Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.


Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); 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. 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. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 December 6}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 December 6|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]

6 December 2016[edit]

5 December 2016[edit]

Journal of Global Information Management[edit]

Journal of Global Information Management (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as no consensus, but I believe most of the Keep !votes should have been disregarded. Specifically, it was asserted that meeting a criterion in WP:NJOURNALS conferred notability even in the absence of any reliable independent sources. The journal is indexed and has an impact factor (0.3, which means that the vast majority of papers are never referenced - it would be rejected as a source for most claims on Wikipedia), but the fact of being indexed is sourced directly to the index, in the form "foo is in bar index, source, foo entry in bar"; and the journal descriptors in these indexes are all supplied by the publisher, who also, naturally, applies for them to be indexed. So we have no reliable independent sources that allow us to validate that the article is neutral. Is it a good journal or does it publish firnge rubbish? We don't know. Well, we know it's not good with that impact factor, but the point is we cannot verify that the self-description supplied to the likes of SCOPUS by the publisher, is neutral. The major problem here is that editors who are fans of journals, are using inclusion in an index as a sufficient condition for notability rather than a necessary but insufficient criterion, which is how subject notability guides should be interpreted. That's fine if you want to compile a directory of journals, but WP:NOTDIR, and we must be able to WP:V the WP:NPOV of an article from reliable independent sources. Here, there is no independence. The delete !votes correctly referenced independence, whereas the keeps went with "it ticks box X so it is notable regardless of the absence of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse, although in well-contested cases such as these I wish the closers were required to to include some explanation. To my reading, the vanity press allegation was well rebuffed. The lack of "reliable independent secondary sources" was not. The essay Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion applies.
    The failure of "no reliable independent secondary sources" to persuade the participants to agree to deletion is no surprise to me, fitting my long standing observation that WP:Notability (the source of the reliable independent secondary sources language) applies different thresholds for different fields. The natural world, non-fringe science, and distant history get an easy run. Profit-making and advocating organisations, and recent events in the popular media are tested more critically. Is this page of scholarly value to the project, or is it surreptitious promotion. I think participants recognised that the 23 year old scholarly journal is not here as surreptitious promotion. And this is why WP:N is only an essay.
    I also thing that User:KGirlTrucker81's !vote to merge to a list of journals (my reading) is underappreciated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Novelists from Shanghai[edit]

Category:Novelists from Shanghai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The category was deleted eight months ago (along with other "Novelists from..." categories based on first-order divisions of China). However, I would like to request that the matter be reopened. Category:Writers from Shanghai is a sufficiently large category that it really should be diffused by genre, I think, and many other Chinese provinces/special municipalities will also face that situation eventually. I think novelists are a sufficiently distinctive category that it would be a good way to diffuse to start with. (Further geographical diffusions are going to be difficult and not particularly useful, so I think genre diffusion has to be the way to go, unless we want to go for era diffusions, which I also think will be unhelpful given that Shanghai is a modern city and therefore the vast majority of writers from Shanghai will be of PRC origin.) I also think that analogous categories for other first-order divisions (provinces and special municipalities) should be restored, but let's start with discussing about Shanghai, as that category is, as I just mentioned, large and cannot be diffused by geography. Nlu (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rich Riley[edit]

Rich Riley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am not sure where to go but this seems as good a place as any. Please direct me to the appropriate forum if I am incorrect. I am here because I keep being told (see below) that this page has a consensus to redirect yet I cannot locate any discussion which from what I read, would have been part of a deletion discussion.

  • On October 6, 2016 I removed a redirect for a page and created content instead [1]. In less than 2 hours, an editor named Rayman60 removed my edits and redirected the page to Shazam (service). [2] No rationale was given for reverting my edits; however, the editor left a warning on my talk page stating “Please do not attempt to create the article for Rich Riley as it has been recently decided by consensus that he is not notable enough to warrant an article.”
  • Fair enough. I looked at the talk page of the article to find such an agreement amongst editors and saw none. I did further searching and believe – correct me if I am wrong – that a consensus to redirect a page would come from a discussion on deletion. I was unable to find any deletion discussion and nothing on the talk page that would lead me to believe there was one.
  • On October 11, 2016, I again added the content to the page [3], leaving an edit comment of “I can't find the consensus you reference on my talk page. Please refer to the talk page here as I'm not sure it should be deleted without such consensus.”
  • TWO MINUTES LATER, an editor named Lemongirl942 reverted the edits [4] with an edit comment of “consensus is to redirect this page.”
  • Again, I had already asked to see the discussion, but none was provided. Only reverting of my content and then leaving warnings on my talk page [5]. One warning says “You made a bold edit, it was reverted by Rayman60. Now you need to discuss.”
  • Lemongirl942 then left a note on the article talk page threatening to block me – “Multiple editors have agreed to redirect here. That is consensus. Now please refrain and stop POV pushing, otherwise you will be blocked.” [6]. The problem? I did discuss it on the talk page. Twice. [7] & [8]. The only discussion came after Lemon girl redirected the page and threatened to block me for what I believe is simply disagreeing with her. [9]
  • At this point, I am confused as to how an editor can revert content based on statements they cannot show me (despite asking multiple times), then threaten to block me for not discussing the edits (which I have tried by others have refused to take part in). How do I add content back without the threat of being blocked? Is this considered a deleted page? Has this gone through a deletion discussion where the consensus was to redirect? I would appreciate any answers I can get, hopefully without getting blocked by Lemongirl942 for disagreeing with her. --CraigOv (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • You appear to be a recent registrant and a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. You are therefore suspected of having a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please declare any conflicts of interests, such as association with Rich Riley or Shazam, on your userpage, at User:CraigOv. Even if no conflicts of interest, it would be nice if you told us something about yourself. You will then be taken more seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 07:39, 7 August 2016 User:Lemongirl942 BOLDly "Redirecting to Shazam (service). BLP1E and subject is best known for Shazam". I think that was a good edit by Lemongirl. It was not a pseudodeletion as the material all has a place at the target, Shazam (service). I recommend denying this DRV request, and instead recommending using Talk:Shazam (service) to seek consensus for a spinout article. An important reason for doing this is to avoid content forking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. This discussion is not about a deletion and the appropriate forum for a discussion is the talk page, as SmokeyJoe suggests. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

4 December 2016[edit]

1 December 2016[edit]

Mannequin Challenge[edit]

Mannequin Challenge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per WP:ROUTINE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:109PAPERS. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the news coverage died down when Fidel Castro kicked the bucket. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse the Delete side argued particularly badly here, but ultimately all the places the OP links to above boil down to judgement calls and the judgement of people in that discussion was overwhelmingly that we should have an article about the subject. Hut 8.5 19:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • endorse not news is a potential argument here, but consensus went (strongly) the other way. Correctly IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Clear consensus. Even if not kept, it would be a merge and redirect, "delete" is not plausible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Consensus was clear, and the profile of the challenge has only gotten higher and more notable since that !vote, with Presidential candidates, First Lady, White House, Taylor Swift, etc. participating. Questionable judgment to list it here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI, for most of a week, it had more than 100,000 pageviews per day, showing people were seeking out this article and reading it. [10]. It also links to seven other languages, giving some indication that other language communities have found it notable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The article has two tags at the top that look like Russian versions of {{notability}} and {{refimprove}}, and most of the other 6 are either stubs or translated from the article. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It shows that at least six other individuals from other language communities deemed it significant enough to have an article. I don't understand this crusade that you are on, that has now spread to you nominating an entire navbox on Internet challenges for deletion - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_1#Template:Challenges Can you please explain your disdain for everything related to this article? You are very much in the minority. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse, close was in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sigh, but endorse. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first. There's no way this could be closed any other way given the discussion. The job of the person closing a discussion is to summarize the consensus of the members of the community who showed up to express an opinion, and in this case that consensus was clearly to keep. But, this article is a poster-child for WP:RECENTISM. I realize the horse is out of the barn already (and miles down the road, in the next county), but our job shouldn't be to record the latest internet memes and trending social phenomena. Yet, that's where we seem to be these days. It's a sad commentary on the state of the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a bit dramatic to say that just because Wikipedia records Internet memes as well as art, culture, science, traditional areas of scholarship that it is "sad." If the White House and presidential candidates have participated in it, isn't it just fine to say, "Seems goofy, but it's notable, and I'm glad people 50 years from now will read about it and the possible cultural impact it's had?" -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Reluctant endorse. The discussion could not have reasonably closed any other way. As User:RoySmith says, this is recentism at its finest. The concept has created an internet meme, and just like the ice bucket challenge and the range of other things that go crazy on the internet for a few weeks, nobody will care about it in a year's time. Suggest renominating a little down the road. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

30 November 2016[edit]

Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico[edit]

Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

!.) Article deleted back in March. Issue, however, continued to be a campaign theme. Today it's making national headlines again as Trump/Pence announce that Carrier has been persuaded to reverse its decision. New York Times here: [11] Carrier's move to Mexico was the campaign's emblematic example on offshoring, the issue that seems to have won the rust belt for Trump. Insofar as I remember original article, which I wrote, it was objective and well-sourced. If it is brought back, I will edit/bring it up to date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As closer, I suggested to E.M.Gregory that they gather consensus on an appropriate project or article talk page about whether this news changes Wikipedia's opinion about whether the topic should be covered in its own article as opposed to in existing articles (e.g., about the company, or about Trump). Might as well happen here, I guess. I myself have no opinion about that issue.  Sandstein  16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Note that I did not dispute the close last March. My point now is that the situation has changed, dramatically, and I would like to recover the old article's text and edit history to start an update on what is now, again a major story that users will expect to be able to find on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • To get a sense of the significance of this idea to the Trump campaign/administration over the course of what is now almost a year, scroll down this search of WaPo articles. [12].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Just my opinion here, but this story is big enough to save Trump in the electoral college election on December 19.  Trump just announced a major press conference on December 15 to (IMO) subvert the constitutional legal challenge on emoluments in the electoral college.  Is Carrier encyclopedic?  I'm not a fan of guessing the future, but that doesn't ever seem to stop the newspaper writers around here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Perfectly reasonable call of a rough consensus to delete. Clear reasons to delete were articulated, without effectiveness counter arguments. Other statements were made, not sure what to do with them, there may be a way forward, but undeleting the article is not it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I am not questioning Sandstein's decision to delete. I am asking to have the article restored because the political conversation around that Carrier plant had changed so dramatically. The deleted article can be conveniently reduced to a good first section, and the article will be expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait... did I do this wrong? Should I be asking for a view of that page, so that I could condense, and use it as the first section of a new article???E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore/relist the AfD was eight months ago and not particularly well attended, the topic has moved on dramatically since then and it's very hard to argue that AfD should be at all binding now. Gregory: I'd be happy to email the content of the deleted article to you, just leave a note on my talk page. It is rather dated and will mostly need rewriting anyway. There isn't anything actually preventing you from starting a new article at this title as long as your version shows some kind of improvement over the deleted one, although I wouldn't recommend using the exact text of the deleted one (as it would be a copyright violation unless an admin restored the history). Hut 8.5 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd lean toward userfication and then restoration rather than immediate restoration and listing. But yeah, what Hut said. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Userfy  An ongoing news bubble continues in the central US, and I checked both and where I can verify the presence of international coverage.  People have been wondering why Pence has not stepped down as governor of Indiana, and now we get one answer.  Another big name in this news story is Sanders.  I also find it interesting that the Republican-oriented news is reporting 2000 jobs saved...while the liberal-oriented news was initially reporting 1000 jobs, and now it is 800; with $7,000,000 shifted from Indiana tax payers to Carrier.  Here is an article published in Australia that cites a professor as saying it is "uncommon for extensive negotiations to take place prior to the president-elect taking office."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. There is definitely a developing story. Not sure it is is ready for an article, but it could well be soon. Userfication is a way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to draft space or userify/ DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, userspace would work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at the name of the article, that could be an issue, too, as I believe that it was Carrier furnace that remained in Indiana.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

28 November 2016[edit]


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

The fact that articles of this left news website have been cited or copied by many scholarly books, papers, & Russia Insider means that it is notable hence should be kept instead of speedily deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • overturn speedy, list at AfD [13] is probably enough to overcome an A7. Not sure if the article had it there at the time. Also has Annie Machon as a contributor. Not sure it would live through an AfD, but it probably isn't an A7. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Send to AfD the article didn't include Hobit's link and didn't mention Annie Machon. It did assert that the subject's articles have been copied by and Russia Insider but I don't think that's much of an assertion of significance (and certainly not notability). It did cite sources but virtually all of them are clearly not independent, the exceptions being two Russia Insider links. The article did assert that three people with articles are contributors: Norman Solomon, David Swanson and Martin A. Lee. I think the article as written was somewhat borderline but on the right side of the border. Hut 8.5 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, Consortiumnews is now considered to be a website spreading "Russian propaganda" by PropOrNot (cf. [14], it clearly says that the Washington Post have reported this website), meaning it is somewhat notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, just looking at it made me think of RT and the rest of Russia's propaganda machine. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Send to AfD. Sounds worthy of a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Send to AfD. I would have declined the CSD A7 as the article has assertions to four notable people in the first two sentences. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. Tempundeleted for review. I'm usually a hard-liner about WP:CSD, but I honestly don't see how this indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant, so WP:A7 seems reasonable to me. Still, running it through AfD for a week won't do any harm. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Any editor* seeing a db-a7 tag posted can remove it, making it a7-proof meaning it must go to AfD. If there is any* a7 protest, just send to AfD. (*the incompetent article author not included) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd say that the notable people involved and the Park Foundation support are pretty solid reasons for this not to be an A7. But YMMV. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No overturn - The 'author' of the article (in RekishiEJ) edit warred the article in as a WP:COATRACK as some form of subsidiary article in the Robert Parry article. When I finally cleared it out of there, the editor transferred the crud tossed out of the Parry article verbatim... so being a WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:SPA whose presence on Wikipedia is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is something to be rewarded? I'd also like to remind editors and admins of WP:INHERITORG: what does four notable people in the first sentence have to do with Consortiumnews being WP:N? Sorry, but a coatrack is a coatrack is a coatrack: and there are plenty of editors who'd latch onto this in the same manner as they've tried to embrace any kind of article to counter anti-communist articles, so there is harm in tossing it out there. While I may sympathise with an imbalance in literature and mainstream studies, referencing and Russia Insider as anything other than biased sources is a good litmus test for how far you need to reach to scrape the bottom of the barrel for WP:RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I think we'll end up with a deleted article. But given the award and the notable people involved, it's probably best to do so at AfD rather than as a speedy. Also, the Park Foundation support is yet another reason why, IMO, this wasn't a good A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Ultimately, if it remains, it'll hardly be unique in a long list of highly dubious Wikipedia newsorg articles. I guess they're just a pet peeve because there's so little in the way of RS regarding the integrity of the org, the reader is not presented anything of substance other than the fact that it exists, and some people think it's terrific while others don't. Call me an exclusionist, but some things really ought to be relegated to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS pile. Ooh, goodness, how exciting! I might start shaking my fist at the monitor soon! Nah. I know that the cosmic order isn't contingent on trivia, but there's still occasionally stuff that gets up my nose. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Eatsa (closed)[edit]

26 November 2016[edit]

25 November 2016[edit]

24 November 2016[edit]

23 November 2016[edit]

22 November 2016[edit]


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