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);
  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.



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]


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 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=2015 August 31}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 August 31|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]

31 August 2015[edit]

29 August 2015[edit]


2600hz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was being debated as valid. The editor who nominated it for deletion did not work to improve the article first, and contributors to the article contested that. Then the original editor who nominated it started working with another contributor to clean up the page after the deletion was contested, so that the page could be brought up to date and additional notable sources could be cited. I believe the page was deleted because it reached the 7-day period for review and the majority answers were Delete, but the Deletes were specified prior to the page receiving a clean-up. Per Wikipedia rules, an article that may be relevant and is just poorly written or cited should first have the opportunity to be updated before being nominated for deletion. You can see an active discussion (still ongoing) about the content of the page here with the editor who originally nominated the page for deletion. Darren Schreiber (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse - consensus was assessed correctly by the closing admin. User:Darren Schreiber is the creator of the deleted (and later userfied) article, and declared a COI on his user page. (Disclosure is required per WP:AFDFORMAT which applies also to DRV.) Kraxler (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse as once the single-purpose accounts' (and I wonder how many of them are possibly pictured here) votes are discarded, the consensus was to delete. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Tarc The assumption that only 2600hz employees are the ones commenting as new users is unfounded. Please review guidelines related to the ones you're enforcing (and feel free to check the IPs via WP:CheckUser ) and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, specifically toward new users Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. You can not assume that commenters are socks or part of a COI without some sort of proof. Being new is not sufficient for making this assumption. Darren Schreiber (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
New accounts...or in a few of the cases, long dormant accounts that had not edited in several years...did not just arrive that the deletion discussion by sheer happenstance. Whether they are employees or users or friends is irrelevant, but they are almost certainly one of the three. If you're looking around for this project's guidelines and essays and whatnot to cite, have a read-through of one of my favorites; AGF is Not a Suicide Pact. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It's an open-source project. They're users of the project. They did not arrive by happenstance, they arrived because we discussed the pending deletion in a chat channel about the project. I would think they'd be considered experts on the subject matter being discussed since they use the project and also absorb general telephony industry material. They don't get paid, don't work for us, and thus there's no COI. They're just genuine users.
I read your "AGF is Not a Suicide Pact" article, it's not relevant to my point. I think you're missing my point. You could still endorse the AfD but I don't think you should be dismissive of the new users. Your link to the picture of the 2600hz team is presumptuous and could be interpreted as inflammatory. I linked several official policies (as opposed to your opinion article) which explicitly state that you should not attack new comers or make assumptions about who they are.
To make my point super clear, had you stated "once the single-purpose accounts' votes are discarded, the consensus was to delete." your response would be much more appropriate and would carry the exact same weight. You didn't need to ad-lib with that little comment there about the 2600hz team. Darren Schreiber (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So with ...they arrived because we discussed the pending deletion in a chat channel about the project..., what we have is a confessed case of meat-puppetry. I think we're done here. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Excellent close, correctly ignored WP:SPA comments which failed to provide any policy-based arguments. I also looked at all of the references provided in the list at the bottom of the AfD. Not a single one qualified as a WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
RoySmith This really is an honest request, and not an attempt to be combative. Can you provide some samples of what would qualify as WP:RS for technical organizations who sponsor open-source projects? (For example, say, FreePBX or Asterisk (PBX) or SIP Express Router) . I'm struggling to understand the way admins interpret the standards. Darren Schreiber (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn Perhaps the WP:SPA was ignored. However I was working directly with the admin who requested the deletion initially. Yes It required cleaning. However, I strongly disagree with the statements that TechCrunch, GigaOm and SDTimes are not reliable, independent or notable sources. From all research, while 2600hz may not be a household name, being invited to present at TechCrunch Disrupt SF should not be taken lightly and that alone, anyone in tech who is objective and neutral can conclude, they'd meet the requirements. neurosys_zero (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Neurosys zero (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Disclosure: User:Neurosys zero took part in the AfD under scrutiny here, and !voted "keep".

28 August 2015[edit]

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎[edit]

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I hadn't realised that this category was being discussed, and I am quite surprised that it was included in the bundle of other categories to be deleted. The Order of the Netherlands Lion article says that it "could therefore be considered the Dutch equivalent of the Order of the Bath," and "since 1980 the Order has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature." I can only assume that this was included by mistake, since the subcats of Category:Order of Orange-Nassau were not nominated. I would also like Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion restored. There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the discussion may have been open for two months, but I didn't know it was going on. The first indication I had was when I saw the category had been removed from Ellen van Wolde (for whom the category evidently was defining). StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This gets back to the content of all previous CfDs about awards. The argument is that it is not defining for her. It is her occupation that is defining - while the award is merely a sign of appreciation for the work that she did in exercising her occupation. This is the typical argument that has been used throughout all these discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I closed the discussion and just wanted to make a brief comment. I didn't elaborate on the reasons for closing it as I did, but note that this nomination was one of a series of several CFD discussions regarding these types of awards bestowed by countries. In all of the recent discussions, there has been a consensus to delete. By pure vote count, this one looks close, but taking all of the related discussions into account (which I did), and especially in light of the categorization guidelines, I don't think it's that close. (I endorse my own close, for what that is worth.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (as the nominator): the recent discussions that User:Good Olfactory is referring to are the ones that pop up in this [[2]] list. There are quite a few of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Alas, none of us can watch everything. I would have !voted keep on every one of the deletions. Categories are navigational deices and meant to be useful. Looking for other people who have received a notable award is useful. That they include major heads of state of other countries does not detract from it. For articles, we can overcome even a justified clear consensus deletion by writing a better article. There's no such mechanism for categories. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. From my reading, the nomination statement and the bulk of the delete comments on the CfD were about political honors, and inapplicable to categories such as this one devoted to artistic/scientific honors. So as an off-topic afterthought to a long list of other categories, it has not really had a proper discussion. No prejudice against relisting individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist for more discussion on this category. The reasons for deletion were too perfunctory given that there was opposition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

26 August 2015[edit]

What's 9 + 10[edit]

What's 9 + 10 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Has enough sources for inclusion, prematurely speedy-deleted Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse textbook example of non-notable web content. Had no sources at all at time of deletion, only reference was to knowyourmeme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • endorse fair close, and fair enough opinions at AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse the only source cited was [3], which is clearly not a reliable source. There were no assertions of significance, the article's only content was a description of the video. Hut 8.5 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Recreation Because Knowyourmeme is reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158#Know_your_Meme, and I've found another mention/source, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Struck the recommendation as this is the nominator and that counts as their vote. It might be helpful to explain how that single source meet the needs of WP:GNG ort is even a WP:RS. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Per this (and several similar discussions) Know Your Meme is a user-contributed wiki with some degree of oversight from an editorial staff. This particular entry has not been "confirmed" by the editorial staff, so it's effectively a page on an open wiki. An entry which has been confirmed might not be a terrible source for some information within an article about a meme but it's hardly something to use to demonstrate notability. The discussion you cite does not demonstrate that the site is reliable, only that one person thinks it's reliable. The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog, a very brief post there doesn't establish the notability of a meme. Hut 8.5 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy. Knowyourmeme is a reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content; I see no discussion to show that inclusion it in is a reliable source for notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Endorse and Salt. There's an extremely low chance of reliable sourcing with this one other than Knowyourmeme. Not notable at all and possibly a vandalism target. -- (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Valid application of WP:CSD#A7, and valid reading of the sentiment expressed in the AfD for a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse per above. If someone had a reasonable objection, it should be discussed for a week. I don't see a reasonable objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

25 August 2015[edit]


4shared (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notability seems to have increased. Worth noting on Italian Wikipedia that an article creased in 2010 has been undeleted and is still up in 2015. The 2010 nomination problem was that it was not notable, and the 2012 deletions cited this reason as well. Since then, it has received some notable coverage.

‹See Tfm› Find sources: "4shared" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library Using 'news' I found it:

Part of the initial concern was that the article was created as an advertisement, I do not know how it originally looked, but it should be possible to recreate is as a kind of stub to simply mention how it is considered a notable file-sharing website. Ranze (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I had speedy-closed this, but it was pointed out to me that my reason for doing so was flawed, so I've reverted my close -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • permit recreation The G4 speedy deletion were mostly invalid as the new article was different to the old. Also A7 speedy delete was invalid as there were claims of importance and the promotion was not so bad as a G11 would apply. However I did not see suitable independent sources. SO I wolud recommend any recreator find references first. Original AFD was valid however. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt. While not all the linked sources may be reliable it still is enough for a recreator to propose new content for this article. -- (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Clear case for unsalting the page.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

IFA Paris[edit]

IFA Paris (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello together, so we are quite a big French fashion school called IFA Paris. Our entry existed at until about a week ago. You can check the talk and history page, but basically we did update some information, but it might have sounded too promotional for some people and we worked hard to reduce the promotions and edit the text as well as incorporate information only with trusted sources. We did have sources for everything we claimed, but they weren't good enough for some of the Wikipedia community. We were working on removing information and updating sources when all of a sudden the page was gone. FYI, the French and Chinese versions of the Wikipedia page still exist. We know there obviously is a conflict of interest, so please can someone write a neutral article on IFA Paris and reinstate this page? Thanks. Nikki38394724 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what you want to do is add your entry to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Schools, colleges, and universities. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore or permit rewriting The final version was not promotional. Earlier versions were highly promotional, but the change was not noticed in the afd. I note that it is a degree granting school, but it would very much help to write a replacement article if there were some information about accreditation.--the statement in their FAQ is ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ DGG (talkcontribs) 20:41, 25 August 2015

Thanks so much, I have put a request where you said. Hope the format is ok there. Any idea on how long it usually takes until someone gets around to writing it? Thanks! Nikki38394724 (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It varies widely. Any volunteer can choose to accept any of the requests on that page at any time, or it may be that no one will ever accept a particular request. Frankly I no longer recommend use of that page because of frequent long delays. DES (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • keep deleted It still had promotional aspects when deleted, but the primary reason for deletion was a lack of independent sources establishing notability. I wouldn't object to a copy being recreated in draft space under the AfC project, and subject to AfC review before being moved back to mainspace. However, I and other editors sought for sources and were unable to find any that established notability. DES (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
As for "We were working on removing information and updating sources when all of a sudden the page was gone." the nominator was notified in this edit about problems of promotionaolism and lack of sources before the Afd was opened, and in this edit of responses to messages the nominator had posted on the talk page of the AfD. In addition, the nominator posted several times on the talk page of the article during the AfD, asking that the deletion process be stopped in response to various changes in the article. Some of these involved removing promotional content, but none involved adding significant reliable sources. But in any case, the nominator here was very much aware of the AfD and of concerns about sourcing prior to the AfD, and did not provide useful additional sources. DES (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Searches revealed no notable coverage. I fully agree with the AFD. -- (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

24 August 2015[edit]

Alex Gilbert[edit]

Alex Gilbert (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page achieved notability. Was accepted to the Main Space and then removed. It's now at Draft:Alex Gilbert. Please look at the sources on the page before commenting. It is clear that it is a notable article. It was even approved by a reviewer. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I can't see any evidence that the subject has ever had notability. It's been through AfD twice and was deleted on both occasions.-gadfium 05:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes it was deleted twice. For different reasons. Not relating to why it shouldn't be in the Mainspace now. read the sources on the draft. Clear notability. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation. The last AfD was closed 20 July 2014. There are several sources in the draft published after that AfD close. Here are two:
    1. Hurley, Sam (22 August 2015). "Whangarei boy who traced Russian roots helps fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines". Television New Zealand. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015. 
    2. Newlove, Alexandra (August 7, 2015). "Russian adoptee shares stories". The Northern Advocate. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved August 7, 2015. 

      The article notes in the first paragraph: "A former Russian adoptee raised in Whangarei is helping other adopted people share their stories."

    The coverage of Alex Gilbert's efforts to "hel[p] fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines" indicates that there is a good faith argument that WP:BLP1E no longer applies.

    The sustained coverage of the subject one year after the AfD indicates that concerns about the coverage being transitory were wrong. From the AfD "subjects of this kind of coverage have no ongoing notabiity (sic)" and "The amount and duration of coverage were limited, and fall short of establishing Gilbert as an ongoing notable individual."

    Cunard (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse continued deletion. Nominator stated "Page achieved notability" but then brought forward absolutely nothing to back that up. This is pretty clearly a self-promotion attempt, and there's very little reason to imagine yet another AFD will result in anything other than yet another deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This page is a self promotion?? It has achieved notability from the sources on the article. As stated before. It's clear. Read and look at the sources. Thanks DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - A kid who got a smidgen of press for finding his parents via social media. Textbook WP:BLP1E, draft has no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is not just notable for him finding his Birth Parents. The sources clearly cover his book and page that was covered in the press. Not a smidgen of press. This article was reviewed and was passed as notable. People aren't reading the article clearly or the sources. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. NOT TABLOID and NOT NEWS are the governing policies. There is no actual notability here. His film career is not notable, & there is no indication that his book is either. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - per DGG and also it's borderline BLP1E, the only event being his adoption on which he is trying to capitalize. Kraxler (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

23 August 2015[edit]


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

I am here to request the undeletion of the article Checkmarx ( It was previously deleted numerous times and then blocked from recreation. It was deleted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. You can refer to the previous link for the deletion discussions associated with the content.

First, I am not receiving compensation to write this article. I read the guidelines on conflict of interest and want to make sure that is clear. I do have a connection with the company which is another reason I am here. I have created a draft in my sandbox that I would like reviewed and if appropriate, have the article unblocked and restored to the version I created. I believe it is non-promotional in tone and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines.

The reason I feel it warrants undeletion is because the last deletion was in 2013. Prior to that time, the company had little press that showed it to be notable. Unfortunately, it appears that people tried to create and cram the article into Wikipedia anyway. I cannot apologize for that as I was not associated with those creations. However, I would like to show you a few things that have made the company notable since its last deletion in 2013.

Since 2013, the company has received a ton of press coverage in reliable sources, both in Hebrew and in English. They can be found through a quick Google search on Google News -

The article in my sandbox can be edited to how you feel appropriate. I feel it is non promotional, but ask that you review and edit it if you feel it is not. I am just hoping for two things here. The first is that the draft be reviewed for its content and adjusted as you see fit for Wikipedia standards. The second is that it be undeleted and the draft in my sandbox be used as the article.

I requested user MBisanz consider in deleting the article, but was told to come here because of the numerous previous deletions which I completely understand.

Thank you for your consideration.--Weirdedsultry (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. This has been deleted 5 times:there were two successive speedy deletions, followed by 4 consecutive afds closing as delete (one under a variant name). The reasons for the deletion were not just lack of notability, but promotionalism. The article in your sandbox at User:Weirdedsultry/sandbox would probably be deleted for lack of notability, but it's hard to predict. I know I would make the argument that being on a fast20 list is an indication that the company is not yet notable. The article in Jewish Business News is essentially PR, and very similar to press releases about the companyin other sources. SalomLife 's article is blatant PR. The Inc.article is an article about multiple companies. ``
Thank you for the comments. I agree that there was probably PR involved in the previous articles. For the current, what would you suggest for the references? There are tons available, but I am not sure the ones Wikipedia would accept. I read the guidelines but obviously don't fully understand based on your comments. I have looked through many references and thought those were good.--Weirdedsultry (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that part of the issue with the sandbox copy sources is that so many of them give off the impression that they're heavily based on press releases. They sort of have the PR buzz feel to them, especially this one. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. I guess the way I looked at these is even though they were originally alerted from a press release, the sources that wrote the story did not simply reprint the press release. Since they have editorial standards, they would have fact checked the press release before writing a story with information contained in the press release. Most news from companies starts with a press release. An example would be Google’s recent announcement that it was creating a parent company called Alphabet. Despite it being a press release in the beginning, reliable sources picked up and ran with the story after fact checking with Google and other sources. Not arguing, just trying to show you how I was looking at things and not trying to spam content from press releases.
That aside, there are some additional references that I found. Actually, one was brought to my attention by DGG so I cannot take credit for it. Here they are [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
I guess what I am looking for here is not perfection, but the opportunity to create an article on a notable company. The article I created can be changed if necessary to meet guidelines, I am just not understanding the exact way to do it in order to satisfy everyone’s concerns with the references. If you check Google, you will see that there are numerous in depth sources such as the ones I provided. Hopefully these will show that the company is notable and that the creation of the article be allowed.
Again, sorry if I misunderstand any of the policies and I in no way want to spam an article in Wikipedia. Thanks for being corrigible with me and providing advice up to this point. Any help that you can afford me would be greatly appreciated.
I want to thank you for taking the time to review the information I have provided and understand your position regardless of the decision made. --Weirdedsultry (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

22 August 2015[edit]

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair (closed)[edit]

Chad White (closed)[edit]

21 August 2015[edit]

20 August 2015[edit]

18 August 2015[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