Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

Administrator instructions

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

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


Deletion Review may be used:

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

Deletion Review should not be used:

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

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


Before listing a review request, please:

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

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion[edit]

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

Closing reviews[edit]

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

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

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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

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

Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, by adding the following on their user talk page:

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 April 26}}</noinclude>.
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 April 26|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>.

Active discussions[edit]

26 April 2017[edit]

23 April 2017[edit]

21 April 2017[edit]

Russell Reyes[edit]

Russell Reyes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Russell Reyes is famous enough. He deserves to have a wikipedia page just like his band co-members Niel Murillo and Joao Constancia. Yesterday on twitter, he was the no.1 trending in the Philippines. Please think over your decision. He is also the BPH member who got the highest score from the judges and text votes. Even Lea Salonga was amazed by his talent. If his band co-members can be on wikipedia then why can't he? Also, I don't understand why would someone request to delete Russell Reyes' article but be fine with Niel Murillo's and Joao Constancia's articles. I need an explanation. Thank you. Bphfangirl7 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Endorse redirect. First, he gets only passing mentions in the press, and is always connected to BPH, so the redirect make sense. Second, Twitter ratings are not considered a standard for judging notability. Third, same with votes, Notability is different from popularity to a degree. (Not always so) If his band co-members have indepednent articles about them in the press, such as would conform to either the WP:GNG or standard notability (not to mention muscian's notability guidelines, they can have their own articles. L3X1 (distant write) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. IMO, Murillo and Constancia should be redirected to the band article as well, they're non-notable outside it as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The band as a whole is notable and has received articles from reliable sources such as the Manilla Times. But with six band members, it is difficult for band members to get in-depth news stories about them. That is a problem when it comes to meeting Wikipedia's notability rules. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (people). Knox490 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Admittedly minimal discussion, especially noting one SPA who should not be counted, but the arguments are sound and compelling. The members are not individually notable, what makes them notable is common to the band, the article on the band can be expanded to include information on the members. WP:BIO1E applies to them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Russell Reyes is a famous musician in the Philippines. His fan says he trended #1 on Twitter recently. This is a case of Wikipedia:Too Soon. Wikipedia should expand the coverage of Reyes in the Boyband PH article until he has enough reliable and independent sources covering him. The material in the Russell Reyes article can be used for this. Joao Constancia and Niel Murillo should also be merged into this article.desmay (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Administrative note. For folks who are commenting here, your comments are welcome, but please read Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review to understand our jargon. When you say, Endorse, you're saying, The original AfD decision should stand. I see a couple of places above where people said, Endorse deletion, which is confusing because the original AfD was closed as Redirect. Whoever closes this DRV will have a hard time figuring out exactly what it is you are arguing for. If you think the redirect should stand, you want to say, Endorse. If you think the article should have been deleted without a redirect, then you want to say, Overturn to delete. It would be useful if people could go back and update their comments to make their positions clear. I myself offer no opinion in this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse – thin participation, but reasonable outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

20 April 2017[edit]

Food Future, Inc.[edit]

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

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

  • Keep deleted. It was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Future, Inc., which didn't have a lot of participation but was unanimous. It is STRONGLY suggested not to directly edit articles on any company you work for or are otherwise compensated by, as it would represent a serious conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Looking atthe now-deleted article, perhaps part of the reason for the limited participation was that the case for deletion was so obvious, given the overtly promotional nature of the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD closure. Not much participation, but it was sufficient to delete under our guidelines. I can't see the article, but based on the conversation and the comments here, I doubt it would affect my comment here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse Afd closure with recommendation for User:Sgj 524
I was looking at the Food Future Inc. article at deleted wiki.. The main reason why the article was deleted was its lack of reliable third-party sources. I suggest looking at these two Wikipedia pages: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability. Judging from the article at deleted wiki, it appears as if your company does important work and has a good management team. After your company has the necessary reliable third-party sources reporting on it and it meets the notability requirements, your company should be able to have a Wikipedia article. Your company was founded in 2015. If your company keeps plugging away and gets press from reliable sources about your achievements, it will make things much easier to have a Wikipedia article about your company. Right now, it seems as if this is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Knox490 (talk)
  • Endorse AfD closure. Article does meet Wikipedia:Notability standards. desmay (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review examines failure to correctly follow deletion process; it is not a venue to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) that belong at AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

19 April 2017[edit]

Tomas Gorny[edit]

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

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

  • Overturn The consensus formed at the AfD, which just closed earlier, was the exact opposite of the conclusion made by the closing admin. Some editors pointed out that a few of the votes were likely a result of meatpuppetry, thus further decreasing the number of “actual” delete entries. As I mentioned at the AfD, Tomas Gorny has 8,120 Google hits—this alone demonstrates that he passes WP:N.--Jobas (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn I didn't vote, and don't see any supervotes, so it should have been closed as NC or keep. L3X1 (distant write) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully understand the delete close. The sources are pretty poor and [6] is, IMO, the best of them (I think interviews by significant sources are good indications of notability). But I think it's debatable and that's just not the direction the discussion went. It's not an open-and-shut case for notability, so counting noses matters. Even if you ignore the few users who appeared to return from a wikibreak just to comment in the AfD, I just don't think you can find a consensus for deletion. overturn to NC which I think was the view of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn I think, based on what all has been transpiring around this article and the multiple DRVs here, that there's clearly some advocacy, paid or not, going on here. Having said that, advocacy is not a reason to fail to follow our policies. That was a bad delete close. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hobit, I counted arguments as well as votes, but the arguments won. Jclemens, I didn't delete it for advocacy reasons. Here's what I said in response to the editor who disagreed, on my talk page: "it's not a vote count: as I noted, many of the "keep" votes didn't present evidence, only statements. That Entrepreneur article was brought up. The sourcing is a lot thinner than you suggest, as was argued well in that AfD." Drmies (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I understand. But IMO the case for meeting the GNG is a close one (as you know, I lean toward inclusion so perhaps am a bit more likely to see the GNG being met) and so numbers and arguments matter. The deletion arguments focused on either promotional issues or the GNG. Keep !votes were largely GNG and "just notable". Only the GNG arguments were strong enough to be heavily weighted. And at that point we had a split (leaning keep). I just can't get to delete from that discussion. Though honestly I might well have !voted to delete here (it's a close thing--even the good sources feel like PR spam). Hobit (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh dear Hobit, I know where you stand, and you know I frequently wave at you from the other side, which is sometimes really close. The comments on the (what I call) "thinness" of the sources is what brought me over to the side of deletion. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse as absolutely sufficient delete in considerations to past promotionalism and then the current defense of somehow tolerating it, all of which is sufficient in policy-base, usable anytime. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn I am not sure if I can vote here since I voted in the deletion discussion, but I would vote to overturn and keep. I don't think there was a clear consensus to delete. If anything, it was clear that the consensus was, at the very least, "No consensus" and that the discussion was closed with a unilateral delete decision. To be fair, I am not sure what the protocol is for closing deletion discussions either, but it would seem that if an admin had been favorable to keeping the article, it would have stayed. I know a lot of thought and consideration probably went into the decision, but the same amount of thought and consideration could have reasonably gone into a "Keep" or "No consensus" decision from a different admin. In other words, the decision was subjective (and maybe a bit hasty). Users left plenty of detailed, substantial arguments in support of keeping the article, and I know that mine may have been entirely overlooked because the discussion was closed soon after I posted it. All I'm saying is, this discussion was at least a "No consensus." Gargleafg (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning Endorse. A very tough call. Would have been more easily defended as a "no consensus". Arguments are weak on both sides. The closer risks WP:Supervote by engaging directly in source analysis. I agree, source analysis reveals the superficially good sources are promotion. On the other hand, thepromotion is not blatant. I am reminded again that Wikipedia is not good for covering current business. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AfD was rife with problems not least of which was as Coffee noted in his relist pretty clearly some form of canvassing that all but necessitated the closer to engage in an analysis and weighting of arguments that includes evaluating the claims of the arguments. Drmies evaluated and discounted arguments on both sides, and explained as much in his close. This was a difficult close that probably could have justified any number of outcomes as being within the closer's discretion. Drmies used his in this case, and I think it was a good close for a difficult case. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn, or else, what was the point of a discussion? It is undisputed that the person has done some notable things, and the argument is only about how good the sources are in support of the facts. Everyone seems to agree, some are better than others. If there's a line this is on, let's err in favor of being more informative. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse, the closer essentially had two options: delete and no consensus. Choosing the easy option of no consensus would have just been kicking the can down the road, to an inevitable 5th AFD in a couple of months, and likely a bunch of promotional shenanigans once again (see this for a sock farm discovered during the AFD, for example). Both options would likely have the same eventual result, and one would waste a lot more of editors' time. I can't say the close was incorrect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • But aren't there in fact more than just two options? Seems to me a number of creative alternatives could have been come to. Or the finding could have been "keep" with "no consensus" as the compromise position. Kicking the can down the road with no consensus can be effective if it's to be expected that more sources will develop, as seems sure here. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Relist At the previous afd to this I commented "Rewrite" -- there is sufficient notability, but the article was extremely promotional--as have been a number of related articles. Despite the comments that it was unfixable, the most recent version however was adequately rewritten. It is quite rare that I defend an article written with any degree of promotional intent, and extremely rare that I disagree with the closer, but I don't think the close adequate reflected the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse (as AfD nominator). This debate reminds me of a similar discussion on E3 Media; after several AfDs and a deletion review, the article was ultimately deleted: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 1#E3 Media. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus - The discussion was in no way inclining to a delete as suggested by the closing editor and other editors above who decipher the same from that discussion. It is also worth mentioning that sources like the Chicago Tribune, Forbes, Huffington Post and the Business Insider are WP:RS and they are good enough to establish notability for the subject in question. Seems the person deleting forced a compromise on what was a neutral position between those who wanted the article deleted and those who believed it should be kept as per policy. I also think it is not good practice to compare a deletion or keep discussion of another article, editors should scrutinize each discussion on merits and facts otherwise that is a dangerous path to take. The person who made the last changes that led to the AFD stated his reasons just as an example "... As a former professional in the hosting technology space..." as rationale of the information he added which is against policy thus reinstating this up to the time when editors agreed the content of the article was right is the right road to take here. TushiTalk To Me 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse--Starblind put it beautifully!Winged Blades Godric 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse - per Starblind, and the fact that the sources are sub-standard and many of the Keep rationales are worse (as are some of the "Overturn" rationales here that appear to think that consensus = vote counting - it isn't). Excellent close. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn - Starblind's argument, that it should be delete because a non-consensus would cause a 5th AfD, is faulty. The subject was at Deletion Review in September. There, the 3rd AFD and salting was overturned because it was ruled that it meet GNG (see ). The 4th AfD ruled delete because it did not meet GNG even though the debate was very non-consensus. Obviously, there's still no consensus now. IMO, people are pissed off at this guy because he's canvasing, self-promoting, sockpuppeting, and a host of other things; which is causing the opposition to be vigilant and determined. Good job on the opposition but deleting a subject who meets GNG isn't the right course of action -- no matter how annoying he is. CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It was not ruled that the article met GNG at the previous deletion review - all that was decided was that the draft was sufficiently different from the previous deleted version so that CSD#G4 did not apply. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse - for the solid policy-based reasons given by the closer, which at the time of this posting have yet to be convincingly challenged in the responses above. Simply put: the available sourcing is insufficient to meet GNG. I've never heard of Gorny, but after seeing an editor protest the close decision (on the closer's Talk page) because "the "keep" !votes vastly outnumbered the "delete", I was motivated to review the subject and comment. Consensus isn't determined by votes; it isn't a head-count, as the lead paragraph of our policy makes clear - but some people just do not get it. Then I come here and again see "... further decreasing the number of “actual” delete entries", and "counting noses matters". No, it doesn't. In fact, ignoring the number of participants is our only defense against sock & meat-puppetry, which appears to be rampant on this occasion. When we follow WP:CONSENSUS policy, it doesn't matter how many canvassed editors climb out of the clown car and shout their "me too!" without valid supporting argument. With that said, when a subject has both a PR firm dedicated to establishing an online presence, and paid Wikipedia editors to create articles here, yet can only manage 8000 Google hits (I've had typos return more hits), the subject is simply not that notable. It's a good close. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Really? You complain about counting !votes (something we are supposed to do) and then pull out WP:GHITS without discussing the sources in any way. Oyi. There are sources that meet the GNG. Sources that some PR flack probably talked someone into writing, sure. But reliable, independent sources. Are they enough for us to have an article? Sure, we can discuss that--that's what AfD is for. And there is no way that that discussion concluded "no, the GNG isn't met". TLDR: There is a prima facie case for the GNG being met (the existence of said sources) and a discussion which leaned toward accepting those sources, so there is no consensus for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
      • No, we are not supposed to count votes when determining consensus; such decisions are to be made on the strength of the arguments only. If there is Wikipedia policy which clearly states that "we are supposed to" count votes, please do point it out. And I wasn't the one who "pulled out" the 8000 Google hits as a notability argument, that was another editor (scroll up); I merely responded to it. The only substantive argument at issue is whether the 3 hurdles of WP:GNG have been met: (1) that there be "reliable, independent sources", and (2) that the subject has also received reliably sourced significant coverage. There is, of course, a degree of subjective evaluation required at this step, but I still must strongly agree with the closer that an acceptable level of significant coverage has not been met, and I further disagree (after re-reviewing the deletion discussion just now) with your assessment that the discussion "leaned toward accepting those sources". It did not. It leaned, if anything, toward casting shade on other editors in the discussion, with very little discourse at all on why the thin offering of reliable sources should be considered enough. And finally, there is hurdle (3) which advises us that having some reliable sources is "not a guarantee, that a subject should be included" in Wikipedia, because (as also cited in the deletion discussion) we're not for advertising, promotion or marketing. Even those editors insisting (without substantiation) that the few sources we have are enough, still admit they are promotional (or from a "PR flack"? Oy, indeed!). This article subject failed before reaching the third hurdle, but it is still there for emphasis. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse A difficult call, but delete is well within admin-disgression here. Sources might be reliable, but still smack of promo-talk. Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Keep. 1990'sguy, who opened the Deletion Review said: "Several good sources exist about Gorny ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11])." Forbes, Entrepreneur (magazine), Business Insider and The Business Journals are all major business news publications and are reliable sources. Entrepeneur magazine only publishes monthly and during the ten year period between 2006-2016 Gorny had a 4 paragraph mention in a 2006 article[12], but he also had a more substantial article in 2016.[13] When the article was deleted, the person deleting the article, Drmies, appeared to be only aware of the 4 paragraph article in Entrepreneur magazine, but not the more substantial and in-depth Entrepeneur magazine article mentioned by 1900sguy who filed the deletion review. This probably was because Drmies, who decided to delete the article, was not aware of it as it may not have been in the original article and it was not mentioned in Gorny's AfD. So the deletion review serves a useful purpose. The business articles do mention Gorny's good judgments, hard work and accomplishments. And they also mention his mistakes in his business life. After reading these articles about Gorny's life from these reliable sources, I also learned some of his strengths and weaknesses. For example, his strength is his attention to detail in creating user friendly products, his greatest weakness appears to be his thick Polish accent. So on the whole, the articles do not paint Gorny as some kind of superhero who does not make mistakes or has no weaknesses, but rather paints him as very successful businessman who overcame various hurdles and made some mistakes along the way. This is what I would expect reliable sources to do and this is exactly what they did. Getting into these high profile business publications and having some in-depth articles in them is not easy. It takes having significant business accomplishments and it also greatly helps to have an interesting business story. And Gorny satisfies both of these criteria. Gorny is not borderline GNG. He cleared the GNG hurdle. Knox490 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since I'm being pinged left and right--we are not the news. We are not a promotional vehicle. We are not a depository for resumes. As was pointed out in the AfD (and in past AfDs), this article was the briefest of all biographies once the PR was stripped out of it, based on just a very, very few sources. If there's two articles on him in the web version of The Entrepreneur, which is a very business-friendly magazine with a high PR content, that still does not make him clear the hurdle as easily as is suggested here. And note that this is an "email-interview", about the easiest form of journalism one can imagine--and it's "written" not by a journalist: it is a super-friendly piece by a "guest writer", who is the CEO of a social media marketing firm. If you want to know more about this man, here he is. In other words, we're not talking about journalism here, and we should ask ourselves whether this counts as a reliabl source in the first place.

    Remember, we are talking about an encyclopedia, not a rehash of what was published in the glossies the last few years. I am very concerned that this lowering of standards is detrimental to the overall quality of the project--never mind that I am concerned that we are being used for promotional purposes, and guided by editors who cannot easily tell the difference between real news and glossy promotion. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • User:Drmies, I readily concede your point about the authorship of the more lengthy Entrepeneur magazine. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Some people are stubborn and never concede points. I do my best to not be one of them.There is another legitimate point I wish to make. The Business Insider article, which in an in-depth article on Gorny, was written by Eugene Kim. Kim "was an enterprise tech reporter for Business Insider. He previously wrote for Fortune Magazine Korea, where he covered tech and startups. He has a degree from NYU and a master's in journalism from Columbia University."[14] Fortune magazine is one of the premier business magazines in the world. Columbia University is one of the top universities in America and in 2015 it was ranked the 21st best university in the world. Kim obtained a masters degree in journalism from this prestigious academic institution. Kim's article mentions Gorny's business mistakes and his business successes which is what I would expect from a journalist. Kim does indicate that Gorny's life is inspiring and that is entirely accurate given Gorny's background. So we have at least three in-depth articles from reliable sources that are major business news sources. Although there were some complaints from the delete side of the aisle about the Business Insider article, there was nothing inaccurate about the Business Insider article and it was written by a very well-qualified journalist in terms of his education and work experience who reported on Gorny's significant successes and some of his failures as well. Furthermore, Gorski has reliable news sources mentioning him in relation to his company Nextiva such as Inc. (magazine) and The Arizona Republic (which is the largest newspaper in Phoenix).[15][16]. Knox490 (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Drmies, Another important point: I established that Gorny has 3 in-depth articles from reliable sources which are major business publications. At this point, the best the delete side of the aisle can do is to unreasonably argue that Gorny's notability is amibiguous. I would strongly argue that it is not all ambiguous. Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment... When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion." Has Tomas Gorny been asked if he wants the article deleted? Knox490 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • No, you haven't done that, and the Inc and AZCentral sources aren't about him. Throwing in "unreasonably" doesn't help your case. Your last question seems like an attempt at reductio ad absurdum that misfired: the question is ridiculous. Knox, kindly stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Drmies, in hindsight I believe I needn't have added my rhetorical question until you reviewed the journalistic qualifications of Mr. Kim and had a chance to take the appropriate action. Kim easily has double the journalistic qualifications of most journalists in terms of his journalism education and his job experience is excellent as well. Since you expressed a significant importance to the authors of sources and since Business Insider is a very prominent online business website that has the online circulation of the Wall Street Journal and the article is balanced (mentions Gorny's business successes and failures) and accurate, there is no reason why the article should not count as a reliable source. It would be entirely understandable if you took exception to the article if it contained an inaccuracy and did not also mention some of Gorny's business failures, but this is not the case. If you could address the Business Insider issue, it would certainly be appreciated. Knox490 (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • User: Drmies, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination), despite having a high opinion of Forbes magazine, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you said, "The Forbes article is possibly acceptable (and it is a very friendly opinion piece)". I looked that the article and the interviewer asked a series of open ended questions relating primarily to Gorny's business life, his business successes/failures and some other sundry matters as well. On the whole, it seemed like a typical interview for a business publication. Nothing overly promotional as the questioner did not shy away from asking about his business failures. Specifically, she asked probing questions regarding his failures and the resulting states he found himself in due to his business failures. Some of the questions relating to Gorny's failures and bad investments were "How profitable was the business?"; "What happened to that company?"; "Did you have other investments?"; "If you were broke, how did you start another company?" and "How did the crash of your previous company affect the way you ran the new business?". Now granted, the ledger sheet of Gorny's successes far outweigh his failures, but if that weren't the case, he probably wouldn't be covered in-depth by Forbes and the other prominent publications I cited. Nor would he be mentioned by the other publications I cited. Prominent and reliable business publications generally cover people are who are more successful than unsuccessful on the whole and their articles should not quickly discounted as being "very friendly opinion pieces" just because a business person's business life is on the whole significantly more successful than unsuccessful.Knox490 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse- This was within admin discretion and, yes, Wikipedia definitely needs better mechanisms for defending itself from being used as a billboard. Reyk YO! 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think you have missed the point of a DRV. I hope you know it is also within the admins choice to close as keep, merge or redirect or even as a no consensus. For this case the discussion here was opened because en editor felt the admin didn't close the discussion with the proper choice that reflects at the AFD debate. As for suggestions to improve Wikipedia there is Wikipedia essays for that. TushiTalk To Me 07:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • How is that missing the point? Saying it was within the admin's discretion is saying that there were multiple valid closes to choose from based on the discussion, and that the closer uses his judgement to pick the one he thought was most in line with policy and the discussion. If it was within an admin's discretion, it is not the place for DRV to substitute another close. If you go over to move review right now you'll see a perfect example of this same principle. Review boards don't change a close unless their was a procedural mistake that could have changed the outcome, or if the close was so out of line from the discussion and policy and guidelines as to make it not within their discretion. Neither of those is the case here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn The close seemed to assert the closer's own view of the matter rather than summarising the consensus or lack of same. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and likely keep - I voted for keep in the deletion discussion based on my argument that the sources are in-depth and meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I would think the close should be overturned and the page kept, as that is the direction the discussion was heading when closed. I would agree with DGG in that I don’t think the close accurately reflected the discussion. A "no consensus" close I would understanding but I don't see how a "delete" came from that discussion. I also agree with Andrew D in that the close seemed more like the closer’s opinion and not a reflection of the discussion. I don't see the point of even having a deletion discussion if the close does not have to reflect the consensus in the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. The Gorny article used some reliable sources. The Forbes and Business Insider articles are balanced stories. The source analysis in this deletion review shows there are some good sources that were used in the article. Overturn as there was/is no consensus to delete. Keep with no consensus is being proposed as a compromise position by several editors. But there are enough reliable articles for the article for a straightforward keep decision. Tomas Gorny is a notable person within the tech/business community who meets minimum WP:GNG requirements.desmay (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, alot of the comments including the :Keep" note the sources included self-published and authored profiles, so these are not independent for WP:GNG, which is after all a suggestive guideline, not a policy, yet policy is what supports deleting promotion, not keeping this. How else would we interpret such a policy as WP:What Wikipedia is not? In fact, the users who had clear COI continued using "But has sourcing" as a defense. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse I don't disagree with the closer... keep it deleted. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the article. The Gorny article used only _some_ reliable sources. After you trim away the extra padding sources {from the same author or organization} per GNG, and after you trim away sources from those called in to cover his self-promotion event called Next Con not {Independent of the subject}, there aren't enough. It should be deleted {because it violates what Wikipedia is not} as also stated by GNG, because being a businessman in America isn't a claim to fame or notability. Making and losing a million dollars, and giving people obvious advice on what to do or not to do in small business is routine. Carter2020 (talk)
  • Endorse - The closer took a great deal of care in closing this discussion and explained in detail how the consensus had been reached. Obviously this was a quite a time consuming AFD to close with, unfortunately, a large amount of inconsequential discussions disparaging editors, obvious canvassing and socking.
The closer did exactly what is required by the guidelines -"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Clearly, half of the !votes offered no policy based explanation for the !vote. There was quite a bit discussion on whether the sourcing met all of the requirements for WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The DRV discussion is not a place "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion." I concur that the closer's policy based analysis was correct for the reasons stated in closing the AFD and I see no policy or guideline that should reverse the decision. CBS527Talk 02:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Formula One driver numbers[edit]

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

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

  • Comment. This user is a participant to the contested AFD.Tvx1
  • You are the closer. You can't come here to endorse your own close. That's really poor behavior. Of course you support it. DRV is intended for independent editors to judge the closers actions, not the closer themselves. Besides if you are convinced that none of the presented arguments at all were very meaningful, then why did you cherry-pick keep as a closing action? Wouldn't relisting have been a far better option then? Tvx1 16:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no rule against AFD closers posting here, it's done commonly and would look far worse to ignore a DRV entirely. AFD closers should be able to explain and defend their close if there's a DRV, and doing so is in no way "poor behaviour". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Explaining ones closing actions is of course ok, but actually going as far as !voting endorse/support on one's own closure is not. That judgement should be left to independent users.Tvx1 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Where exactly are you seeing this rule? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse clear keep close. Nothing else would be justified here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse keep. Based on the discussion, no other close was really possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please read my DRV rationale as to why were here and why I think the keep arguments were given to much consideration. The closer has now admitted that they don't consider any argument to be very meaningful per the AFD guide. In that case at the very least relisting would be the far better option instead of closing as keep or delete.Tvx1 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. 5,000 page views in month would seem to indicate the article serves a purpose (Wikipedia:Purpose). One man's trivia is another man's treasure. And for race car fans, this article has some value.Knox490 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close was a reasonable summary of the consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Delete the article. Wikipedia needs to be consistent in sports articles. Other sports don't have something like this. The article is not encyclopedic because the information is trivialdesmay (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse I don't disagree with the closer... keep it deleted. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Zppix:, are you commenting on the right log entry? This article was closed as keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ignore i commented in the wrong location. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse as this close was fine. People may wish to see such a list. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

18 April 2017[edit]

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

Natasha Wilona (closed)[edit]

Siberian Republic[edit]

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

This article is not only restored in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Сибирская республика and ru:Википедия:К восстановлению/18 февраля 2013#Сибирская республика), but also got the status of a good article there (ru:Википедия:Добротные статьи and ru:Википедия:Кандидаты в добротные статьи/22 апреля 2015#Сибирская республика). On this topic the following is found:

  5. 245
  6. 241
  7. 493

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

  • Can someone summarize the above wall of text in English please? Stifle (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Stifle: I removed the Russian and left the English. The gist of it seems to be that the topic is notable and should be restored. However, DRV isn't the place to make notability arguments, the question is whether the AFD (from 2013) was properly closed.
  • Endorse but also Relist at AFD, since the last one was over 4 years ago, and things can change. The article isn't deleted, there's a fleshed-out article in the history now, but it's been converted to a redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • So I propose to restore a separate article as having significance (see Russian version of the article) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • In general, citations from references were important for understanding the significance of an article. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good close. Further discussions and decisions should occur at the redirect target talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • So I propose to restore a separate article as having significance (see Russian version of the article) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep article. The Russians are in a much better position to evaluate the reliability of sources, notability, etc. Knox490 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Approximate translation:
  • 1. Sovereignization Processes in Siberia (February 1917-1923) § 4.1. Formation of the Siberian statehood and its liquidation - the theme of the thesis and the author's abstract on the Higher Attestation Commission. [07: 02.02.02]. Higher Attestation Commission in the Russia) doctor of historical sciences Sokko, Alexey Vladimirovich. Taken from Writes: In the first paragraph "Education of the Siberian statehood and its elimination" shows the process of the formation of the Siberian republic, governed mainly by the provincial Siberian government. The ideology of regionalism was the ideological basis for the creation of a new state." Sushko Writes in the "§ 4.1. Formation of the Siberian statehood and its liquidation":" The formation of the Siberian republic in the summer of 1918, and later its liquidation testifies to the reversibility of the process of formation of civil indentity and its transformation into nationalism. Having survived incomplete half a year, the Siberian statehood left behind a small number of few supporters." The text is in the Russian State Library and I can send it by e-mail (Scanned text). --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 2. SIBERIAN NATIONALISM AND Struggle for power in the province (MARCH 1917 - NOVEMBER 1918) - also Sushko. In this source "The overthrow of the power of the Soviets and the subsequent declaration by the Provisional Siberian Government of the Declaration on State Independence of Siberia on July 4, 1918, determined the transition of regionalism to the status of state ideology. A future historian should unequivocally point out that in 1918 there was an independent Siberian republic, GK recalled. Hins [26. 121]. At the heart of the state ideology of Siberia could lie only Siberian patriotism, promoted by the provinces. <> With the formation of the Provisional All-Russian Government - Directories, Siberian nationalists agreed to self-destruct the Siberian republic, t. Believed that "it was impossible to go to Moscow with regional slogans" [33. P. 22]. With the appearance of the declaration of November 3, 1918 "On the transfer of supreme power in the territory of Siberia to the Provisional All-Russian Government," Siberian nationalism loses its political significance." --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 3. Nikitin Alexey Nikolaevich . Statehood of "white" Russia: formation, evolution, wreck (1918-1920): Abstract of the dissertation Doktor nauk in the Jurisprudence: 12.00.01 - : Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2007 . Quotes "In the second paragraph" Autonomous Siberia: parliamentarism or authoritarianism ", the process of forming statehood in Siberia is being investigated ....The next extremely important measure aimed at strengthening the statehood of the Siberian region was the declaration of the Provisional Siberian Government of July 4, 1918, "On State Independence of Siberia." This act proclaimed international personality, unlimited and independent state power, headed by the Provisional Siberian Government." --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 4. K. Hins. Siberia, the Allies and Kolchak. Volume 1 - A future historian should unequivocally point out that in 1918 there was an independent Siberian republic for 4 months." --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 5. Chronicle of regional movement in Siberia (1852-1919). Quotation 1918, July 4. Omsk. The Provisional Siberian Government adopted the Declaration on the State Independence of Siberia. (GARF, F.5871, Op.1.D.92.L.8.). :ru:Декларация Временного Сибирского правительства о государственной самостоятельности Сибири. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So I can restore the article itself or need an administrator's solution? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse but have a Russian speaker review the article to make sure it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines as far as notability/reliable sources. desmay (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

17 April 2017[edit]

15 April 2017[edit]

13 April 2017[edit]

12 April 2017[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
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December