Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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

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


Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who 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).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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


Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer 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 closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  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.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


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 page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. 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 editor 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|date=2019 June 17}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 June 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 June 17|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • 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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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).

Active discussions[edit]

17 June 2019[edit]

Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed[edit]

Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, to explain the reasons for this request, I will repeat textually part of my messages to the editor who deleted the article; this article (about an Arab minister) was deleted directly because it was uploaded by a banned user. I work with the subject of the article, and some time ago I contacted a freelancer to make an English version of the article (Arabic version was established some time ago). We turned to a qualified editor, with extensive experience in Upwork, who supposedly knew what should be done and what should not be done in Wikipedia. The article was published and was three months online, and it was even reviewed (by user Doomsdayer520). We never assumed that the editor would act illegally, we always thought that the publication had been made transparently. Paid editions are contemplated in Wikipedia rules, but now I know that certain requirements must be met (and that obviously the editor we did not meet at all). But the notability of Bin Butti was not discussed at any time, the article (according to the editor who deleted it) was deleted by the mere fact of having been uploaded by a banned editor, who violated his ban by publishing the article. But I did not do anything against Wikipedia's rules, and I did not tell the editor to hide the condition of paid article. I understand that if the editor had identified the article as a paid edition, the article would be online today. It is not about going over the editor who deleted the article, I understand the spirit of his responses and the voluntary work in Wikipedia, but if paid articles and COI articles are regulated, I think that this should be taken into account. Thanks! Myounes22 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

13 June 2019[edit]

Catherine S. Snodgrass[edit]

Catherine S. Snodgrass (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

please refer to notable major news articles:,> SnodMJMO1234! (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • neither of those are about the subject, the first doesn't even list her name. -- (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse per the IP. No case is made against the reasons for deletion. Wikipedia only covers subjects that are covered by others independent of the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Both articles are about the daughter: If she meets WP:NBIO, a draft could be created, but notability is not inherited. SnodMJMO1234!, your username looks like it implies that you are a friend, or may have another relationship, so if you intend to create such an article please note that according to our guidelines any possible conflict of interest should be disclosed. Alpha3031 (tc) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - As mentioned by Alpha3031, both of the sources listed are about a family member, and notability is not inherited. There is no argument presented as to an error by the closer, and this is not a request to resubmit. Prepare an article on Jesse Snodgrass, maybe. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

List of ACM-W Celebrations (closed)[edit]

File:Montmartre_pitchal.jpg (closed)[edit]

10 June 2019[edit]

Ruth Koleva[edit]

Ruth Koleva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello. In my opinion this article should be brought back, because it was wrongfully deleted for lack of notability. She is a notable musician in Bulgaria. The nominator and the delete supporters haven't looked up for local sources. If you search for her name in Bulgarian (Рут Колева), multiple links for interviews, TV appearances and etc. can be seen. The other argument in the deletion discussion was the lack of notability and reliable sources for her awards, which I tried to add prior to the deletion. Most of them are BG Radio Awards, considered a high achievement and the only nationally televised pop music award show in the country. Thank you. Quickfingers (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, could you provide the best three or four sources for her that help to meet WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation I'm not convinced all of the sources presented above pass WP:GNG, but some of them do, and - Bulgaria's national radio - has article coverage of her dating back to 2011. While I'm not entirely convinced, this has more to do with my inability to read Bulgarian than anything else, combined with my understanding of how Balkan-area sources can be reviewed at AfD. Whether this gets restored or restored to draft space I have no opinion on. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • New sources appear to be enough to meet WP:N. Actually, old sources seem good enough honestly. But yeah, allow recreation. Might still be sent back to AfD. Hobit (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Clear deletion result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Koleva(Singer) reviewing similar sources.
Quickfingers was asked for the best three or four sources, and failed. See WP:THREE. Not six.
Sources are all, or mostly, Russian. Where is the article on the Russian wikipedia? Maybe I got the language wrong? I know foreign sources are OK, but a foreign single, deleted at AfD, with no article on native language Wikipedia for source, that is a big negative flag.
Do not allow recreation unless without unambiguous presentation of WP:THREE (not six) quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: It's clearly noted she's Bulgarian in the DRV statement. You're looking for [1]. Also, I know it's not the only reason you weren't convinced, but I don't think it's fair to chide someone for providing six sources in good faith even if only asked for three or four. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah sorry. I think was I was grumpy. bg:Рут Колева. I’ll look again later. And yes, it’s not fair to chide the individual for the common problem that newcomers thing more sources is better. Offering more sources just makes it harder for reviewers. Two good sources are enough. If the best three are not, no number of additional weaker sources will make the difference. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It's tedious to review six foreign language sources using google translate. Please, WP:THREE, not more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Leave deleted. If you want to try, I encourage a userspace or draftspace draft that must go through AfC before returning to mainspace. The sources look borderline. bg:Рут Колева reads like a CV, and would likely be deleted here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The sources look too promotional, and look non-independent of the subject, and so do not attest WP:Notability. There may be independent third party coverage that can be found, it does not have to be comprehensive coverage, but it must be someone independent, from a distance, writing something, multiple sentences, qualitative about the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Bulgarian National Radio and Television, state-funded outlets and the two most watched private TV networks in the country, bTV and Nova TV are not credible? I only linked Actualno, because the better source is locked behind a registation wall. The Jazz.FM article is just a review of her album. Quickfingers (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"Credible" is not the test. The more likely the point of failure is that the source is "promotional", or more specifically, not independent of the subject or her agent. I suggest that you write a draft stub using the three best sources that qualify for the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
You're acting as if they were press releases on her website, rather than articles on local high-profile medias. They're not CNN or New York Times levels, but nonetheless highly influential in Bulgaria, and obviously independent of her. Please set your bar lower. I'm only claiming notability in that particular country. Quickfingers (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
1 [2]
23.04.2012 07:44. Content on the subject is thin. What is a "BG Artist"? If it were a notable award, it would have an article, or at least a section in an article. I would not lead with this source. Why did you choose this as the #1 source?
2 [3]
"Ruth Koleva - the singer with a world image" published on 08.06.18 at 17:13 Author: Maya Raykova "Ruth Koleva is one of the brightest, attractive and talented performers of the Bulgarian pop jazz music, with a rich artistic biography and a serious presence on the world music scene. " "Ruth Koleva is Singer of the Year by BG Radio and Woman of the Year of Gracia Magazine. She is the first Bulgarian artist to be awarded the "Best Jazz Singer" Award by Radio Inter FM in Japan in 2015..."
This looks pretty good.
3 [4]
Ruth Koleva is on a major European tour 16.04.2018 " the start is on April 22, when Ruth will sing in the popular London club "Hoxton Underbelly" and that is the biggest tour of a Bulgarian performer in her genre." This is promotion of an upcoming tour, does not demonstrate notability.
4 [5]
"This site can’t be reached"
Works perfectly fine on my side. Try using Google Cache. Click It's also archived on the Wayback Machine, but currently they're having server issues. 14:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Ruth Koleva - a step from Grammy 04 November 2018 10:58
"Her album was selected among the 12,000 released during the year"
"Ruth Koleva's album is a step away from the Grammy Awards."
"My Album" Confidence. Truth "came out in Bulgaria last year and went international in April through an American label. He was approved to be nominated for a Grammy nomination, "Ruth Koleva told the Writer."
My hardline source-analysis-for-Wikipedia-notability could say "This is an interview, promotion, not independent, does not demonstrate notability", but I do agree with User:SportingFlyer that the subject looks easily notable. I guess that you are just providing a poor selection of sources. Again, WP:THREE, which should be the rule for recreating previously AfD deleted topics. I think you could easily make an article better than your other articles Alisia (singer) and Malina (Bulgarian singer) but I have to say that these are directory style information only, they contain an excessive number of promotional external links, and I would likely !vote "delete" at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5 [6]
Ruth Koleva and the Sofia Philharmonic with a gala concert on 24 May on bTV. Watch from 23 o'clock. 20 may 2015
This is promotion.
6 [7]
"Confidence. Ruth Koleva's Truth - an album born on the path of her growing as an artist and a man" 13.11.2017 Tanya Ivanova
This is promotion of an upcoming event. "On November 16 Ruth Koleva will present Confidence. Truth in Bulgaria Hall. This will be her second concert there after 2015, which overcame the hall. Now, Ruth promises an even bigger show - like actors, sound, visuals and lighting. "In this concert we are dealing with three different elements, such as jazz, folklore and classics." - tells the vocalist who will appear on stage with her group," The source is he vocalist, not independent, does not satisfy the WP:GNG, not useful for attesting notability.
Sources that amount to promotion of an upcoming event are not sources that demonstrate notability, they are almost certainly agent publicity. Can you find reviews written after the event?
Promotional material, whether press releases on her website, or cleverly placed advertising on local high-profile medias, cannot be used to demonstrate notability. #2 shows promise. #1 fails and caused me not to take you seriously. #4 can't be reached. The rest fail on analysis. Do you speak Bulgarian? Why don't you improve bg:Рут Колева? When I translated that, I found something that I would nominate at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Different languages have different notability standards, and it's clear to me doing a search in Bulgarian she passes WP:GNG. For instance, the first source isn't really sigcov, but winning a Bulgarian Radio award almost certainly passes WP:SINGER #8. Plus, there's a lot of other coverage not presented here - for instance, she's enough of a name in Bulgaria that she's a first name opinion on political issues. See [8]. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it a “major music award”? If it is, then why does it have no mention anywhere in mainspace. I still recommend improving the Bulgarian article first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact the Bulgarian article may be promotional has absolutely nothing to do with English WP:GNG. Searching БГ РАДИО brings up a number of Bulgarian articles discussing the nominees and winners from what appear to be reliable Bulgarian websites, not just about Ms. Koleva. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
If User:Quickfingers is fluent in Bulgarian, and noting the subject and all sources are Bulgarian, I recommend he improve the Bulgarian article first. I think it is the easiest way forward. Alternatively, he may choose to write a draft to flesh out minimal material from these sources, but people like me will look to the native language article, and it may spoil the assessment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Is the filer requesting to overturn the deletion, or to resubmit in draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm requesting a overturn of deletion, but allowance for recreation will also be gladly appreciated. Sorry for the late response. Quickfingers (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse if the issue is whether to overturn or sustain. The Delete conclusion was a valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but restore to draft as a plausibly notable subject that an editor intends to work on. Alpha3031 (tc) 14:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

9 June 2019[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The votes before relist were:

  • Subst and delete
  • Delete after replacement
  • Keep until replacement
  • SPEEDY CLOSE ("is a wrapper since creation" and the IP proposed it itself for substitution)

It was closed as delete [9].

Later a DRV was started (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#2019 February 22), the nominator claimed he found new information and requested re-opening (=relist). In the DRV one user asked what that new information would be, but got no answer. Another endorsed the deletion. And some others supported relist. It was closed as relist, even if the proof for validity of the DRV has not been presented.

It was relisted: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April_6#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality. After relisting only one extra vote was made, which semi-voted keep referring to the DRV (In light of the DRV discussion, I think it's clear this template should be kept), but contrary to that claim, in the DRV no user voted keep. No more comments were made so the votes stood at 3(4):1. Surprisingly the closing was done as "no consensus". To me it seems the result would be "Replace (subst:) and (then) delete". Of course replacement should be done with care. But calling template data from {{infobox settlement}} has been done before, e.g. Amsterdam calls Dutch municipality templates (Category:Netherlands data templates). Pppery mentioned the example of Belgium in his DRV deletion endorse: "Endorse there is nothing that needs changing here; there is clearly consensus to not use a wrapper infobox, and it seems like there is consensus to continue to use the data subtemplates. Those two outcomes are not incompatible, as data subtemplates can be passed directly to the infobox, see Template:Metadata Population BE for an example.". This would also address the concerns in the pre-relist comment by Apalsola: "However, I still think that the information should not be stored directly on the page.". TerraCyprus (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Zackmann08, Pppery, Pigsonthewing, Apalsola, Pudeo, and Uanfala: - pinging participants of the first discussion and the discussion after relist. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Today I separated all data from the infobox, the replacement could now be done similar to how data is handled for the municipalities in the Netherlands. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to replace and delete due to the complete lack of any argument against the "pass data from templates as parameters to {{Infobox settlement}}" approach that I talked about in the first DRV, even among those who argue the template should be kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Close as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. In the first DRV, I said, Templates are a highly technical area ... I can't see how it hurts to let the people who actually understand the technology talk about it for another week. Apparently, there wasn't much interest in talking about it at WP:TfD. That's unfortunate, but the bottom line is 1) You can't keep coming back to DRV until you get the result you want, and 2) As I said before, this is largely a technical decision which requires specialized knowledge of how templates are used and constructed. If TfD is unable to come to agreement, it's not reasonable to expect that DRV, which is made up of people who are (for the most part) not template experts, can do a better job. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    RoySmith : FUD. WP:DRVPURPOSE: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;" - that is what happened. One bogus oppose vote, nothing more, still "no consensus". (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • TerraCyprus I think it would be more productive to spend 7 days on a new Tfd (as I mentioned you could do so on my talk page), likely getting a consensus for subst and delete, rather than spending 7 days at DRV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Galobtter it would have been more productive if you would not have messed it up in the first place or at least would have changed after TerraCyprus contacted you. The vote was clear, only one opposer, still you decided to call it "no consensus". (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There does seem to be a consensus to get rid of the template and replace it with something else, but no particular consensus on what that something should be. In particular I don't see a consensus for substing and deleting it afterwards. The OP seems to have counted everybody who wanted to replace the template as supporting the subst outcome, but I don't see that in the discussion. Hut 8.5 21:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The initial vote was clearly for subst/replace. The first DRV may or may not have met the criteria of WP:DRVPURPOSE (Pigsonthewing asked for details but got no response) but resulted in relist. In the discussion after the relist no-one explained why subst/replace should not be implemented. Technical details of the subst/replace had to be solved before implementation, but that is up to the implementers of the outcome subst/delete and that didn't seem to be too complicated. TerraCyprus even has proven that outsourcing the data into pure data-storage templates is possible. That means the initial vote has to be respected. Replacement through Subst:itution should be done, followed by deletion. (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Consensus is way too far from clear for DRV to overturn “no consensus” to delete. WP:RENOM. This is a matter for WP:TfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse and allow immediate TfD renomination. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality, the 22 March 2019 DRV nominator (who was also the TfD nominator) wrote:

    The biggest thing was the discovery of Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality/. While in general I am opposed to the use of templates to store data in this way, right now it is the best solution there is. Until such time as all that data is able to be ported over to something like Wikidata in a more supporting way, I think that converting the infobox will cause more harm than good. Whether or not you agree with that, I strongly believe this point warrants further discussion. In the interest of fairness and transparency, I think we need to hash out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template.

    I did not see "hash[ing] out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template" after the relisting at TfD. The only comment after the relisting was:

    In light of the DRV discussion, I think it's clear this template should be kept without prejudice to renomination if someone who's well acquainted with the intricate functionality of the template is willing to support change and is prepared to put it in the apparently high amount of effort needed to implement that change.

    The closing admin's statement ("Looks like the technical feasibility of replacement needs to be investigated more") is an accurate summary of the lack of consensus in the discussion about how to replace the template.

    The 9 June 2019 DRV nominator wrote on the closing admin's talk page:

    I today outsourced all the data code from the infobox to Category:Data Finland municipality templates, which is inside Category:Data templates. Cf. also Category:Template:Metadata Population. Now infoboxes or other pages can retrieve the data stored in the data templates indepent from the infobox. The replacement could start soon.

    The closing admin replied, "It looks the edits you have done have made substing viable; I would suggest starting another TfD to evaluate that (you can ping the participants of the previous discussion)."

    I therefore support allowing an immediate TfD renomination so that these changes can be discussed.

    Cunard (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Indigo (Chris Brown album)[edit]

Indigo (Chris Brown album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was moved into draftspace (to Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album)) and the mainspace page fully protected a day ago by JJMC89, which was excessive and unnecessary. As I said at the draft talk page: The article is well sourced by news sources, has a release date, cover and track list. It clearly meets WP:NALBUMS with flying colours. Anyone can see that. The article has grown since it was nominated for deletion in early May (when most users commented), more details have been revealed and sources added. This should not have been drafted again when it has been expanded and improved and not in the same quality it was in when it was decided to draftify it, and I do not think JJMC89 was justified in moving this back into draftspace a day ago when it was still being worked on by a number of users.

There are plenty of news sources out there on this. There is just a sample of these on the article. We are keeping an album in draftspace for something that will be released in under three weeks that plenty of users will be searching for, there is lots of confirmation and coverage on. I in no way agree that it was a good decision to move back into draftspace. Ss112 01:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Regardless of the merits of the move the indefinite creation protection is definitely a bad idea. The album hasn't been released yet but an album by a musician this well known will certainly be notable when released, which will happen in a few weeks. The AfD commenters generally agreed with this and the AfD certainly can't be used to prevent creation of the article indefinitely. Hut 8.5 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    I only intend it to be temporary but chose indefinite to avoid having to cleanup the history again when someone would recreate it on expiration instead of moving the draft. I've already done history merges/splits on this twice within a week. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I suggest we just move the draft to mainspace then. By the time this discussion closes it'll be less than two weeks until the album is released, at which point it will be notable. The Delete comments in the AfD are no longer valid or will be no longer valid very soon, most of them relate to the fact that the existence of the album or the release date hadn't been confirmed, that doesn't appear to be the case any more. I don't see much point in spending effort quibbling about notability just to block the creation of the article for the next week or two and prevent history merges. Hut 8.5 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Since nothing had been added since the AfD close at the time of my move and protection that impacts notability, Ss112 seems to be arguing that the original AfD was flawed and/or closed incorrectly as notability would then have been established before the discussion was closed. Release dates, covers, and track lists don't contribute to notability (or any other criteria for having an article), so why keep repeating it, Ss112? — JJMC89(T·C) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @JJMC89: Per WP:FUTUREALBUM. There is enough notability. I have said that as well. I kept repeating that there is now a confirmed title, track list and cover because some of the users who originally commented didn't think there was enough confirmation of any of those details. You are just delaying the inevitable by continuing to refuse this. Ss112 05:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's inevitable that the album will be notable once released. I suggest people get on with creating and expanding the article rather than arguing over process for process' sake. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have two recommendations:
    1. Change the full create protection to expire on 28 June 2019, the day the album is released, so that any editor can move Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album) to Indigo (Chris Brown album) after the album is released.
    2. Allow any admin to unprotect the page or a renomination at DRV if anything significant changes before 28 June 2019. JJMC89 wrote "... nothing had been added since the AfD close at the time of my move and protection that impacts notability". I have seen no new sources that provide new information about the album presented in the draft or in this DRV. If such sources are found, then {{db-repost}} no longer applies, and the article can be restored.
    Cunard (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

6 June 2019[edit]

5 June 2019[edit]

4 June 2019[edit]

3 June 2019[edit]


Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec