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;
  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=2017 January 22}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 January 22|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]

22 January 2017[edit]

20 January 2017[edit]

Jeet Gian[edit]

Jeet Gian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was requested by Pri D at the AfD for the article to be undeleted and the AfD be relisted so that a clearer consensus can be developed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Admin note: GeoffreyT2000, this review request may be speedily closed if you do not indicate why you think the AfD was wrongly closed.  Sandstein  08:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

19 January 2017[edit]

January 2017 European cold wave[edit]

January 2017 European cold wave (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The afd was closed without consensus. I didn't violate any rules, the administrator just disagreed with me. I consider this as an invalid reason to close the afd discussion without consensus. Let me also respond to some of the counter-arguments:

  • "widespread weather event with loss of life in multiple countries." Well, there is a refugee crisis in Europe. Some of the refugees are living in tents! No wonder that they die once it gets a little bit colder. As for the homeless people, keep in mind that especially the south of Europe was affected by a huge financial crisis from which it hasn't fully recovered yet, leading to extreme unemployment rates.
  • "There are ample sources to provide additional information to the article from several languages." We only have a collection of short news articles which report cold temperatures in some places. We have no evidence that this is an extremely exceptional event. The administrator even admits that there are no in-depth reviews yet on his discussion page: "As for in-depth review, there hasn't been enough time since the event for it to be studied." Also keep in mind Wikipedia:Bombardment.

All in all, this article is mainly based on original research. The authors collected some news articles, then deduced that there must be an exceptional event. Let us wait until there are clear, reputable scientific sources confirming the exceptionalism of this event. And if there are such sources in the future, the article can be recreated. TheRandomIP (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Not really sure what action to take here. I don't care for the speedy close of the AfD, not one bit. There is no reason not to let it proceed, though I think the odds of a delete outcome are really slim. At the same time, the editor/account has very few edits and is almost certainly a sock (of an IP editor I assume from the name?) and _that_ makes me uncomfortable. I'm leaning toward "overturn closure" but suspect I'm missing some context (in particular the claim of WP:POINT by the closing admin might imply this has been a running problem of some sort). Hobit (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm from Germany and I have a lot of edits there. Just check it. I usually only contribute here if we have a similar case in our language version, for example, if a spammer places advertisement in many different Wikipedia versions. And indeed we have an ongoing afd discussion in the german version as well. I choose my name "TheRandomIP" as a parody. I disapprove the strong harassment against people without an account. My message is: Don't judge people by name or account. Look at the content. --TheRandomIP (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The content (this nomination) in this case is pretty questionable IMO and feels like WP:BEFORE wasn't followed all that well. At this point I'd prefer you just withdraw the AfD and DRV. The sources are plentiful and supplied, the fact they aren't in the article isn't relevant to our inclusion guidelines. If you won't do that, I guess weakly overturn. But basically both of you screwed up (bad nom, bad reaction to the nom) but the closing admin's error (out-of-process speedy keep) was worse than yours (not doing a good job on WP:BEFORE) if we're keeping score somewhere... Hobit (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The AfD probably shouldn't have been closed as quickly as it was, but like Hobit, I can't envision a scenario in which any result other than "keep" or even "speedy keep" would have arisen. An event doesn't have to be "extremely exceptional" to be notable, and the claims of original research seem misguided; there are clearly many reliable sources which discuss the arctic outbreak in significant depth as a single, coherent topic. It's not as if many little snippets of data were cobbled together to synthesize a new concept. That said, DRV is not AfD so this isn't the appropriate place to debate notability. I will grant that the initial nomination does appear to be something of a drive-by with no apparent attempt made by the nominator to discuss their concerns with local editors; that a debate is ongoing on another project isn't grounds in itself to start a corresponding one here. Overall, a bad nomination and a bad close, but I suspect any decision to overturn would be purely procedural. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's new information. Your new references are neither part of the article nor provided in any previous discussion. I wasn't aware of them, too. Since none of your in-depths reviews are listed in the article, I wonder if the authors actually knew about them or if they indeed "cobbled together many little snippets of data to synthesize a new concept". Even if it now turns out to be an existing concept, that's not how it should be done in Wikipedia. First check if it's a real concept. Then write the article. Not the other way around.
However, if you all say based on your experience the article will be kept, I'd agree to close this discussion and give the authors the chance to better highlight the notability in their article There are also other voices now. --TheRandomIP (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC) --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Juliancolton is another weather fan; just look at his user page. Such editors are obviously not impartial in this matter and their opinions should be discounted accordingly. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You'll notice, Andrew Davidson, that I didn't lodge a vote to overturn or endorse precisely for that reason. If you disagree with my thoughts and sources then say so, but please explain why. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The merits of the topic should be discussed in the AfD. We're here to discuss the procedural merits of the close. Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I noted as much in my comment. I suggested that an overturn would be justified, though ultimately unlikely to yield a different result. Do you have something constructive to add to my assessment or are you simply being contrary for the sake of it? – Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)'
So editors of weather topics who "haven't even voted" suddenly aren't allowed to share their perspectives just because? Why not consider the actual merits of what was said? That's nothing more than an ad hominem. If you think the argument is flawed or there are issues, then point out those flaws rather than questioning the motives of the editor. Dustin (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn The closer had previously edited the article in question and is generally invested in such topics. This makes them far too involved to be closing the discussion in any way, let alone so speedily. The nomination seems quite valid on the face of it per WP:EVENT. We usually have cold spells in winter and we don't need an article every time this happens. Andrew D. (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, my four edits to the article are thus: two to fix the infobox so it displayed the fatalities, one to remove the initial AfD template, and one to add a citation for the deaths which was previously missing. I don't believe anyone would consider that level of editing "involved". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I consider the involved status of Cyclonebiskit to be quite blatant. The fact that he does not recognise this indicates that he should be de-sysopped. We can't have involved admins protecting their pet subjects in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, sure. My authoritarian rule of closing an AfD that had no prior discussion and providing the nominator with links on where to go if they disagreed with my closing must be stopped. If you honestly think having knowledge of a subject makes you incapable of better assessing notability, I truly believe you don't understand the beauty of Wikipedia. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • As you said yourself, The merits of the topic should be discussed in the AfD. We're here to discuss the procedural merits of the close. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and trout. My first thought when I saw this earlier this morning was, What? Another rogue NAC?. Then I saw the closer was an admin. I can see plenty of reasons to delete this article (WP:NOTNEWS, etc), but let the community decide. If it really is a slam-dunk keep, it should be obvious soon enough. Reclose it in a few days as snow-keep if that's the case. But, close it half an hour after it was opened, before a single person had a chance to comment? Wow. I wouldn't jump directly to playing the desysopping card yet, but Cyclonebiskit should re-read WP:INVOLVED. When it's obvious from your username and your user page that your main interest is weather, its a pretty high bar to claim that you're not involved with a weather article, regardless of how many edits you've made to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I mostly support the viewpoint above. It would be best for editors closely affiliated with a subject (in this case, weather) to stay hands-off except in very obvious cases when it comes to speedy closes like this (regular AfD participation is still okay). I think starting a talk page discussion first would have been a better start for the AfD nominator, although that doesn't invalidate the rest of what I've said. Dustin (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. It was the right outcome even if procedurally dodgy. What are we going to do with an "overturn"? Relist? Pointless. In any event I wouldn't be inclined to say that the administrator acted improperly here. Perhaps it was the correct thing to shut down peremptorily a doomed-to-fail AfD on a high-visibility current event article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist It was a very poor AFD nomination but I don't think speedy keep should have been invoked. None of its criteria seem to be met. The first aspect of the close, WP:POINT, puzzles me (shortly after leaving the main page?[1]) but the closer's comments here don't elaborate. What followed was inevitably a WP:SUPERVOTE. Quite often admins close discussions in broad areas where they have a strong editing interest (e.g. footballers) and sometimes that leaves me feeling uneasy. Thincat (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist it seems obvious that the article will be kept, but we should probably let consensus develop more clearly. That being said, I find calls for a desysop to be absurd and borderline disruptive. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Relist I think a keep is inevitable, but there should have been time allowed for discussion. A few days would probably have justified an -- as it happens, appropriately named -- SNOW closing. I normally follow the deWP's verdict on German topics, but the enWP has always been more hospitable to ongoing events of significance and similar material. (but fwiw, the dewP article has some excellent graphics and we should add them while we can.) DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist the argument for deleting this article does certainly look rather shaky and I suspect this AfD will end up being closed as an overwhelming or even SNOW keep, but the nomination wasn't disruptive or POINTy and it shouldn't have been speedily closed half an hour after it was filed and before anyone else commented. Hut 8.5 23:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. A SNOW close is one thing, but this was closed before a single flake occurred. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Trout but otherwise no action. Closing admin should have at least waited until there was some snow on the ground before invoking the snowball clause, but now that we're here and we all seem to agree that the discussion would be doomed and result in a Keep anyway, I see relisting or reopening as pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC).
  • Overturn and relist is the inevitable outcome when a good faith editor complains about a SNOW close. We're here to ensure the community's deletion processes are correctly followed (see WP:DRVPURPOSE point 5). A SNOW close is inherently IAR; SNOW is a thing an editor can invoke when the consensus is so strong that it's clearly needless to allow the full allotted time for a discussion. So if DRV is to stay within its parameters, we can't allow a SNOW close to stand when a good faith editor complains about it. The cut-out-and-keep, take-home point from this discussion is that when I said "clearly needless", I mean it has to be "clearly needless" to everyone, not just to the editor making the SNOW call.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to speedy keep WP:NPASR  The close has elements of both SNOW and SK, and the remedy is to overturn the SNOW part of the close.  The closer reasonably cites WP:POINT given that the nominator can't decide if the topic fails notability, and is using the AfD process to get assistance from the community to help him decide.  WP:NPASR allows the nominator the opportunity to review the deficiencies in the nomination, and if re-nominating, to correct those deficiencies.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the editor who started the article, I'd no idea that its deletion had been suggested. Clearly I'd argue that it be kept. But I've no objection to it being relisted for discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

18 January 2017[edit]

File:Shelton Ranaraja.jpg[edit]

File:Shelton Ranaraja.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This image was speedily deleted under WP:F9 (non-free images that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use). This was incorrect as I had claimed fair use under WP:NFCI#10 (pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely). The image was uploaded using File Upload Wizard and as such had all the required information under WP:NFCCP.

I asked the deleting admin RHaworth to review the deletion but he has bluntly refused, stating that I should be able to find a free image as the subject died in 2011. Unfortunately there are no free images of the subject. I could only find four images of the subject (here and here), none free. I ask that the image be undeleted. If there was doubt as to whether the fair use claim was appropriate it should have been discussed at WP:FFD, not speedily deleted.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) obi2canibetalk contr 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • We've got an editor who edits in one fairly specialized area and whose claim of there being no free image should be given some weight. But this is also a subject who died in 2011 and thus it seems _likely_ there is a free image out there somewhere. I think the deleting admin was reasonable in their claim that it is likely there is such a picture. However, I think given the uploader's long tenure and contributions it's reasonable to give them the chance to make their case at FfD. overturn speedy with no fault assigned to the deleting admin as it sounds like a better case for a discussion than a speedy though letter-of-the-law the deleting admin is probably in the right. That said, do note that "I can't find a free image with a web search" is unlikely to be enough to get people to believe it's unlikely such a free image exists (which is, sadly IMO, the bar that we use for cases like this). Hobit (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow, I really thought I just read something that said that F9 was reasonable when the image was clearly replaceable by a free image. Don't know what I read. But yeah, this is a clear overturn and a wrong deletion. Sorry I got that wrong. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The entry in the deletion log says "Media file copyright violation without credible claim of fair use or permission", implying it applies to non-credible fair use rationales. I'm not sure what generated this but it isn't the default reason and it doesn't agree with the criterion wording. Hut 8.5 07:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah - it's the wording that comes up if you click on the link in the speedy deletion template. I've suggested altering it. Hut 8.5 07:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Nice to know I'm not entirely crazy. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn the wording of F9 is "obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use". The uploader did claim this was fair use (by sticking a fair use rationale on it), so F9 doesn't apply. The rationale for compliance under our fair use policy presented above may be wrong but it isn't ridiculous either. While you could make a better case for F7 applying I think FFD would be a better place for it. Hut 8.5 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The F9 is plainly invalid. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn There was plenty of time to arrange a free image while the subject was alive. Five years after his death is obviously far too late for this. F9 clearly does not apply. Andrew D. (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn, noting that this edit is inexcusably rude and unbecoming of a sysop.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to FfD. Speedies are not for things where longstanding, good-faith editors differ. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

15 January 2017[edit]

Football at the 2011 Military World Games – Men's tournament[edit]

Football at the 2011 Military World Games – Men's tournament (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is an official world military competition hosted by the CISM. This football competition is a part of the Military World Games (5th edition) (Rio 2011 - 5th CISM World Military Games) and the World Military Cup (43rd edition) (Championnat du monde militaire de football 2011). Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse - clear, logical consensus. GiantSnowman 21:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse - DRV is not for rehashing the same arguments made at AfD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse Already sufficiently covered.--Catlemur (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: This is the draft of the competition. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

13 January 2017[edit]

11 January 2017[edit]

8 January 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