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Also relevant is the exchange between the nominator and とある白い猫 (talk · contribs) here regarding this image:
    Cunard (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Reading the deletion discussion for the previous image, which was deleted on the grounds that the Flickr CC licence was not verifiable, should be enough to reverse the speedy deletion and restore the image to the article. We can then proceed with our normal careful and thoughtful processes of review for compliance with all other policies and guidelines. 9carney (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I just do not understand what there is to discuss. We need to have legal grounds how the file can be freely licensed. Belgium does not have FOP and that is that. It is not a mater of "copyfraud". If you can find an exception even something like this one, we would not have an issue. Another alternative is seeking a freely licensed photo from the copyright holder through OTRS where the file would be released with a free license. Now that would be a best case for all of us. They can decide the resolution, angle, lighting etc. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn - FOP isn't a problem, the image has a non-free use rationale for a depiction of a piece of art (essentially) for use in an article about that piece of art. Perhaps the Fair Use Rationale template's phrasing needs a slight tweak, but it's fundamentally good. WilyD 14:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Image was validly used under Wikipedia's fair use policy. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn and restore image. I rather suspect that the image does not have copyright protection at all under US law, but that is not relevant here. Assuming that it is in fact fully protected under US copyright law, it is used on Wikipedia under a claim of Fair use, that is, in accord with the WP:NFCC. That claim looks valid to me. But if an editor thinks that it is not valid, there is a proper procedure for contesting such claims, which does not include speedy deletion. The validity of a superficially plausible fair use/NFCC claim needs discussion, not an unreviewed decision by a single admin. WilyD and 9carney are correct above. DES (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kadar Brock[edit]

Draft:Kadar Brock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock was 5–1 to allow recreation. But Spartaz did not restore the article because:

The consensus was that the G4 was not justified but Guy subsequently deleted the graft on the basis of undisclosed COI editing and G11. That action is outwith this discussion and in the case of undeclared COI editing, the community feels strongly enough about this that am not prepared to undo Guy's action without a specific consensus at DRV to do so.

I am taking this back to DRV to seek that "specific consensus".

G11 applies only to:

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.

JzG wrote at the DRV: "Google the name of the creator: 'Studio Administrative Assistant at Kadar Brock Studio'." But G11 doesn't authorize speedy deletion of a draft when there's an undisclosed COI. It only authorizes speedy deletion for "exclusively promotional" pages.

I have not verified the creator's job title and workplace because I do not know who created the article. But Googling the subject and revealing his or her information here seems to strays too closely to violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing. WP:OUTING says that "personal information" includes "job title and work organisation".

When I reviewed the draft, I believed it was well sourced and sufficiently neutral. It did not violate WP:G11.

Restore draft and move to mainspace to enforce the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock.

Cunard (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • restore as per previous consensus. This was not a blatently promotional text of no value to the project. It needed copy editing, as most relativly new articles do, but it was sourced and the subject was pretty clearly notable, IMO. The statements made were factual, if generally positive towards the subject. One quotation was rather positive, but it was a sourced and attributed quote. If it was WP:UNDUE the solution would be to find a balancing quote or statement, or at most to remove the quote. As to any alleged COI editing -- I have not seen the evidence behind such a claim -- it is strictly beside the point. COI editing is not a reason for speedy deletion. Frankly this deletion strikes me as disruptive, if not arbitration-worthy, after there was a clear consensus to permit restoration. I am strongly tempted to restore and source the artticle further myself without any additional discussion, as in my view none is needed to enforce the previous DRV consensus. Any promotional nature of that version would have bean fully appareant to those viewing the draft at the DRV discussion, and the consensus clearly did not view this as promotional, much less blatently so. The content, not the author, is what makes an article promotional or not. WP:CSD says, in pertinant part, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria" If multiple experienced editors supported retaining the draft, it was not an obvious case for G11 deletion, so this deleteion was withotu consensus and to the harm of the project. I urge Guy to reveerse his action promptly. DES (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • restore as per previous consensus. In general, I've been very impressed with Guy's work, but this particular action really surprised me. The first DRV was clearly heading towards a consensus to overturn the previous deletion. That's not the best time to jump in with, OK, maybe not G4, but I'll play my G11 card and trump your consensus. DES gets it all right above. I wouldn't go so far as calling for arbitration, but I can see some trout swimming not too far away. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on Cunard's concern about outing: Wikipedia:Harassment says that "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted (as is the case here) such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence I quoted comes immediately after yours, and starts with "However", so I think it is stating an exception to the general rule. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The "However" sentence you quoted applies "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted". Where has the user identified that he or she is a "Studio Administrative Assistant at Kadar Brock Studio"? Cunard (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cunard: I see your point, but if the "However" exception doesn't cover a case like this, it is pretty meaningless. To say that in considering COI we must close our eyes to information openly displayed on someone's LinkedIn or Facebook entry, because looking at it would be "opposition research", is going too far in protecting spammers. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion of disguised COI editing. This doesn't preclude anyone creating a neutral article. Since notability isn't in question I really don't understand why Cunard has to bludgeon the debate with all those sources. They could have simply written a new article in the time it took to format that lot Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how providing a list of seven sources is now considered "bludgeon[ing] the debate". The sources were provided to definitively establish that the subject is notable in case anyone had any doubts and wanted to take it to AfD.

    It takes far longer to write a new article with those sources than to find and format those sources. If you or anyone else wants to write a new article using those sources, then you are free to do so. But I think the draft article is sufficiently neutral and see no need to waste my time duplicating the creator's work. Cunard (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

    • Where exactly is "disguised COI editing" a deletion reason, speedy or slow? How exactly was the draft blatently promotional? DES (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn - speedy deletion shouldn't be applied to articles kept or restored in discussions (except G12). It's not a bludgeon to delete pages where you know you couldn't get a consensus to do so in a discussion. WilyD 08:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore per DES. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations[edit]

Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed as "no consensus" after barely seven days. Ten people left input but for an article on bilateral relations, this is insignificant; the AfD was largely hijacked by one editor's inclusion of a draft essay that caused drama. Closing admin's judgement that enough people had commented was flawed IMO, and there is no harm in allowing this to remain open to gain an actual consensus. I feel input of more people is needed here and will be helpful to avoid further drama if article is relisted for deletion. МандичкаYO 😜 06:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse After a substantial 7 day discussion , where clearly incompatible but reasonable views are expressed by established editors, especially on a topic where there have been man inconclusive afds, there's really no necessity to relist instead of closing no consensus . Some admins would relist in this circumstance, some not--either is an acceptable option. The appeal here is unnecessary--you can just wait a few weeks, and list for AfD2--the reason for waiting a few weeks is that its more likely to result in a conclusive discussion. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist, Northamerica1000 is a frequent relister of AfDs, so why this one was not given the same treatment is curious. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing to see here, move along. This is silly. I might have relisted this, but I don't see anything wrong with closing it as NC. In any case, do something else for a while, then relist this per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion if you must. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Relisting is done when there has not been sufficient discussion. A "tie" discussion is closed as no-consensus, as this one correctly was. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse There was no consensus at the discussion and there was a reasonable level of participation, so per WP:RELIST relisting is not a substitute for a no consensus close and it was a reasonable decision by the closing admin. Davewild (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

4 July 2015[edit]

Ryan Lollis[edit]

Ryan Lollis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was re-created because Ryan Lollis was promoted to Major League Baseball, indicating he will make his debut there soon, which makes him notable under WP:BASE/N. A deleted article already exists that is much more thorough than the new one that was created. Alex (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is that he's made one step closer to meeting WP:NBASE (which is on a page which says GNG has to be met anyway), so someone recreated it despite him not actually meeting it, so we should ignore a previous deletion consensus and restore a previous article?--86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The second he plays in a major league game, he will be deemed notable. And the odds of him playing in a game are about 99.5%, since those who get called up but don't play in a game number in the dozens. So, yes. Alex (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Well according to the guideline you've pointed to he still needs to meet WP:GNG, so the second he plays he won't necessarily be deemed notable. If "called up" is good enough, why isn't that what the guideline says? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, what it means is that anyone who's been called up is presumed to meet the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
So you it means something different to what it says? Since it says nothing at all about being called up. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, I phrased that poorly. If he plays in a regular season game then he's presumed notable. Otherwise he's just on the 40-man roster and nothing's changed. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse It's very well accepted that he will not be notable until he plays in a regular season game. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Permit recreation the moment he plays in a regular season game. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • {{db-repost}} clearly does not apply to the article since the subject recently was recently promoted to Major League Baseball. Please speedy restore the article's history under the redirect since this is an uncontroversial request. This will allow the deleted content to be merged into this new article. Anyone who thinks the subject still is not notable will need to nominate the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cunard (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Routine coverage in local rags when he was a college player do not support a claim of notability, despite the usual squeezing-blood-from-a-stone efforts above. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I endorse the original deletion as the only possible outcome of the discussion. Not sure what else we can do here as the new article is an improvement on the original article with additional sourcing, so a G4 speedy deletion as a repost would not be valid. Probably relist at AFD as I expect until he actually plays a game the consensus at AFD will be to delete but I could be wrong. Davewild (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

3 July 2015[edit]

AVS Video Editor[edit]

AVS Video Editor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted referring to the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (2nd nomination). However, the fact is the new article was not a simple recreation from the previously existed page, it was a completely new article with another content that meets the wikipedia guidelines of notability and has good references to reliable sources. The content of the page is now completely different: there is a good description of the interface of the program, service it provides and the process of the development of the program (its history) since 2003. Concerning the sources, there are published books, journals and university researches. The article was created through Articles for Creation page, was reviewed, approved and moved from Drafts page to Articles by a wikipedia editor. The editor who approved the article and moved it from draft space to articles has not given any recommendations on the improvement of the page. Please see Portal:Poland/New article announcements AVS Video Editor started on 2015-06-15, score: 20. NeviRom (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Send to AFD; having reviewed the two versions of the article they are different enough, and the new one has sufficient extra references, that it seems inappropriate to speedy-delete under G4. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn G4. G4 only applies to pages which are A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy. I'm looking at the current version and the version that was deleted at AfD; they are substantially different, including the addition of several new references, so G4 clearly doesn't apply. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (2nd nomination) had a grand total of one comment besides the proposer, so it really should have been relisted, or at best treated as a soft delete. The current article may still go down at AfD, but that's the right forum to decide, not G4. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strictly not a G4, but a G11, as expected given that it was largely the work of a WP:SPA who also edited the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored history for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Send to AFD Staszek Lem (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn The G4 speedy deletion was invalid as the new article was not a substantial copy and does seem like an improvement on the original version. I don't think it meets the G11 speedy criteria either as exclusively promotional and needing to be fundamentally rewritten. I do think the original closure of the AFD as delete was fine as it had been relisted once and both the nominator and the one other opinion made reasonable arguments for deletion. Once this deletion review is closed anyone can renominate at AFD if they think it should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

1 July 2015[edit]

Misty Edwards (closed)[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

29 June 2015[edit]

Furhatguild (closed)[edit]

Mark Methuen (closed)[edit]

Stagecoach West Scotland Route X50[edit]

Stagecoach West Scotland Route X50 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
For some reason, the XfD link isn't appearing above. Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stagecoach West Scotland Route X50 -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it was entered. Fixed now. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I am currently doing a lot of research online for this and I also note that I have added a new source that seems to be ignored in discussions. I believe that the article is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse - You never supplied any sources in the discussion, AFDs don't get put on hold just so you can add sources ...., To be honest if you have found anything I wouldn't of thought it would've helped anyway so either way this would've got deleted anyway. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Pablothepenguin seems to think that this is a rerun of the AfD. It isn't. He should read WP:DRVPURPOSE, and stop wasting people's time with irrelevances. The consensus in the AfD was clear, unambiguous, and based on the fact that bus timetables and similar trivia self-evidently don't constitute the in-depth third-party coverage required to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And now the article has been restored, we can all see the 'new source' - a brief comment by the regional transport authority to the effect that the route in question had a service contract awarded. Not third-party, and of no relevance whatsoever regarding notability. The sources cited do nothing beyond establish that the bus route exists, and that buses run on it occasionally... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a press release by the business itself, which does not count towards notability. Nevermind the userfication, you can't make something out of nothing. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Well everyone above is spot on - The source is pretty much useless here, Lets be honest if this article was in any way notable they'd with out a doubt be much better sources than that one added, It's simply a non notable bus/coach service. (Thanks JohnCD for kindly undeleting the article - Much appreciated). –Davey2010Talk 20:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment by closing admin: it is true that the OP added this reference after all four delete !votes had been cast, but it mentions the route only as one of three which have been awarded a subsidy, and is not "significant coverage". The discussion was open for a further five days, none of the delete !voters changed their opinion, and I saw no point in relisting. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment by PROD'er and nominator: I found this at Special:NewPages, which I patrol at a 10-day offset. The WP:PROD was removed without improvement so I nominated for deletion. So the creator had two ten-day notification periods to find refs. I have no problem with recreation, userfication or creation via the Draft: namespace; but I'd be surprised of there are the sources to support any of those. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse The closing admin read the consensus correctly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious Endorse AfD had near-unanimous consensus to delete. The only opposing opinion cited no policy-based reason. Let's not waste a week on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse- There is no other way the AfD could have been closed. Claiming that you're going to go find sources out there somewhere is useless unless you can actually produce them. Reyk YO! 08:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - needing time to work on an article is why God created User:Pablothepenguin/Sandbox. What she offers, I can't augment with anything helpful. WilyD 09:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of scope. Deletion review is a venue to discuss issues where the deletion process has not been followed correctly. It is not a place to re-argue deletion debates that you "lost", nor to gain a "second bite at the cherry" if the discussion didn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse obviously correct deletion per WP:NOTDIR. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse Consensus at the AFD was clear for deletion and the closing admin could not have reasonably closed the AFD any other way. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Klingspor Abrasives[edit]

Klingspor Abrasives (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was WP:CSD#G11'ed last night. It's an article that has been there for some time, on a company that makes well-known products within its little field. It's not Ford or Apple, but nor is it G11 material. I don't know how long the G11 had been there, or if it was posted by the deleting admin, but it was on my watchlist and I never saw it light up until the deletion. I would request restoration so that I can take a look at it, and probably neutrally AfD it so that we can have some visible consensus-based choice over deletion.

This morning it has been recreated from scratch as a tiny stub. That's a GF action but a bit silly overall. If we regard this as a suitable topic, we ought to at least recover the large article first. It seems that article has now been half-AfDed by another new editor who is having trouble navigating deletion processes.

I've not raised this with the deleting admin as, since it was recreated, I can no longer see who that was. If anyone can see who, please let them know. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've simultaneously found that for myself.
Is anyone having trouble getting Special:Log to work at all? I see errors from it most of the time at present - along with not being able to edit for lost sessions, and the toolserver being broken... Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen this, and obviously I'll accept GF decisions. I have to say that the current stub, just a list of products they sell, is probably worse than the version I deleted. That at least had some history. FWIW, the references for that version were awful too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So can we get the old version back please? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Assuming the deletion review closes in favour of overturning the discussion after it has run for a week, yes, that will be the outcome. We try to stand on process here. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
We regularly do temp restores for the pupose of review. I see no reason not to do that for the previous history in this case (and have done so). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn - User:DGG previously declined a G11 request. If you're honouring G11 requests he's turning down, you're doing something fundamentally broken. WilyD 09:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I make errors--especially for G11, which requires more judgment than the other criteria, and even more because I usually concentrate on the borderline cases. The proper way of correcting them is to ask me, or to bring the article to afd. A second speedy for the same reason is not allowed, because it shows the matter is not uncontroversial, and requires discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore and list at AfD. I doubt this will survive AfD, but I've found enough in the way of sources (toolcrib, wood magazine) that it has some chance. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: when I made the above comment, I was looking at the stub-ish version which existed at the time. The current version seems more likely to be kept at AfD. It still has problems, but is clearly not in G11 territory. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The deleted page did not meet the wording of WP:CSD#G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The article is basically informative. It has one major problem. Several first's are claimed based only on issued patents. Issued patents which have not been tested in court are inadequate evidence for this, because there are too many technicalities involved--it's an incorrect use of Primary sources. I think it will survive AfD, but anyone who disagrees is welcome to bring one. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn Agree that this should not have been speedy deleted under the G11 speedy criteria. Once this deletion review has closed then anyone can nominate at AFD if they think it should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

28 June 2015[edit]

27 June 2015[edit]

25 June 2015[edit]

23 June 2015[edit]

Archive[edit]

2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2011
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December