Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
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 October 7}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 October 7|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]

7 October 2015[edit]

Jhoom (album)[edit]

Jhoom (album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhoom (album) was closed by a non-admin user as keep and they have now asked me to reach here. While all the 3 votes on the AfD did vote for keeping the article, I would like to point out that per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I feel that arguments made by keep voters were quite week and when re-questioned no replies were given yet by them. Hence requesting to relist or reconsider the closure.
Btw, am not very sure if arguments that are really meant to be on AfD should be placed on DRV or not. But the subject album, even after winning an award and claiming to be in top charts, has mediocre mentions. One ref from where all the notability claim is made is a 5 sentence article; 2 being quotes from the artist. Rest all are just passing mentions or pre-release promotional news features. Highligthing WP:NALBUMS here "...must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...". The subject fails NALBUMS for these clauses. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

6 October 2015[edit]

Jacques Peretti[edit]

Jacques Peretti (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The is a question of a judgment call. On 6 October administrator Randykitty closed the Afd discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Peretti with a ruling of "no consensus". On its surface it looks like there was no consensus. Four editors had recommended deletion, and two editors had recommended keeping the article. However, deletion discussions are not a vote, and as Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says: 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. In this case the four who urged deletion based their argument on the lack of adequate coverage to meet the guidelines of WP:GNG, although only one of them specifically mentioned WP:GNG. The two editors who urged keeping the article did so on the basis "Seems notable to me, with 4 documentary films or series on UK national TV". Which may have been a reference to the guideline at Creative professionals #3. (I haven't been able to determine any other notability basis that that might be referring to, nor has Randykitty suggested any.) However, there is no evidence that Peretti's body of work meets the guideline requirement of In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. in fact, the opposite, as in searching for coverage perforce coverage of his work occurred. So the net result is that the arguments in support of deletion had a basis in the guidelines, with only one substantive article on Jacques Peretti being found, while the other arguments did not seem to be based on policy or guidelines, but to the extent we extend good faith, they failed. I contend that in closing, looking at strength of argument is essential. When I first saw the result, I thought that Randykitty might have been rushing when she/he made the closure and thus did not do an in depth analysis of the arguments, so I went and talked with Randykitty, but Randykitty assures me that enough time was taken. There do not seem to me to have been any policy arguments made during the Afd, but Randykitty indicates: The "keep" !votes argued that the "4 documentary films or series on UK national TV" indicate notability, which is a policy-based argument, I think. Randykitty indicated that the afd had run for long enough that closure was proper. I agree with that. My contention is that insuffient weight was given to the strength of arguments in rendering the closing judgment, and that assessing that weight is required. I did not participate in the Afd discussion and this is not my feelings regarding the correct interpretation of the debate. This has to do with whether the strength of arguments were assessed and the closing guidelines adhered to. Randykitty foreclosued further discussion and suggested that I take the matter here. If this is not the proper forum, please let me know. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse. I note that the debate was relisted twice, so presumably two other editors (Sandstein and Tom Morris) also thought there was no clear consensus. But we can't keep relisting forever, so I don't see what else the closer could have done. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse, although I do wish that closer's of contested discussion would give at least some commentary on why it was closed that way. The discussion is easily read as "no consensus", it was well within admin discretion. There were multiple participants, but the depth of the conversation was low. It was, I suppose, "leaning to delete", but it was not decisive. I recommend following advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Yes, this is the correct place to review the close of a deletion discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment My discussion with Bejnar of this issue is here. --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion log archive[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion log archive (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

In September 2006 User:Ral315 deleted all Wikipedia:Deletion log archives (not the Wikipedia:Old deletion log though it seems) and replaced them with a notice saying they have been deleted for concerns of libelous edit summaries. While everything up to September 2003 has been restored, October 2003 onwerds is still deleted with the messages in place. Should October 2003 onwerds be undeleted with summaries removed for historical purpouses? (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

5 October 2015[edit]


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

This article was deleted based on only 5 votes, which basically stated that the company (HappyFunCorp) is not notable enough to deserve a page. Based on the Wikipedia guidelines, I believe HFC is more than deserving of a page, and they have received even more reliable 3rd party press since the page's deletion. I ask that the page be restored, new sources added and the language be reviewed to ensure it is not PR or publicity. Cheers! Also, please note I'm writing this for deletion review because the admin (User:Randykitty) who deleted this page says he won't be active on Wikipedia for a while. HappyFunCorp Imarapaholic (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination edited to avoid impression that RandyKitty signed it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's keep this simple. Could you provide the two or three best sources here? By best, I mean those sources which most clearly meet the requirements of WP:RS and serve to demonstrate notability. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Essentially unanimous outcome based on arguments soundly grounded in policy. Take any new draft to WP:AFC. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Please do not take a new draft to WP:AFC. Instead, see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Yes, it is a great company that deserves a page, just not on Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Saryu Usui (closed)[edit]

2015 Russian air raids in Syria[edit]

2015 Russian air raids in Syria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was not duplicate article. It was subtopic (airstrikes) in a broader topic (intervention). It was created on 30 September, not as fork. Deleted by Materialscientist without correct discussion (only 1 hour after it was started on night), without merging etc. Please restore and send back to AfD for giving of arguments by another users. (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Overturn and relist. Not held open for the minimum duration. I personally believe the article should be deleted under NOTNEWS, but process is important. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Not eligible for A10, and a deletion discussion needs to be kept open for more than eighty minutes and one comment beyond the nominator. Unlikely to survive, but that doesn't justify ignoring process requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The encyclopedia is not improved by allowing a culture of high handed hasty decisions by administrators. The community must be allowed input. Leave it open seven days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

4 October 2015[edit]

Kyaw Zin Lwin[edit]

Kyaw Zin Lwin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted (see here) because it failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, which the subject did at the time but now qualifies these requirements by having played in a professional match for his country's national team (see source here). Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to contact the closing admin but they had not responded back for a couple days. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore as now meeting the requirements. No shame on the admin. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore all the deletion arguments, while correct at the time, have since been invalidated by events. That's enough to permit recreation, and it seems like the deleted article is useful, so undelete it. --ais523 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

3 October 2015[edit]


File:Sonyvhotz.djvu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Public domain status is unclear as it was seemingly produced by Sony and not fed govt but I don't see a problem with using at least a scaled down version of the doc with a claim of fair use. Assuming there is no free version available, it could be theoretically used that way. (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question, in which article do you propose to use this document, and how is it essential to understanding that topic? I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario in my mind for how a DJVU document could meet our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC).
Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Hotz. -- (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Endorse, having looked at the document it's quite clearly that portions of it are not PD, and I don't see how it would meet the NFCC for that particular article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
  • endorse if this is a scan of a legal document. it's either going to be readable or unreadable, if it's readable then the 'low-quality' is irrelevant, we are using it for it's original 'market' purpose nfcc#2 and just acting as a file hosting service, if it's unreadable then it's pretty hard to see how it could improve a readers understanding of the matter at hand nfcc#8. from what i can see the document was being used as a reference, we don't need to host a copy of the file to reference the document, so i cannot see the point in this. -- (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    i've updated the article to link to the complaint as hosted by the eff. -- (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Beta Uprising[edit] (english dub) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

^ if you think the article is worth having please watch this video, it explains everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Beta Uprising (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as speedy delete on the day of nomination, when multiple people said to keep it, and the closing admin did not provide the speedy deletion criteria she deleted it under, only saying "speedy", completely bypassing consensus. Please revert this bizarre close. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the closing admin gave these criteria on the talk page:
Wnt, Chess, Gandydancer and Darth Viller, as you know, it's a question of sourcing. With something like this the first version needs to have solid secondary sourcing so that Wikipedia isn't leading with it. Darth, I saw no scholars using the term. The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on, though you could perhaps add the phrase to another relevant article.
It indeed wasn't the main subject of the BBC News source, though it was the main focus of the article in The Frisky, and had additional mentions in other reliable media. Darth Viller (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Darth Viller: True, but it she can't unilaterally say that it is not enough to base an article on and then delete the article. We're supposed to come to those conclusions by consensus, not one admin deciding whatever she says is law. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt and Gandydancer: Thought you'd like to know of this. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I put some other mentions at the AfD discussion. The page was deleted at 20:00 UTC today, when the AfD looked like this. --Rubbish computer 21:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::I thought @EamonnPKeane: might also like to be pinged, and I will tell the IP in case they also have anything to add. --Rubbish computer 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I speedy deleted it because notability had not been established, and when I checked it on Google it was obvious that notability could not be established. The sources I found were primary sources, with a passing mention of the phrase by the BBC [1] and two other outlets. Yet the Wikipedia article – which contained unsourced passages and SYN violations – had already been picked up by Google. There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase. I hope it is obvious why we ought not to do that given the circumstances.
I've offered to email a copy to its creator, if he doesn't already have one, so that he can create Draft:Beta Uprising. That way, other editors can be involved in the search for secondary sourcing and the decision to publish. Sarah (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify: in case it matters, I had decided this was a candidate for speedy deletion before the article was nominated for AfD (as I recall); I was looking for secondary sources when I saw it had been nominated. Speed was important because of the nature of the claim and its timing in relation to the Umpqua Community College shooting.

    I deleted it under WP:A7: web content with no credible claim of significance. Web content is: "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet," according to Wikipedia:Notability (web). The phrase beta uprising has appeared on 4chan and Reddit. It isn't clear whether it's intended as a serious claim or a joke. There are no secondary sources discussing it; only three mention it in passing. The article was fluffed out with a section on the shooting, unsourced material and SYN violations. (I assume good faith of the creator; this seems to have been a question of being unfamiliar with the sourcing policies.)

    Wikipedia:Notability (web): "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content." Sarah (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Do you mind trying to keep a consistent deletion rationale? At first you said [2] that it was deleted because "We would need secondary sources to show that Wikipedia was following the sources and not leading", which doesn't seem to be based in CSD policy. You then proceeded to say [3] that it needs to be deleted because "This was an admin action based on my view that we were about to cause this idea to spread, rather than simply reporting it", which is also not at all rooted in policy whatsoever. You also said before, [4] something which added on to your deletion rationale by saying "The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on...". You essentially said that the article either did not pass WP:GNG, or WP:VERIFIABILITY, both of which should be decided in an WP:AFD discussion, not a unilateral decision by one person. You've now proceeded to state in [5] that the article was deleted "because notability had not been established", which also is not rooted in policy, and appears to be a misreading of A7, which states that certain types of articles needs to have a claim to notability in them. This article did not fall under one of the certain types of articles listed in A7, and did make a claim to notability. You also said "There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase." You're now stating that we need to suppress information because you don't want people knowing about it. You're essentially saying (and doing) censor Wikipedia. You really need to restore the article, and re-open the deletion discussion, because it is obvious you are very confused about how the WP:AFD process works. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I readily admit I am not familiar with how wikipedia works in terms of getting things removed, but I just don't understand how this could possible be an article. I stated something similar on the talk page before it was deleted, but the entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on r9k, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on r9k, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real.

Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. People have a view point of why these shootings are happening, and with a lack of concrete evidence, turn to using a phrase said in jest as evidence. There is even a fair chance that the entire reason that this is being talked about, the perpetrator of the shooting in Oregon, never even used the term in his life, or knew what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Restore. I realized that this article might have a tough time at AfD - there are sources about it, but they are not exclusively about it. However, the deletion log message cites A7 "no indication of importance", which is clearly wrong, and "WP:SNOW", which is clearly contrary to fact when 2/0 voted Keep. Moreover, deleting admin's comment " It's important, for obvious reasons, to make sure Wikipedia isn't responsible for spreading that idea." is clearly an indication of personal bias rather than a reason for deletion, and contrary to WP:CENSOR. In short, there is no policy reason for deletion. "It is inappropriate to re-argue the AfD here" - people love to say that on DRV when an AfD finds for deletion, so I think I'll say it this time. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Wnt, what exactly is the "indication of importance" that was clearly present in the article? I can't see the original, but from what's posted here, the only alleged indication is that it's a neologism used on two websites. That's not exactly an "indication of importance" (or, if that really is an indication of importance, then AFD could be turned into an CSD-proof article with the lead sentence, "an initialism used on one of the world's most popular websites to mean that your article is probably going to get deleted"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment & reply I read the article before it was deleted. The article seemed problematic. The lead opened with something ominous sounding and something not true to the limited sourcing. I can't remember word for word, but it originally opened with something like: "The Beta Uprising is the name given to the upcoming violent revolution..." It went on to suggest "alpha men" and women would soon be violently targeted by "uprising" "beta men". The lead made it sound like BBC saw this as legitimate and impending revolution. Before it was deleted, I rewrote the lead to match the very limited sourcing which briefly discussed "beta uprising" as a phrase used online by people source called "socially awkward". My rewrite of lead was as follows: Beta Uprising is a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit to refer to violence or support of violence by "socially awkward" males against "alpha males" and women. The violence or support of violence carried out by others is said to be a response to lack of intimacy, romantic success and sexual gratification.[1][2][3] The phrase "beta uprising" has been used by media organizations like BBC News in the aftermath of the Umpqua Community College shooting.[1]
The article didn't appear to meet notability guidelines. The phrase "beta uprising" was only mentioned in passing in the BBC piece as phrase used on 4chan. If additional sourcing is located, I do support Sarah's suggestion on her talk page that this article be created in draft format first, preferably with input of multiple wikiprojects and experienced editors so Wikipedia isn't misused as a tool to promote this as a thing by the guys involved in online chatter about this, which seemed to potentially be occurring. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There wasn't at any one time a statement of an upcoming revolution, it was "expected" in the sense some group may have eschatological expectations - though some stuff did get vandalised away all the time, so the qualifying statement wasn't always there. The immediate use of "alpha" and "beta" was also a later edit. The article did lack a clarification that the phrase also gets used a lot for teh lulz, but that was absent in the sources, too, except for some quotes from Reddit in a pair. Darth Viller (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it was "expected revolution" not "impeding revolution", but it struck me as problematic because it didn't seem to accurately reflect the limited sourcing. The article actually seemed problematic to me on many levels. It seemed to portray "socially awkward" "beta guys" as a group of unstable spree killers the likes of which include Christopher Harper-Mercer and Elliot Rodgers there is some organized and evil group of shy "nice guys" that are out there plotting to take down humanity via violent revolution. I do tend to agree that "beta uprising" is a somewhat notable phrase on 4chan and has some minimal reliable sourcing, so maybe deserves brief mention in some related article, but it seems to devote an entire article to this we should have some serious scholarly sourcing (or at least the kind of sources that investigates how much of this is Internet trolls trying to be funny) . Seems that perhaps WP shouldn't make socially awkward guys seem evil and crazy, even if a small number of sensational reliable sources sort of do. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: A7 mentions that only articles falling under the topics of "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" can be nominated for A7. As mentioned in WP:WEB, "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals." An internet "meme" does not fall under "web content". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It says that web content "includes, but is not limited to" a variety of things. It does not say that a phrase on some website is not included, even if we say that it's a meme. I am therefore dubious of your assertion that it doesn't qualify for A7. The very next sentence in WP:WEB says, "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline", which appears to describe "a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" quite nicely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: The "Beta Uprising" might (hypothetically) be an organized event, so I would prefer to focus on demonstrating what the importance is. A number of news media publicized that Edinburgh University had been threatened by a copycat killing after Umpqua, and said that the UK police were investigating, a comment about the "beta uprising", which they proceeded to define. [6] Just before that, posters citing "Beta Uprising" are alleged to have cheered on the Umpqua killer's rampage [7] (The FBI is said to be investigating 4chan right now, and there is a chance we could see quite a reprehensible purge indeed before this is over) Many of these quoted the "beta uprising" specifically - do read the archived thread here, which is quite entertaining. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
These links do not demonstrate any importance to me; based on this, at most, I would give this phrase one short paragraph in the article about actual events. If the article did no better at conveying importance than the links, then I think that A7 is not an unreasonable interpretation. I would therefore endorse deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The beta uprising is a sort of "idea", like Helter Skelter as preached by Charles Manson. Just because it is on the internet didn't make it "web content". It is wholly divorceable from the internet, unlike things like an advice animal meme, which are intertwined with an internet culture. The beta uprising is not internet culture, it is more of the culture of mentally ill people who can't get laid. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. For now, this is best covered in the article on the shooting itself. Andreas JN466 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't we at least give User:SlimVirgin a rebuke for this obviously out of turn deletion? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I posted a lot of this in a different thread, but it is relevant to this discussion.

Endorse deletion The entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on /r9k/, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on /r9k/, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. The entire premise of the article is predicated on the fact that there is a movement afoot for some sort of social revolution, using the actions of one person and their supposed postings as evidence, when it is entirely possible, and in fact becoming more probable that they never posted the statement in question and did not hold those views, how can you have that in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Forget him, there is no other instance that can even be brought up as an example of this supposed wide-spread simmering movement in action. It's just conjuncture based off of mis-information from bad reporting in the moments after a tragedy.

Most media articles are taking the issue super seriously, and writing a wikipedia article at this time lends that viewpoint credence, because, let's face it, there are a significant number of people who will google the term, end up here, and think it's a real movement. So, even if, a week or two down the line, it becomes clear that the killer did not hold the views in question at all, and that any post related to the matter on places like /r9k/ or reddit are satire, there wont be new media articles saying we were wrong, it was all just some inside-joke, none of these events are related. We will have a wikipedia article that will have been viewed however by many people, perhaps even media personal themselves looking up information to write further articles, that presents the this movement as something taken seriously by people, and that is causing actual harm to other people.

SOFIXIT. Give sources to show it's a joke. I gave sources above to show the American and British authorities were investigating it, and they're traditionally not very funny. You correct the misinformation by providing sourced data for an article that corrects misinformation, rather than having Wikipedia not do its job. Wnt (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sources? How? Would more 4chan screencaps about how it's all just trolling count as a source? Because that's what every one of these articles have been using, literally one screengrab from 4chan, and then some other posts people made afterwards, as sources for this "movement". If all it takes to establish authority as a source is to publish s screenshot in a "reputed" news source along with some commentary, I think you should be able to accept the screenshots I provide, along with any commentary I give. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me, but here we are debating sources that did exactly that. As for authorities investigating, of course they are. That's there job, to investigate any leads. They have to do so. But notice how they haven't said that he did in fact post the post in question, or give any indications of a viewpoint that was similar? They just said they were investigating, and that's it. I would wager that we never hear of it again as the weeks go by, since it turned out there was no relation. Unless of course we make a wikipedia article about it, and make sure to popularize this theory. This is all just my opinion, I have no knowledge of the workings of wikipedia on how articles get vetted, but this case just seems pretty cut and dry not a real thing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn and trout This looks like an obvious supervote. I can see no justification for invoking WP:CSD here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore There was some original info on the first version of the page, but it can be rewritten with sources following investigation into the shooter's motives --The war on shrugs (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. There is no "beta uprising". It was a non-notable meme picked up by confused writers and mentioned in passing. SV was correct in preventing Wikipedia from being used to spread memes without good sources. I suggest everyone who wants to keep this non-topic have a look at WP:NOT as the delete was appropriate per that policy. We are not a rumor mill. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: So do you think any admin should be allowed to delete any article they want to based on their interpretation of the notability guideline? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Chess, the article was deleted appropriately per A7. There is no "beta uprising". It is a non-notable troll routine. There is nothing to relist or discuss. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, come on. You and I both know this wasn't deleted appropriately per A7. That A7 doesn't apply to the topic (not a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event!) is a black and white call. I don't even see how one could twist those words to get this to fit. Further "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Given the discussion here and at the AfD, this wasn't even close to obvious. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist; as much as I agree with the sentiment, there isn't a sufficient IAR justification for this clearly out-of-process speedy deletion. CSD A7 is not valid as there are reliable sources that discuss it, even if in passing, which is good enough as an assertion of importance. Let the community decide how they want to handle this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC).


  1. ^ a b "Oregon shooting and the anonymous '4chan' message board". BBC News. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 3 October 2015. 
  2. ^ Mary-Ann Russon (2 October 2015). "Oregon shooting: Did 4chan trolls incite Chris Harper-Mercer to massacre at Umpqua Community College?". International Business Times. Retrieved 3 October 2015. 
  3. ^ Robyn Pennacchia (1 October 2015). "4Chan Thinks Oregon Shooter Is One Of Their Own, Cheers Him On". The Frisky. Retrieved 3 October 2015. 
Temporarily restored history for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist I'm not sure whether or not it should be deleted, but I am sure it was not a valid speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I'm tending to agree with Viriditas. I've made a few previous comments about this to say it should be kept, however at the time I thought that it was another of the things that kids are talking about these days that I don't have a clue about. That does not seem to be the case here. When I google it, it seems to be a term being used by only a small group...but then on the first page you see Wikipedia has an article on it...meaning that we're helping to spread the term as I type, I guess. I can see where an argument could be made to remove the title for now while it is being discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • IAR Endorse- Sometimes I think we should hold off writing an article about very recent murders until the facts are clarified, and we can do a responsible job. The deleted version is full of poorly sourced speculation and coatrackery, and reads more like an editorial hit piece than an encyclopedia article. Reyk YO! 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist. A7clearly does not apply to memes. WP:SNOW clearly does not apply when all commenters at the AfD except the nominator have !voted to keep the article, providing at least some policy-based rationales. WP:NOT is not a criterion for speedy deletion. "IAR endorse" amounts to "we couldn't trust the community to reach the correct decision at the AfD". Should it be deleted? Probably yes, but not in this way. Process is important. Let the community endorse the deletion for good. Huon (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist. A7 did not apply here and WP:SNOW did not apply here. Whether or not it was deleted should have been determined through consensus at the AfD. --Rubbish computer 10:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The article (undeleted permalink) clearly has no indication of importance (WP:A7) in the sense of encyclopedic knowledge. Some may view the topic as important in the sense of epic trolling, or epic lulz in its portrayal of a webforum as having significance, but there is no content other than an explanation of terms like chads and staceys, and the mention of ephemeral media attention due to an actually significant event. Encyclopedic knowledge about "beta" is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That sums it up for me. Andreas JN466 12:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Andreas, Reyk, Johnuniq & my earlier comments. The article was created via OR and synth. Only three of the six sources referenced even mention the phrase "beta uprising", one only in passing. The existence of "beta uprising" as a minimally notable phrase on 4chan perhaps warrants a brief mention on the 4chan article or shooting article. I understand WP is not censored, and perhaps we could go ahead and keep this article online for a few days, until the community deleted it per GNG, but it also seems that we should probably have some sort of minimal editorial responsibility, because having this article makes it look like a thing. In most of its formats, this article suggests a "violent revolution" has begun or is expected to begin shortly, some of the versions appear to be a call to inspire others to act out violently. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't supposed to be decided based on what you think that someone might be "inspired" to do. But since most of the delete votes are on just this basis, then I will restate what I said at the AfD: this meme is actually interesting and important and can inspire people not just to commit mass slaughter, but to reevaluate and correct aspects of society that may be leading misguided people to commit such crimes. The premise is that a fundamental change in the pattern of sexual relations throughout society have consequences. More broadly (I don't know if those discussing the meme really consider it) the widening gap between rich and poor has more than economic consequences - it has social consequences when some men feel reduced to insignificance in every way, including the sexual. The flip side of the "beta uprising" meme, (indeed, the original beta uprising such as it is) is the Christian ethic of enduring one-to-one marriage, something which most people take on faith to be derived from nothing but random, irrational superstition. Now I don't know what my POV about the meme is - I just smell that it is the tip of something interesting and significant in society. Now usually, the way society responds to such phenomena is to suppress discussion, ignore them, until some day far in the future some writers for Time magazine are vapidly trying to work out how al Qaida managed to recruit hundreds of thousands of young discouraged nobodies, and conclude that it's complicated. But I would have hoped that Wikipedia would actually be not censored, and let editors have a fair shot to try to scrabble together enough sources to lay down some basic ideas for others to think about. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wnt I actually agree with you that the topic is interesting, but our role as WP editors isn't to spread interesting ideas in a way that reliable sources haven't or to give a topic significance in a way that reliable sources haven't done so yet. A lot of what was interesting in that article was OR and synth. I do agree this could be part of a larger and interesting topic of societal sexual norms and their effect on societal stability. This is a bit off topic, but I've read that historically, the cultures that had harems were thought to be less successful and less common than monogamous cultures, not because of women's rights or anything (because most societies rejected harems when women had basically no rights), but because if one man had 10 wives that meant 9 men had no wife at all, and societies with large numbers of young lonely, frustrated and desperate men aren't particularly stable. I also believe there has been some serious scholarly discussion along these lines with issues men face in China where, due to the practice of sex selection/aborting females, there is a large surplus of men. Despite it's potential to fit into a larger interesting scholarly topic, I think we need to wait for high quality reliable sources to make this connection first and wait for quality sourcing to look into how much of this is a joke and how much of it is serious and makes sense in terms of sociological theory etc. In the meantime, it seems current sourcing on the phrase "beta uprising" perhaps warrants a couple sentences on the 4chan article, perhaps under the threats of violence section --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: I recognized that this might have trouble at AfD, but there is no way to know in advance how much data will be brought to the table once people get into the discussion. That's why the process is to leave the article in existence while people argue, especially in close cases. And of course the notion of expunging "bad" topics by administrator fiat is absolutely no part of anything we want Wikipedia to be. I do recognize that the best outcome would be if you or someone else can suggest a way to tie this in with past sociological work on polygamy and/or social inequality in general, so that it ends up as a few lines in a more relevant article. But I am not happy with the notion of sending it to 4chan, because there is no particular reason this concept should remain tied to that one source. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Wnt, I can agree with the intellectual dissatisfaction of putting this in the 4chan article, but given the current sourcing, I'm having a hard time thinking of another article where a section on the phrase "beta uprising" would not be wp:undue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist. It's alright to make an IAR speedy deletion close in obvious cases, but this wasn't obvious enough. There are enough sources online to hold a debate, and the close was out of process. It's likely the article would get merged or deleted, but I don't see any reason why we can't give it a full 7-day run. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion after taking time to look into it this morning, and per SV, Andreas, Johnuniq and BoboMeowCat. Victoria (tk) 18:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist unlikely to be keep-worthy, but that is why we have AfD, for the unlikely cases. This is not a good example for a sppedy close, especially as a SNOW close was out of the question. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Relist The reasons given for deletion were outside of administrator discretion. The existence of sources is an editorial matter to be decided by consensus, thus the purpose of the AfD. If it can be explained to me how this falls under our criteria for speedy deletion I will certainly reconsider my position. HighInBC 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist, then delete again It should briefly exist for procedural reasons, but if Milhouse is not a meme isn't meme enough after all these years, how can something that's only been trendy for a few days measure up? Lack of serious sourcing aside, the concept is flawed. Elliott Rodgers whined about creating a mountain of skulls, then died far short of his goal. Harper-Mercer claimed to want fame, but took the coward's way instead of braving the jailhouse interview spotlight. These betas didn't rise up, they chickened out. And if there ever is a succesful uprising, it'll mean those behind it weren't really betas. But it's mainly the lack of sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, October 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist even though it probably would not survive an AfD. Speedy deletion is only when there is broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, and A7 does not apply to culture. sst 05:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. No speedy deletion criterion applied. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn/Reopen - even when your politics are righteous, Wikipedia ain't the place to do battle with your opponents. WilyD 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Relisting at AFD is just process wonkery since it has no chance as it is currently sourced. shoy (reactions) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Completely non-notable subject. Relisting would be a waste of good editors' time. This is why we have WP:IAR. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Utterly out-of-process deletion. Meets no speedy criteria, WP:IAR isn't a good idea when there is clear and significant opposition. Looking, the sources may well hit WP:N. May not, but that's why we have a 7 day discussion. On top of that, this was a stupid deletion. If we are going to delete it, I'd prefer it _be_ deleted rather than hang around in DRV for a while and then AfD for a while. Better it just stay in AfD. And yes, the fact that a DRV would be coming when speedy deleting an article with all (2) !votes as keep was pretty obvious. overturn and list at AfD Hobit (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist - Absolutely textbook example of an IDONTLIKEIT supervote. That's not how AfD works. That's even more draconian than how Speedy Deletion works. Trout to the closer. (P.S. I'm probably in the Delete camp when the matter is fairly considered at AfD). Carrite (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist I searched for this topic after reading reports on the BBC and twitter about "Beta uprising". Previous diffs of the article informed me of what the concept was and I feel more informed than before reading the article balor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1 October 2015[edit]

30 September 2015[edit]

Prophet's Day[edit]

Prophet's Day‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Kind attention: Onel5969, Caeciliusinhorto, Lfstevens, BattyBot, Jackninja5, Northamerica1000, Iqsrb722, Messiaindarain, Jonesey95, Maproom, Hmainsbot1, Sandstein, AnomieBOT, Everymorning, Worldbruce, Spirit of Eagle

Hi all! I were engage in different issues and failed to watch the discussion on the page Prophet's Day‎. Moreover, to claim for a deletation review is very new to me. Somehow, I am here to submit my demand for a deletation review regarding the page Prophet's Day‎.
Though, earlier was acknowledged about the article Mawlid, I have created Prophet's Day as a separate article because:
In the very easy form, first to say, Mawlid is a celebration that depends on the Lunar Calendar (Muslim calendar or Hijri calendar / AH) meanwhile, Prophet's Day is the celebration that observes in the aspect of Solar Calendar (Gregorian / AD). Here, the almost 11 Days of difference between a lunar and solar calendar should be considerable.
Secondly, the ceremony Mawlid has been celebrating as a National program since Hijri 4th century and as international program since Hijri seventh century. In contrary, the Prophet's day is being celebrated since 2013. Therefore, it is a quite different program.
Moreover, the Islamic Calendar did not exist at the time when Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) appeared in the worldly life. According to historical analysis, Prophet (pbuh) appeared in 570 AD (Julian Calendar Era) it means, the (Gregorian / AD) began since 769 years before his advent. In contrary, the Hijri Calendar even has never introduced by the entire lifetime of Prophet (pbuh). It has been being countdown since 17 year back from its beginning, commemorating the year of migration (from Makkah to Madina) although, initiated/ inaugurated/ introduced 7 years later than the Prophet (buph) passed away.
It clarify that, the Islamic Calendar, it-self, is not a calendar initiated by the Prophet (pbuh) own-self. Therefore, the demand of celebrating a ceremony according to the earlier calendar, the solar calendar- Gregorian is more preferable than the lunar. It is quite different.
There have much more difference between even the season/monsoon. Because of being celebrated according to the lunar calendar, after each 2/4 years, the program become observed in a quite different season. Aside, Prophet's day, as it is being observed according to solar calendar, will remain in same season/monsoon each year. Never change it. Therefore, a difference between these two programs really exists.
Mawlid as being celebrated based on the converted day 12th Rabi-I, It can be celebrated in January, March, July or any month in rotation. It was converted depending on the sustaining other calendars like Julian, Roman or more. But the Prophet's Day is being celebrated based on the really existing calendar in that era that is Julian (Presently Gregorian) so, that, it's date and time will never be changed in the ever future.
I personally am working with the subject Sufism since 1996, contributing on Wikipedia for two years. Most of my works are trusted and stable at bn.wikipedia in fact, you may watch my contribution log. Above all these are my own opinion since I have been writing on the issue and lately following the discussions behind the article Mawlid. In fact, from my perception, in the above all circumstance, both articles should remain as two individual articles holding individual identity in parallel to Father's day or Mother's day or even the Women's day (International Women's Day). However, first two articles or second two articles can be merged in one but will be improper. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse the original closing decision. The above is substantially the same argument made against merging as Sufidisciple stated here: Talk:Mawlid#Discussion: Merge or Keep Separate - Prophet’s Day & Mawlid. As such, it is not significant new information to this participant in the deletion discussion. Sufidisciple edited Prophet's Day while it was proposed for deletion, and had ample opportunity to weigh in on the three-week discussion. Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Trivial endorse. The close obviously reflects the discussion. New information, or new arguments, belong on a talk page, Talk:Mawlid#Discussion:_Merge_or_Keep_Separate_-_Prophet.E2.80.99s_Day_.26_Mawlid. This is not a deletion matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where failure to follow deletion process correctly is dealt with. Mere disagreement with the closure is not dealt with here. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus. I don't see any consensus here at all. On the headcount front, we've got 1 delete (the nominator), 2 keep, and 2 merge. Looking at the merge !votes, we've got no policy-based arguments at all. One simply says, Merge with Mawlid., and the other says, Merge with Mawlid, as per above editors. There's also a mention of a previous merge proposal (which I can't find) which failed. That's the sum total of all the arguments for merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
One of those keeps was added to the middle of the discussion today, 13 days after the closure, and in direct contravention of the "Please do not modify it" notice on the archive. The other keep was my initial position, which I modified during the discussion to say that I considered merge a reasonable outcome. My apologies if I didn't express it properly at the time, but the closer correctly interpreted my position. A merge was proposed with this edit and the merge proposal removed in this edit. No discussion pro or con took place while the proposal was open, but a month later this argument was made for keeping them separate, an argument I would liken to "Easter is celebrated on different days according to Eastern and Western Christian calendars, so Wikipedia should have two articles about it." Worldbruce (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Closer's comment: I've now again removed the "keep" opinion that was added after the closure. This means that everybody who participated during the discussion supported either deletion (the nominator) or merging (the others).  Sandstein  16:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Struck my comment above. I'm still a little concerned about the outcome, though. Clearly, without the !vote added after the close, the close looks fine the way it is. But, we're supposed to be more about doing the right thing than about standing on process. Obviously, voting late is contrary to process, but if process isn't the most important thing, then it seems we should give some credence to an opinion, even if added after the deadline, no? In any case, I'll abstain on this one. If there really is a consensus that the merge should not have happened, that could certainly be discussed on the article's talk page and if consensus does appear to support a resplitting, it's easy enough to do later. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Piggate (closed)[edit]

Recent discussions[edit]

27 September 2015[edit]

24 September 2015[edit]

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)
Sorry, but this is simply rubbish. I can't speak for Dutch awards, but for British honours the honour itself is most definitely defining. We often refer to someone as "a CBE", for example (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch is a CBE). The postnominal is forever after attached to their name and, in the case of knights and dames, they now have a title (Sir or Dame) which they usually use for the rest of their lives (e.g. Sir Michael Caine is now "Sir Michael" and no longer "Mr Caine"). How on earth is that not defining? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This may be a very British thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 17 September 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 [[10]] 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)
  • Overturn I think the CFD showed a divided opinion rather than a consensus for deletion. The keep arguments seem substantial to me. A good question was raised against the suggestion that people should be categorised only by their most defining characteristic. Moreover, the nomination had misconstrued WP:OCAWARD and the previous discussions seem to have done the same. The overcategorization guideline is towards listifying, and not simply deleting, when an award is non-defining. The discussion ought to have considered whether the award is defining for any (group) of its recipients. Instead it was being argued that it is not defining for some (or, indeed, many) of its recipients. Generally, each category needs to be considered separately. Finally, one of the delete rationales was completely irrelevant. Thincat (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Generally, each category neeeds to be considered separately." Do you really think this nomination should be split into 30 nominations? CFDs are often grouped and, if someone says "Hey, that one doesn't fit" it's removed from the nomination (example). RevelationDirect (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not been considering the university nomination at all. I spent a long time considering the current nomination and I thought that, although there might be a few small groups that could be considered together, generally each category has different implications. However, my main argument, as you will have seen, is that the close of the CFD was not done within reasonable discretion. Thincat (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I misread your comment as advocating a general avoidance of group nominations. Thanks for clarifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural question since this is turning into a discussion about the whole series of nominations, rather than about a single nomination, shouldn't we also invite the participants of all these CfD discussions to this Drv discussion? Or would that be considered as canvassing? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a tag on the current day's CFD would be neutral. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. All the other similar results should be overturned as well. They should never have been determined in this way. There was little discussion, no appropriate projects were notified (you know, to inform people who might have been interested in mass deletion of such categories and actually knowledgeable about the subject - because anyone who thinks honours aren't important enough to categorise clearly isn't!) and there was no real consensus in any case. How on earth is an honour not defining? I would also have voted keep on every one had I been aware the discussions were going on. This is really not an acceptable outcome and I notice another batch is now up for deletion including such "minor" awards as the Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire! We need to reverse this ludicrous POV mass deletion project now before Wikipedia is further damaged by it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Necrothesp's entry above. Thin to limited consensus and discussion do not warrant such a wholesale removal of categories. A couple of editors does not really constitute a precedent setting deletion discussion. EricSerge (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Late Contribution:Delete I generally don't bother to participate in these CFD discussions because there is such a clear consensus that these and other similar categories are not defining in multiple nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on the feedback here and in CFD, I'm willing to take a closer look at some of the Dutch and Norwegian categories. In any case, this comment doesn't serve the purpose of this forum. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural Question The main issue here seems to be that, even though the categories were tagged, some editors missed out on defending some specific members of the nomination. Can we re-list those for discussion in a CFD recreation nomination? (That seems like a more appropriate forum than here, which is really about questioning the judgment of the closing administrator.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse I think it's implied in my comments, but endorse the close. There has been a clear consensus with the regular CFD contributors although some editors here look at WP:OCAWARD differently. Rehashing the merits of how that policy is applied with different editors here has the same impact as WP:FORUMSHOP (although that was not the intent of the nominator).RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose my endorse vote wouldn't really count as having been the nominator. But I would like to stress that the overall support in these discussions together has not been thin. Many category discussions close with few(er) discussants! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, but usually for less important categories and less controversial deletions. Many of the delete arguments on later nominations seem to be based on the principle that many had already been deleted so this creates some sort of precedent to delete all the others. That is ridiculous. A handful of editors shouldn't be able to create a precedent on such an important issue. I also note that there seems to have been a move from nominating categories for pretty obscure awards and awards mainly given by heads of state to other high dignitaries, which were deleted either because nobody knew they were being nominated or because of "category clutter" on the articles for such people, up to better-known awards, in which some contributors obviously thought a precedent had already been established to delete awards categories. Maybe not deliberately underhand (I'll assume good faith here), but it does unfortunately rather seem that way. In addition, there are certainly categories in the lists that should have been deleted (such as those for wound badges and minor military medals, which are indeed not at all defining). In these circumstances mass nomination of different types of award is a very bad idea. Each needs separate discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Honestly I've never considered this as an important issue, more like a housekeeping thing, since WP:OCAWARD is clear enough about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
        • OCAWARD tells us only the same thing the general category criteria do: Keep it if it's defining, or use a list otherwise. It provides no guidance as to whether these particular awards are defining or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse as no strong arguments were made for keeping the categories. Tim! (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Where were the strong arguments to delete them? Without clear consensus we always err on the side of keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (as OP): The Order of St. Olav award (which were also part of this deletion discussion) have also come up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2 - "The Order of St. Olav is the single most important Norwegian order for scientific, cultural and other achievements by Norwegian citizens" (Bjerrebæk). If I had realised the significance of the Order of St. Olav deletion, I would have included that in this DRV nomination as well. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist. Opinions were roughly divided, but the closer explained their decision above to make it understandable, and it seems to conform to the relevant guideline, WP:OCAWARD, although I find that guideline a bit unclear. Because this discussion, much like the one being reviewed, does not result in a clear consensus - and I myself am undecided both on the merits and more importantly procedurally, or I would have closed this - I think the best thing to do would be to relist the original discussion to give it more attention.  Sandstein  07:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Since much of the conversation has been about the underlying categories rather than how the nomination was closed, that's probably the best forum to move forward. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist. I don't have any experience with CfD, but my take here is that there's been more discussion on the topic here in DRV than there was in the original CfD, and that's typically a bad sign, since the discussion here is a mix of rehashing the original XfD and process review. The original CfD discussion looked pretty close. I think the best thing to do would be to throw it back on the CfD queue and let people discuss it fresh. I offer no opinion on whether the original close was correct or not; I'm just looking for the best solution going forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse The nomination process already makes it too difficult to get rid of award categories, although they are very heavily discouraged by our guidelines. The nomination process here was fully within guidelines and no reason to overturn that process is given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • No, they're not "very heavily discouraged by our guidelines" at all. You seem to be confusing national honours with minor awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn or Relist. Given that the original rationale for the deletion is in doubt, and that's leaving aside any questions about the way due process was implemented. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist, separately if desired, as there did not seem to be a full consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn all previous deletions of award categories due to the new consensus that just turned down the proposal to delete comparable British award categories. The categories for other countries' main national awards have systematically been deleted for months, while British award categories, whether important, obscure or outright silly, are systematically kept. The same standards must apply to all countries' awards; either we allow award categories, or we remove comparable award categories regardless of whether they are British or Norwegian. Bjerrebæk (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • So is your comment a confirmation that you started the nomination in question to make a WP:POINT, as some alleged in that discussion? As the closer, I would say that the discussion hardly resulted in a new overarching "consensus", since many users simply wanted the discussion closed on the basis that they thought you were gaming the system or using it to make a point. (Regardless, I disagree with your implication that we're dealing with an "all or none" situation here. It's possible that there might be a consensus to delete some award categories but to keep others (or no consensus on others, which leads to the category remaining).) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:POINT Oh, good grief. I voted against your nomination, not on the merits, but based on the perception that it was a nomination designed to fail and then come back here to make WP:POINT. And here we are! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • So, which British honours are "outright silly" please? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire for one (imagine if Norwegian editors had created separate categories such as Category:British Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav, Category:Irish Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav etc.). Wikipedia has a serious problem with British bias in all things related to awards and honours. This is demonstrated by the fact that a massive hierarchy of very obscure British award categories such as Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire, even extending into other countries, are kept, while other countries have had the main categories of their main national awards deleted. The personal attacks by two other users above are quite telling. In the last year, the general policy interpretation has been that more or less all award categories should be deleted, but the fact that Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire and the like were kept has fundamentally changed this interpretation and set a new standard, according to which all award categories should be allowed. Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: My own position is that an award category can be deleted if it is used exclusively to honour royalty and foreign dignitaries (e.g. Category:Grand Order of King Tomislav recipients), and never on the basis of merit. But some have been deleted on the basis that they are sometimes given to foreign dignitaries (and therefore still wind up in Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members). This seems the reason the Order of the Netherlands Lion cats were deleted - Akihito, for example, is a Knight Grand Cross. StAnselm (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
On the other end of the spectrum, I think widespread awards can be non-defining: 2 million Purple Hearts have been issued. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, but then the Purple Heart is not awarded for merit or gallantry. It's basically just awarded for being unlucky. It's no more than a service medal. Many countries don't even bother to award medals or even badges for being wounded - it's not something you've done, just something that's happened to you. We most certainly shouldn't categorise people for being awarded wound badges or service medals, only for honours and medals they are awarded for some sort of distinguished action or service. We've tried to have Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal deleted before, but unfortunately many Americans seem to treat it as more than it is - an almost sacred award. It is frankly laughable that this pointless category (which could be retitled Category:Americans who have been killed or wounded in action) has survived CfD but genuine decorations for merit have been deleted and shows clear systemic bias in favour of the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that you've made some good points throughout this discussion, Necrothesp. I haven't agreed with all of them, but it's good to see that some users can make reasonable, strong arguments to support what they are saying. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Based on this discussion, would it be possible to rewrite the guideline a bit, in order to make it more concrete than it is currently? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same thing; Necrothesp creates a working criteria of awards being uncommon and not strictly a formality. We would just need to make sure we consider other problem awards, like those at the bottom of the The Titanic Soundtrack article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse this isn't CFD 2.0; the arguments were made and there was no misinterpretation in the close. Discussions of what other awards are or aren't similar are not relevant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is instructive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • There was no true consensus to delete, there was mass nomination of categories relating to very different awards with little attempt to notify those who might have expertise in the subject (it might have been guessed that this would be controversial), and some opinions in later CfDs seem to have been based on the fact that categories were deleted in previous CfDs which was taken mistakenly to create a precedent to delete all categories relating to honours (I could cite WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST here!). Sorry, but all these decisions were deeply flawed and should all be reversed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC There was no consensus in that discussion. And very little in the way of meaningful discussion wrt the actual categories. I know that cat discussions are often fairly limited, but with something this wide ranging, consensus should be very clear and it wasn't. Relist as desired but notify the awards wiki project. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


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