Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Are unregistered users entitled to bring deletion reviews?[edit]

A series of DRVs have been speedy-closed recently (1 2 & 3 4 5 6) which were listed by editors editing whilst not logged in. The closure was generally expressed as being because the non-logged in editor was in fact registered but choosing to hide his/her identity.

Mentioning main closers User:Spartaz User:RoySmith User:Sandstein (Yes, I'm self-reporting as well.)

Is this a de-facto policy that users must use a registered account to list at DRV? Stifle (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In the one case in which I speedily closed the DRV that was because I considered that the request was likely in violation of our sockpuppet policy. No opinion about the other cases, although it appears that the requests were mainly considered disruptive for reasons other than having been made by an IP. In principle, as far as I know, IPs editing in good faith are allowed to make deletion review requests.  Sandstein  11:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The one I closed yesterday wa s aclear case (on the balance of probability) of being a registered user or otherwise experienced user using an IP to avoid scrutiny. The only two edits were related to longevity situations (DRV and AE case). In good faith we should know who we are dealing with. That said, good faith IP editors with a bit of history are more than welcome. One of the most sensible reviewers at DRV is an IP and I consider their view as valid as anyone elses. The difference being that they have a history and are not using DRV as a platform to pursue a wider grudge. Spartaz Humbug! 12:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • On 2nd January I speedy-closed one where the nominator only registered his account that morning. The subject was Donald Trump and fascism, and AGF isn't a suicide pact. I think the true situation is that anyone including an IP editor is welcome to raise a deletion review but nominations about highly controversial subjects, when made by IP editors or brand new accounts, are subject to speedy closure.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I certainly wouldn't want a blanket policy which says IPs are forbidden to use DRV. On the other hand, my bullshit meter has a very low threshold. I have absolutely no problem with speedy-closing a DRV if it looks like the poster is trying to game the system. That includes pretending to be a newbie (either IP or new account) when their actions demonstrate that they in fact have been around for a while. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Echoing the above, there shouldn't be any general rule against IPs starting DRVs, but requests which are disruptive, trolling or made by obvious sockpuppets can be speedily closed. That seems to be the reason for closing the linked requests, not just the fact that they were made by IPs. Hut 8.5 23:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes unregistered users are entitled to bring DRVs. There is no reason that they shouldn't be subject to speedy closure if they have clearly failed to understand what DRV is - specifically that it is not "requests for undeletion" (which we probably should have, despite the obvious problems).
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
  • Absolutely yes, and this applies to all forums, not just DRV. If an invalid or disruptive DRV is opened, it should be closed, no matter who opened it. If it is not invalid or disruptive, then the sole fact of the nominator being an IP editor or a new account is not a valid reason to close it. Conversely, if the closer is certain the DRV has been opened by a sockpuppet, then it should be closed. But merely being an IP account or newly registered user doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet.--Aervanath (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pretty much agree it's a case-by-case situation but as a general principle, I'd prefer we set a higher bar for nuking IP DRVs. At least of those (which I commented on) I felt was in good faith. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Stifle: Except for #6, all the other examples you list are from the same IP editor (166- and 107-), who is banned. (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

Taking to the appropriate forum. VQuakr (talk)

Sirs,This page was nominated for Deletion in 2014 and the result consensus was Keep.However,the administrator is no longer active and I would like for this deletion to be reviewed by someone as in my opinion the subject of this page has low notability and the sources are not credible considering that most of them point to dead links.In my opinion the page needs to be deleted.Kindly review.thank You (Intelbot22 (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC))

@Intelbot22: the 2014 discussion had three policy-based keep !votes with no support for the deletion nomination. There was no way that would ever have been closed as anything but "keep." Dead links are not a reason to delete, and notability is not temporary. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The requesting editor is a single-purpose account (with a non-conforming user name, impersonating a bot, although that may be unintentional) whose sole objective is, for some reason, to get the article deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: If you look at the page history of Arvind Iyer you'll find a whole string of single purpose accounts that are obviously related to this one (compare their edits and edit summaries...), doing nothing but trying to downplay the subject of the article and/or getting the article deleted... Thomas.W talk 11:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the point to this comment? The article is currently deleted. This project talk page isn't the place for discussing whether a deletion was proper. Either file a real request for deletion review, or let the matter drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: In 2014 an AFD had a unanimous KEEP vote and was kept. In 2016, the second AFD had a unanimous DELETE vote and was deleted. No admin ever closed an AFD in a manner that was counter to consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 13:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am with Robert McClenon on this one. This isn't the place to request a review. File a proper request for deletion review or let it go. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No issue with the close as based on the AFD, and no dog in the fight. Just noticed the comments here suggesting a history of bad faith edits/noms of a page that should be retained (not considered at the AFD) but that was successfully deleted a month later. Probably should have written "confirm" rather than "review". ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Valid ref. links to undelete 'Anandmurti Gurumaa' page[edit]

This is the reference to the wikipedia page of "Anandmurti gurumaa" which has recently been deleted following the deletion debate at . I had requested to resume this page,in response to which I have been directed to contact ( and to this page via User:JJMC89 too. I would like to bring to your kind notice that the reason mentioned in the debate is lack of independent resources and dead links, whereas lot of sources and independent links exist featuring work of Anandmurti gurumaa as a renowned Indian spiritual master. Moreover these reliable links belong to national newspapers like Times of India, DNA, The Hindu, India today, Amar Ujala etc.

Below are the sources for your reference Tedx talk: [1] (Times of India) Speaking tree: [2] DNA Newspaper: [3] The Hindu Newspaper: [4] The Hindu: [5] Amar Ujala Newspaper: [6] Wikiquote: [7] Verified Facebook page: [8] Youtube channel: [9] Wikipedia other pages reference: [10] BBC News: [11] Interview: [12] BBC Interview: [13] Interview: [14] Red Fm Vancouver ( Canada) Interview: [15] Interview: [16] Gurumaa with swami ramdev in an event: [17] MTV: [18] Life positive: [19] Life positive: "[20]" Life positive: [21] Life positive: [22] Life positive: [23] Life positive: [24] Life positive: [25] Official Website: [26] Life positive: [27] Life positive: [28] Life positive: [29] Life positive: [30] Hungama: [31] Life positive: [32] Karmapa: [33] Karmapa: [34] Karmapa: "[35]" Karmapa: [36] Wikipedia page references: [37] Wikipedia page references: [38] Wikipedia page references: [39] Wikipedia page references: [40] Wikipedia page references: [41] India Today Newspaper: [42] PS: This information has also been posted to other admins of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You would do well to strip out the YouTube/Wikipedia/Wikiquote/Facebook links then we can have a look at what is left. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Here are the sources left after removing the aforementioned links:
Offhand I don't see where the coverage is really heavy or strong enough to overturn the prior AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I have worked on your feedback and have researched few primary sources on the internet. The page of the person 'Anandmurti Gurumaa' was around more than 10 years old but why that her page was deleted. The references shared by me are also considered on different wiki page for eg: I believe below references will help you to undelete the page.

1. The Hindu Newspaper [1] 2. The Hindu [2] 3. Amar Ujala Newspaper [3]

4. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [4] 5. Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’ [5] 6. Tedx talk [6] 7. Karmapa [7] 8. Article in DNA Newspaper [8] 9. Article in DNA Newspaper [9] 10. Article in DNA Newspaper [10] 11. Article in DNA Newspaper [11] 12. Article in DNA Newspaper [12] 13. Karmapa [13] 14. Karmapa [14] 15. Karmapa [15] 16. Life positive [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ The Hindu Newspaper:
  2. ^ The Hindu:
  3. ^ Amar Ujala Newspaper:
  4. ^ Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’:
  5. ^ Times of India Newspaper posted articles of anandmurti gurumaa to their blog ’Speaking tree’:
  6. ^ Tedx talk:
  7. ^
  8. ^ Article in DNA Newspaper:
  9. ^ Article in DNA Newspaper:
  10. ^ Article in DNA Newspaper:
  11. ^ Article in DNA Newspaper:
  12. ^ Article in DNA Newspaper:
  13. ^ Karmapa:
  14. ^ Karmapa:
  15. ^ Karmapa:
  16. ^ Life positive:
  • Much of this is material written by Anandmurti Gurumaa and is not useful in demonstrating that she meets the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. What is needed is significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Who has written about Anandmurti Gurumaa in some detail in a source that has nothing to do with her, has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

Good Day Wikipedia Team. I am the owner of Elaica May Arce account and I have noticed that my account was deleted. Please help me resolve this issue since I made this account for my friends and family who wants to reached and know me personally. Thankyou and hope for your good consideration. Elaica May Arce (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a social-networking site. See advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

DRV of fREAKAZOiD[edit]

I'm hoping that Sandstein will modify the closure of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#6_July_2016 the DRV for fREAKAZOiD in line with requests in that discussion for a relist, since the afd wasn't relisted for a second cycle. Seeing how close both the AfD and DRV were, I don't think you can say for certain what a relist would result in.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Please? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean, most of us did agree that it should've either been overturned or relisted, much more likely the latter though (edit: I'm not disputing that it wasn't an NC by strength of votes, to be clear).--Prisencolin (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)