Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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]

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).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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

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. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[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, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, 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|date=2018 November 19}}</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:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2018 November 19}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2018 November 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • 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, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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).



Active discussions[edit]

19 November 2018[edit]

14 November 2018[edit]

Michael_Sayman (closed)[edit]

13 November 2018[edit]

Draft:OurPath[edit]

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

Speed Deletion Sdfish78 (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there - I'd like to contest the deletion of this page, which was deleted under section G11 of speedy deletion - saying that it is unambiguous advertising.

I'd like to understand how this page could be both rejected and deleted (especially when I have updated the page based on revisions - the revisions of which have not been reviewed).

There are various other pages of UK SMEs with similar notability, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purplebricks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexoo

Including health specific startups, that have not had the same criteria of mandating medical journal references (despite the fact that there are actually medical journal references in the article I wrote):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Health

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_Surgery

There are doubtless many more, but this is just a cursory search.

If there are objective measures for reviewing pages, then clearly stating why these pages pass the acceptance criteria and mine does not would help improve the article. Sdfish78 (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't know for sure if I'd have deleted this under WP:G11. Probably, but possibly not. But, my real reason for responding here is to talk about how collaborative projects like Wikipedia work. You stated earlier that you are a student journalist. An important part of journalism is listening. In the talk page thread linked to above, it was explained to you that using the existence of other wikipedia articles is not a useful argument. So, why do you make that same argument here? Surely you don't expect a different result? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Why does my background have anything to do with this? That seems like a an arbitrary comment - followed by what I presume is a rhetorical question?

If someone is looking to understand the truth and learn, then they will ask questions. The response I received did not make sense to me. The answer wasn't satisfactory. I'm not saying that to be inflammatory - I'm saying that because I do not understand.

I spent a long time writing that article, so regardless of any outcome of this - I would really appreciate learning how I can get access to the original material at the very least.

It was also disappointing that my resubmission was not reviewed and it was then deleted. Hopefully you can understand why that's confusing for someone new to Wikipedia.

Thank you Sdfish78 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I think deleting that under G11 in draft space was a bit harsh, but it was definitely heading that way and it would qualify for G11 in mainspace. @Sdfish78: I've sent you an email with the draft contents. Hut 8.5 19:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I too am not sure it was a G11, but it certainly would be unlikely to pass AfD if it were in mainspace. It is possible to get around the MEDRS requirement by not making any claims for its effectiveness in human medicine, but of course that makes it harder to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! I received your email, Hut. As far as I can understand, there aren't any medical claims in the draft article. A medical claim would be "the product reduces HbA1c by 14 mmol" or "prevents type 2 diabetes".

Stating that the company has a TechCrunch article with the headline "raises $3m to reverse type 2 diabetes" isn't a medical claim, but a quotation of a media outlet. I'm sure I'm wrong, but it is really helpful for me to understand!

Sdfish78 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The draft did claim (first sentence of "media attention") that the company's services could reduce type 2 diabetes. That's definitely a medical claim. Hut 8.5 07:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

12 November 2018[edit]

List of Xbox games with HD support (closed)[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

11 November 2018[edit]

Ethics of animal research (closed)[edit]

Michael Mills (musician)[edit]

Michael Mills (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted in 2014 because there was no evidence the subject passed the WP:MUSICIAN criteria. I presented the evidence I collected to the closing admin - User_talk:Joe_Decker#Re-creating_Michael_Mills_(musician), but he seems to be taking some time off. asqueella (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment looking at your post and reviewing the sources, I'm not sure under what WP:MUSIC criteria he would now fall under/how he passes WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see any harm in allowing a draft article to be written, though I think it's an uphill battle to show notability. SportingFlyer talk 16:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore to draft I'm not sure the sources presented amount to evidence of notability (indeed one of them was actually in the previous version), but it was a sparsely attended AfD four years ago and the bar to draftifying should be low. Hut 8.5 19:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @SportingFlyer: and @Hut 8.5:, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!
I gather a draft would eventually have to go through another review of its sources to determine which WP:MUSICBIO criteria are met. If so, I'm still hoping someone would clarify what's wrong with the sources I've found and if I'm misapplying the criteria, as that would help me determine if it can be fixed by finding more/better sources -- otherwise there's little point in working on an article, is there?
I didn't just post random links from Google, I picked a few independent and not self-published (and not WP:UGC), as "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have .. considered the musician .. notable enough that they have .. published non-trivial works". (Arjen reportedly said that he found out about Toehider via one such publication.) Definitely not a WP:GARAGEBAND, while obviously not high profile - I wouldn't waste everyone's time if I didn't think the criteria were met...
Perhaps DRV is not the best place for this kind of discussion? (I assumed that my case fell under "new information has come to light since a deletion" - since the original AfD didn't discuss any specific sources.) Is there a better one? --asqueella (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion: the Beat article violates MUSIC #1, since it's a good article but not for notability: advertisement for a gig/interview with Mills himself, same with the Brag article. The Background Magazine review is difficult to tell whether it's self-published or not, though it may be okay (perhaps I'm put off by the website's layout?), and the Huffington Post's article is not substantive coverage - it's a brief mention of his recording, and the headline calls him a "man," which isn't a good sign. He hasn't toured Australia as a solo artist and the coverage of his bands which have toured isn't substantial, and the coverage of him performing nationally isn't independent (Australian Musician is a promotional tool) and J-Play is about his band. I don't see any other prongs of MUSIC he would fall under. SportingFlyer talk 03:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, I appreciate you taking time to share this; very helpful to see the details. Not to argue with you, but to clarify some points:
- I picked Beat/Brag as the 50/50 or so split between the original text and supporting quotations felt like a feature, rather than "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". And I judged Background based on their About page, not the layout ;)
- HuffPost used "man" to indicate this is a male singer, as the song is a bit out of range for a typical male vocalist, and vocals is one of Toehider's strengths. I included it to probe what kind of coverage is expected for MUSICBIO#1, since I can't think of other types of in-depth coverage other than features and reviews, and it isn't "trivial" in the WP:GNG's "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." sense - it's what the whole short piece is about.
- On touring: if by "solo" you mean performing alone on stage that would be hard to pull off as a rock band... (Toehider studio records are him alone, which he can do in the studio thanks to being a multi-instrumentalist.) I already acknowledged the disagreement as to what constitutes "touring" and "non-trivial coverage" and only included this bit in hopes of getting clarification of how this policiy is usually applied - there doesn't seem to be a value in mentioning tours explicitly in the policy if tours need the same type of coverage as for WP:GNG. Same reasoning for the TV/radio bits.
Anyway, thanks again for your time. --asqueella (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, headlining a band that doesn't appear notable (I haven't spent any time looking at this apart from checking to see if they have an article) will almost certainly not be notable enough on his own without some sort of other notable career, unfortunately, and his band is the context of most of the sources. SportingFlyer talk 00:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I treat Toehider more like a pseudonym for Mills than a separate entity, but I realize how that might have been confusing. --asqueella (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Worsley[edit]

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

6 to 3 in favor of keep (including nominator default delete vote) and there was good arguments provided by keep voters (the amount of sources mentioned some of which are reliable and more than in passing) at worst this was a no consensus. This AFD close in short made no sense. JC7V-talk 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the AFD, I'm not sure how I would have closed this. I agree that the sources don't seem very good, but we generally allow reviewers at AfD a fair bit of latitude on evaluating the quality of sources. There was a certain amount of obvious socking going on, and some of the arguments to keep were clearly non policy-based, but there were also some reasonable keep arguments from established editors. I've tempundeleted this for review here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Change to no consensus The close is a little to close to a supervote. The view that the sources are as good as can be expected for the subject may or may not be correct (it is not my field) but is a reasonable keep argument, and some of the people making the argument are knowledgable WPedians. (I would say quite the opposite if they were SPAs--a proper role of a closing admin is to partially disregard SPAs, but not to evaluate whether other WPedians are correct. That decision needs to be made by the consensus, not by the admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse considering there were a couple SPAs, it's not a !vote, and the two best keep arguments were generally rebutted (whether the award passed WP:NMUSIC, whether the sources passed WP:GNG) by the other delete votes. It's a tough call but this is one of those where either no consensus or delete would have been appropriate, and nowhere near a supervote. SportingFlyer talk 20:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC. I agree the sourcing isn't the greatest (and I'm pretty far on the inclusion spectrum), but as far as I could tell, there were a number of editors in good standing who felt the sourcing was enough given the nature of the person's work. And there are enough sources that keeping isn't crazy. I don't see a consensus to delete here. The closer probably should have !voted instead. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. Try as I may I cannot find a consensus to delete here. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the sources are both independent and contain more than a mention, if that. Interviews are not independent sources and don’t count towards demonstrating notability. I don’t know what the Keep !voters were looking at. Beware WP:Reference bombing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Relist. The discussion needed more source analysis. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC Regardless of what I might have done had I voted, I don't see a meeting of the minds favoring deletion, nor can I discern a reason in policy requiring it in light of the discussion here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC not enough consensus for delete Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Dollshot[edit]

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

Dollshot was deleted at AfD, then recreated as a virtually identical copy. SportingFlyer brought this to my attention on my talk page and I ended up deleting it under WP:G4. Artaria195 disagreed with my deletion, but has resisted my suggestions that DRV would be a better forum to argue their case than my talk page, so I'm opening this on their behalf. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I was doing AfC patrolling and noticed a bluelink to this page. It sounded familiar to me, so I followed it and remembered I had been involved in an XfD. I checked the page and it didn't appear to contain much if any new information since the date of the XfD, but I can't view history to check for G4 (non-admin) so asked RoySmith in an attempt to continue learning Wikipedia procedure, who confirmed and deleted per G4. SportingFlyer talk 02:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The new sources are [1] and [2]. The first is primary. While the second is something, it's not much; between that and the lack of substantial change to the content, this shouldn't be overturned outright. I'm not in favor of another AFD, either, given the transparent and completely unrepentant sockpuppetry at the first one. —Cryptic 03:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your comments. This article was updated with two new sources that when added to WNYC and NPR easily pass WP:NBAND #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The first new source is an interview with the band which helps the case for notability based on the fact that its an interview by an independent third party. According to WP:USEPRIMARY: "Again, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." In this case, both The Annie O interview and the New Music Box article are highly reputable, reliable, note self-published, and independent sources. In addition, they are clearly not the only sources being cited, as I also understand that on their own they do not pass WP:NBAND #1. What does that mean that the BlackBook source isn't much? It's a detailed feature in a prominent music magazine and blog with a distribution of 150,000. It seems like editors commenting on source quality are not familiar enough with the press outlets and their importance in the music scene. NPR and WNYC are nationally broadcast, major media outlets (Dollshot was featured alongside Kesha in this source). BlackBook is a very prominent magazine and blog that recently did a feature on the band (see above). NewMusicBox is the foremost publication in New Music, and they commissioned a full piece by Dollshot asking the band to talk about their music. The band was interviewed and presented by a 'venerable' music presenter (BlackBook's words not mine, so independent and objective). Not to mention the many in print album reviews and concert listings Dollshot has received (NYC Jazz Record, TimeOut NY, Red Hook Star Revue to name just a few). It's frustrating to me that standards are being applied to this article that aren't being applied elsewhere, stemming from objections early on from a couple of editors. Artaria195 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If the consensus is that my article on Dollshot is not ready to be published in the mainspace, would someone be willing to return it to my sandbox for future editing? I will wait until I can find more sources to prove notability before resubmitting, if the consensus is against it this time. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

StarForce (closed)[edit]

6 November 2018[edit]

DevSecOps (closed)[edit]

Mt Washington Fire Protection District (closed)[edit]

5 November 2018[edit]

The Mountain Witch (closed)[edit]

Archive[edit]

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec