Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. 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.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes 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.

Purpose

Shortcut

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. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  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);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

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

Instructions

Shortcut

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

 
1.

Click here 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: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 April 24}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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=2025 April 24}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 April 24|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their 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.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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

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 everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. 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 closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

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.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

24 April 2025

Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate NAC "SNOW" close after one vote when no speedy keep criterion appear to apply. Requesting uninvolved admin reopen and let it run. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and List - The closure conflates a Speedy Keep with a snow close, and does not meet the criteria for either. It is not a Speedy Keep because it does not correspond to any of the 6 Speedy Keep criteria. It is not a snow closure because the discussion has not been continuing long enough that consensus is obvious. Also, the closing statement is a long supervote, which is inappropriate in a close. I think it is too bitey in tone to be good advice on a user talk page, but that is not important. An editor who doesn't clearly know the difference between a Speedy Keep and a snow close should avoid either type of close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, although I'm sympathetic to the closer because an IP nominating a GA is a bold move (if not a WP:BOLD move). But it doesn't meet the speedy keep criteria and it wasn't SNOWing yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 April 2025

Patrick McClean

Patrick McClean (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Apologies if this is the wrong place to request this but is it possible to undelete and draftify the article as I believe I can bring it to a good standard but this would help not start from scratch. Besides, this was deleted in 2017 under WP:NFOOTY which has since been depreciated as a rationale and WP:GNG is the usual standard here. I would also add that 8 years in professional sports is a very long time. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Owen× ☎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: I don't know what the article looked like before, but I saw this Guardian article in the news today, and given his brother is a reasonably well known footballer was surprised to see this person doesn't have an article. There are red-links to him as well in a few places. There are other WP:GNG about this emerging story such as Belfast Telegraph (I won't bother entertaining the Daily Mail and The Sun as sources but they are national outlets nonetheless) but there's also news on his other career steps such as his retirement for example. That's just after a 5 minute search, so there should be enough for a half-decent article, but I asked to draftify first rather than restore so it can be worked on 1st. Also I would add that League of Ireland would be WP:GNG unless someone quoted WP:ROUTINE but it looks like there was little actual discussion on the AfD about the sources, just barely justified delete votes. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Derry City F.C. and Glentoran F.C. are professional football clubs in professional leagues (League of Ireland Premier Division and NIFL Premiership respectively) so unsure how WP:NFOOTY fails here anyway but the AfD was in 2017 and a lot has changed since. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The Guardian and the Belfast Telegraph sources are no more than BLP1E. Having a famous brother is WP:NOTINHERITED. The BelfastLive retirement announcement reads like WP:ROUTINE, so I doubt it counts as SIGCOV for GNG. The appellant admits to spending only five minutes searching for sources, so I'm not sure where the confidence about the existence of sources comes from, nor what they'd achieve by working on the article in draftspace in the absence of sources supporting notability. I'm also put off by their dismissive tone regarding the views at the AfD of some of our most experienced, trusted editors, including @GiantSnowman, Spiderone, and CAPTAIN RAJU. While this appeal was made in good faith, I get the clear impression that the appellant doesn't understand what is required to meet GNG, and that draftification is just a backdoor to mainspace, forcing us to go through another AfD. Yes, a lot can change in eight years, but apparently not enough to make this subject notable. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: There's good reason to be sceptical of the AfD and rationales provided. The AfD had no discussion of sources at all. And I strongly resent this thinly-veiled attack on my understanding of WP:GNG. An article discussing the players retirement calling it a huge shock is not routine coverage at all especially as he is the main subject of the article. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because his main notability is being a football player not this event he is currently in the news for. Given previous series of AfD's I had to endure e.g. 1, 2, 3 and many many others, I think you're comments are way off the mark especially as I was asking to draftify and improve not restore in whatever previous form it was, but this Wiki-lawyering-admin makes me think that I would have been better off making a completely new article and then defend it at yet another AfD in order to keep the article (which I would have gad every right to do so). Abcmaxx (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I agree with OwenX. I don't see anything wrong with the close - it reflected the consensus of that discussion and there were many experienced editors involved. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - good deletion. Not notable then, does not appear to be notable now. GiantSnowman 21:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close as Delete, but I don't think that this is an appeal of the close. I think that this is a request to refund the deleted article to draft space so that the requester can improve it. I don't know why editors who want to develop a new article on a living person whose article was deleted in the past want so strongly to get the deleted article returned to them in draft space, because they will be starting with something that was deleted. I have no opinion at this time on whether to refund the deleted article to draft space, but will advise the requester to start from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ROW Rybnik sections

Template:ROW Rybnik sections (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Someone deleted a whole host of templates but no rationale was ever given. I believe it may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Maybe I have missed something, or maybe the nominator has missed something. This is a sub-bundle of a larger bundle of TFD nominations that were made on 17 September, and some of them were spilled over to 30 September. I have limited experience with TFD, but there appears to have been some discussion in the 18 September minutes, and then some more discussion in the 30 September minutes. Is there something wrong that the appellant hasn't explained? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I have missed this, but I dont really see where the initial discussion, if there was one, is? Also can you really delete that many templates off the back of one discussion? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Abcmaxx - You ask two reasonable questions about a complicated situation, and I will try to give reasonable answers. Under the long list of the templates, there is a link that says: Split from 2023 September 18 per request. Click on that link, and you will go back to the previous discussion with an even longer list of templates. And, yes, it is possible to bundle a large number of pages into one XFD discussion. There is no specific limitation to the size of a bundle. The disadvantage to large bundles is that they sometimes become what are known as train wrecks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: But the discussion you linked has the rationale "As long as there are three links or less". That's not true for example for Template:Resovia_sections which I created and was determined without so much as a warning and no discussion at all, it was just bundled in with the rest (but unsure even in which bundle). It also seems to go against consensus in for example Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 12#Template:Hammarby IF sections as well. I'm led to the conclusion that this particular series of megabundles was very ill-advised. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2025

Quintessential (company)

Quintessential (company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was in a poor state (COI version), I cleaned it up (cleaned version) and then it was nominated for deletion. During the AfD it flipped between cleaned and COI versions, confusing participants. The closer provided no rationale, I asked them about the situation but I wasn't clear enough.

Looking at the AfD I will run through the particpants and ping them rather than contact them individually:

  • User:DotesConks saw the cleaned version. After nomination they reverted the COI version twice but stopped after that. It would be ideal to keep watching the article or tip off the AfD, as well as notify any substantial contributors if you can work it out. They didn't link to a specific notability guide, claimed that they read the four sources (I was pleased they could bypass the paywall of one but surprised of their analysis that it only contained a couple of mentions which would have been obvious given the name of the company was in the headline). Looking beyond current sourcing is an important aspect of AfD. They also equated linkdn followers with notability and said there are millions of real estate companies in the world. Sure, but if millions of companies bought A$250M buildings in 2024 that would total 5x the US national debt.
  • User:OsFish also saw the cleaned version. Prior to the AfD, in a question from them on COI noticeboard, I disputed their WP:ORGTRIV link with WP:SUBSTANTIAL. They didn't mention my comment include or any links in their AfD comment.
  • User:MCE89 saw the COI version but dug around for sources. They asked for an interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH. This was the sole Keep.
  • User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक (LA) asked for TNT and HEY. I assume they looked at the COI version and didn't reslise that the nominated version that had been demolished and rewritten.
  • User:Robert McClenon must have missed the cleaned version. They presented a now irrelevant history of the article's COI development and prepared a big 25 row table that included pointing out that citations to app stores aren't independent, reliable or secondary. I understand that this may have been for the benefit of the COI editor. They also claimed that journalist bylined articles in newspapers with editorial review are press releases. Were the articles based on press releases? Probably. Are the newspaper articles primary or secondary sources in this context? That would be a meaningful discussion.
  • User:GMH Melbourne uses the big table and asks for the article to be rewritten, not seeing the cleaned version I assume.
  • User:Darkm777 mentioned deep coverage but it is not clear if they are refering to MCE89's 15 links. Likewise with User:Eluchil404.

I mentioned somewhere that I won't be tied to this article in an AfD, but I would like to know if consensus says that the subject doesn't meet the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources bar. A relist may very well end up in conclusive deletion. I was going to say something in the AfD but was totally surprised by the close and didn't notice the deletion action on my watchlist. The quick and the dead I suppose. --Commander Keane (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse its not the quality of the writing, its the failure of the sources per the comprehensive and compelling source analysis in the discussion. Fundamentally, we have higher standards for corporations, businesses or organisation because of the amount of routine or self-serving content. It was impossible for the closer to go any other way. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A temporary undeletion of the page would be appropriate in order to compare the versions described by the nom. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And once that's done can the DRV appellant, Commander Keane, highlight the two versions that appear to be the best and worst ones under consideration? I'd find that helpful. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was temporarily undeleted:
    Commander Keane (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (involved) - Of course I was assessing the sources in the version of the article that was moved to article space after I rejected it in AFC. The author was gaming the Articles for Creation process, and submitted a draft that was declined three times. After it was resubmitted again with no substantive changes, I rejected it. The author then moved it to article space. It was then correctly draftified, and moved back to article space. At this point I began the source analysis because I was planning to nominate it for deletion. DotesConks then nominated it for deletion, and I completed the source assessment table and included it with my Delete. I wasn't confused. I was assessing the sources in a page that was blatantly moved into article space twice in disregard of established review practices.
  • Comment - The question at this point should be whether the closer should have Relisted the AFD. I will wait to see the history again before I decide whether to Endorse or to vote to Overturn to Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete, even after reviewing the keep !voter's argument, and I don't think a mistake was made. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for deletion review---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I don't think Asilvering erred in closing it as Delete. It is unreasonable to expect a closer to check which version was in force at the time each !vote was entered, and it is dangerous to discard !votes solely based on improvements since they were entered. That said, the appellant presents an unbiased timeline of the AfD that raises reasonable doubt as to which revision each 'Delete' there refers to. I believe the article will benefit from another look at the improved revision, and an extra week in mainspace isn't a tall order. Owen× ☎ 14:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer note: I don't see how anyone could have closed this as anything other than delete, but I'd happily have done a userspace restore if asked; this went to DRV before that discussion went anywhere. Regarding overturn-to-relist, I don't like that option for two reasons: one, the AfD was closed a while ago, rather than, say, in the last week; two, I think the parade of delete !votes is likely to prejudice the outcome of the AfD in favour of deletion, whether Keane gets a strong vote in there or not. I normally try to avoid DRV of my own closes, but can I suggest that we do a no-prejudice vacate of the previous AfD result, and start a new nomination, pinging all previous participants? Robert McClenon, if folks here agree that's a good idea, would you make the nomination? If I'm reading you correctly, you're still in favour of deletion, and I'm sure you'd be able to write up a neutral description of this discussion along with your deletion rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD was closed less than four weeks ago. We have AfDs that stay open for longer than that. As for the chilling effect of the existing Deletes there, my hope is that those who participated will come back to review the new evidence, and either reaffirm their Delete, or amend their !vote. As a minimum, we know that Robert McClenon will be there. Either way, we'd be left with a more definitive outcome. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While a relist is acceptable, for the reasons OwenX articulates, there was a clear consensus to delete. After the source analysis provided by Robert McClenon (which appeared to review all of the source provided in the article's history), participants concluded that the sources were not sufficient to meet WP:NCORP (as participants properly reviewed the sources, not the state of the article). That all said, the article from the Sydney Morning Herald could be a promising start for a rewrite of the article as a draft (as the title is not salted) and then it would need to go through AFC. As for the closer's note, I don't think a vacate is a good idea at this point, as the voices of multiple editors may be lost or discarded. The challenges of the AFD brought up by the nominator are real, but did not taint or prejudice the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). After reviewing the history in detail again, I am more persuaded both that I voted correctly and that the closer assessed rough consensus correctly. Commander Keane writes: I cleaned it up and then it was nominated for deletion. During the AfD it flipped between cleaned and COI versions, confusing participants. I see that is true. As I noted above, I did not see the trimmed version because I began my analysis before the trimming. The confusion was partly the fault of Commander Keane, who never noted in the AFD that they had cleaned or trimmed it. It was also the result of edit-warring by the promoters of the original (COI) version, who tried to restore their version. The instability of the article during the AFD is a reason why the closer had no obligation to check which version an editor was viewing, especially since the AFD never said that there were warring versions. The instability of the article would have been another reason for voters to say to Delete and for the closer to conclude that there was a rough consensus to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve Restoration of Trimmed Version to article space. I oppose a vacate of the Delete result, because it was the most accurate assessment of consensus in a messy situation. User:asilvering doesn't say which version they are proposing to restore or relist. It should be very clear that we are only restoring or relisting the trimmed version. I do not oppose a restoration of the trimmed version for a new AFD. I have not reviewed the trimmed version. If it is restored either to draft space or to article space, I will assess its sources, a less tedious task than assessing the sources of the original version. I will nominate it for deletion with my rationale if I do not find that the sources warrant keeping the trimmed version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appellant Comment. Sure I will wear some of the blame, I should have spoken up sooner. The AfD nomination and first delete had no substance (to me). Then a keep came finding the 4 sources I used and 11 others. So I relaxed and I thought this is what AfD is about; an analysis of 15 independent and reliable sources (or more if found) to evaluate notability against the guidelines. That is what I want and why I am here. I couldn't know that Robert McClenon was already preparing a convincing table of irrelevant analysis that included five rows pointing out that a company's website is not an independent source. Discounting the weird press release definition that was challenged but never addressed, the only "comprehensive and compelling source analysis" was of one source (theaustralian.com.au); a "maybe". I didn't know that delete AfD participants don't use the Google News link at the top. Or that the AfD expectation is to look at nothing more than the current sources (is that really the case? Why does every AfD have 9 links to find sources at the top. Does that mean that a featured article level article on a topic that is exceedingly notable, but doesn't display the required sourcing it gets trashed?). I still don't know if the closer clicked the convenient "edits since nomination" difflink at the top of the the AfD, saw the +6,478 byte change and thought nothing of it. It is unreasonable for a closer to check the article state for every comment, but a quick click on a button and some thought isn't arduous. COI-induced instability in an article is a reason to delete it so as to vindictively teach the COI parties a lesson, and COI levels in Wikipedia are rediculous at the moment and a deletion reason on those grounds would have been interesting. I could have worked with the closing admin on their talk page more, and apparently I could have achieved a userfication which is pointless because if I want a brief neutral overview of this company's origin and investment strategies and some links to the most pertinent newspaper coverage I can look at the deleted version I wrote (as long as my admin tools are still active). AfC is for checking if articles have a >50% chance of surviving an AfD and bullying the creator to work on the draft. I write all this stuff but there is no crisis. Generally speaking AfD is a place where you can combine a nominator who knows nothing about Wikipedia guidelines, participants that can't/won't do any research into a topic and a bot with sysop permissions that can count votes and you miraculously end up with same result as a real analysis.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nadeeka Guruge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted based on concerns about notability, source reliability, and possible promotional tone. However, the article was substantially revised during the AfD with over 40+ new references, many of which are from credible Sri Lankan newspapers and academic or institutional sources.

Some delete !votes relied on earlier versions of the article and did not appear to review the improved content thoroughly. Additionally, several requests for clarification on claims like “no source meets all three of significance, independence, or reliability” were left unanswered, despite specific efforts to address every concern raised.

The subject, Nadeeka Guruge, is cited in over 140+ other Wikipedia articles and has demonstrable national recognition through awards and long-standing contributions to Sri Lankan music and education. A fresh review is warranted to assess the current article as it stands, not the outdated version some voters referenced.

I respectfully request reconsideration of the deletion. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse you made some of these exact claims, and participants disagreed with your assessment of the sources and told you there that citation in wikipedia articles has no bearing on notability. That said, a relist for a more solid consensus would not be out of the question. Star Mississippi 00:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Temporary Undeletion - I would like to see the history to see whether the improvements/reference-bombing warranted a Relist or whether the close of Delete was appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Robert McClenon Star Mississippi 12:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as I think it was closed a bit quickly after only one week considering that so many extra references were added to the article which only one editor assessed. I was unable to check many of the references because Google Translate wouldn't work on the Sinhalese ones. I was hoping more Sinhalese speakers such as the nominator would give a detailed assessment of the Sinhalese language refs, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist After looking at the temporary undeletion, I think this is one of those articles where he's probably notable, but that's not obvious from either the sources, in part because some aren't in English, or the prose, which reads more like an advertisement. A relist would give us more time to show that and improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer: I have no problem with a relist, and would have done so had the appellant approached me, rather than just inform me of this DRV. As far as I'm concerned, anyone is welcome to relist the AfD, close this DRV, and save us six more days of debating. I can do it myself if this isn't consiodered bad form - I've had "INVOLVED" accusations thrown at me for less... Owen× ☎ 21:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Undoing and relisting your own close isn't being involved. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Any of y'all is welcome to close this DRV now. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close of Delete as a valid close. Either a Delete or a Relist would have been valid, and so the Relist is also okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 April 2025

The Riptides (Canadian band)

The Riptides (Canadian band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the deletion page it states 'not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC'

The band satisfies many of the criteria for WP:NMUSIC. 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. "Skate 2" on Playsation 2 purchased a license to use "Return to blood beach" in the game. https://www.discogs.com/release/23747615-Various-Skate-2-Soundtrack

5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels 1) Drop Out - Rally Records - 2002 2) Hang Out - Red Scare - 2006 3) Tales from Planet Earth - Asian Man - 2009 4) Canadian Graffiti - Something to Do records - 2017 https://somethingtodorecords.bigcartel.com/product/the-riptides-canadian-graffiti-12 Dan Parent from Archie Comics did the album art. 5) Burn After Listening - Pirates Press - 2025 https://piratespressrecords.com/news-welcome-riptides/

Discography on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/artist/4MELFYzpsOtvvwR7IgytQs/discography/all

"End of the world" Music video published by Pirates Press Records https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWuCV2vXdh4

Many other singles have been released over the years but I believe the above is sufficient to satisfy criteria #5.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Sirius XM - Faction Punk - Currently on rotation. "Fade to Black" Streaming on SiriusXM's Faction Punk https://xmplaylist.com/station/factionpunk/track/O3UW-SBD7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowAboutThemApples92 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This isn't AfD round 2. A unanimous quorum of highly experienced editors all deemed the subject to fail our notability criteria. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus to delete. It is possible that the subject has become more notable in the past five months. One of the references is dated 2025, but is from the subject's record label so not independent (as WP:GNG requires). I support a WP:REFUND to draft space if the appellant or another user wishes to expand the article, however, I do not believe the sources currently exist to get the subject past GNG. Frank Anchor 12:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, sort of, but it is not clear whether the appellant is saying that:
  • 1. The close of the AFD was wrong.
  • 2. The editors who voted in the AFD were wrong.
  • 3. They want to submit another draft on the band.
If it is the first, the closer was right (which is what Endorse means). If it is the second, DRV is not AFD round 2. If it is the third, the title is not salted, and the appellant would be better off to create a new draft (or new article) from scratch rather than starting with one that was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Priyanka Choudhary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please review the deletion of Priyanka Choudhary. Choudhary meets the WP:NACTOR criteria now. She has played lead role in Udaariyaan and became the runner up in the hit reality show Big Boss 16. Next she played the lead role in the web series 3G Gaali Galoch Girls and Dus June Kii Raat. Now, she is going to play the lead role in Naagin 7. She also has done a couple of movies and music videos as well. Can anyone tell me what is the problem with Draft:Priyanka Choudhary? I mean there are so many articles of actors in Wikipedia which are not as good as this draft and those actors have not even done as many roles as Priyanka has done.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shehzad Shaikh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please review the deletion of Shehzad Shaikh. Shaikh meets the WP:NACTOR criteria now. He's played parallel lead roles in Qubool Hai and Bepannah. Next, he has played lead roles in multiple television shows, starting in Sindoor Ki Keemat for nearly two years and then played the lead in Mehendi Wala Ghar. He's currently playing lead in Zyada Mat Udd. Iamaninnocentsoul (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn May 2019 G4 and unsalt. Public logs indicate the version created in May 2019 and G4ed a few days later, leading to the WP:SALTing, was a redirect (can an admin with history access confirm this to be correct?), which makes the G4 grossly out of process since a redirect and an article are not sufficiently identical. I have no issue with recreating a page whose only deletion discussion was six years ago where the primary reason for deletion was WP:TOOSOON; there should not be the mandatory bar of WP:AFC (though I would recommend the appellant, who has a very new account, go through this process anyway). There are several hits for this actor on a Google News search and at Draft:Shehzad Shaikh. DRV is not the venue to assess sources but the likelihood of SIGCOV from after the subject article was salted seems high. Frank Anchor 11:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking part of my vote suggesting the last G4 version was a redirect. Thanks OwenX for letting me know it was not. Frank Anchor 15:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

16 April 2025

Adolf Uunona (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adolf Uunona (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this page could be restored as either a navigation page that links to both Ompundja Constituency and Oshipumbu, or simply a redirect to Ompundja Constituency, which appears to contain the most information about Uunona at the moment. If the salted page Adolf Hitler Uunona is also restored (as a redirect to either Ompundja Constituency or to Adolf Uunona if it's a navpage), it could be tagged with {{R with possibilities}} as there is a draft with that title. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation as a redirect, both Adolf Uunona and the SALTed Adolf Hitler Uunona. The 2021 close was correct, and the appellant doesn't need our permission to recreate the non-salted page as a redirect. If there are no objections, I can do the same with the SALTed Adolf Hitler Uunona while leaving it fully protected. I see two current drafts for this: Draft:Adolf Hitler Uunona, and a rejected Draft:Adolf Hitler uunona, by different authors, yet miraculously with almost identical content, even in their initial version. There's definitely something funny going on here, but that doesn't concern us at DRV when turning these pages into redirs. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - The instructions for DRV include:

    Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

    Is this a request to unsalt Adolf Hitler Uunona? Adolf Uunona is not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Amelia Hamer (closed)

  • Amelia Hamer – "Delete" closure endorsed. Despite a strong minority in favor of overturning the closure (even though some reargue the AfD on the merits, which is not the purpose of this forum), there is rough consensus that the closure was within the closer's discretion. Sandstein 08:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amelia Hamer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion decision was taken despite an obvious lack of consensus for a deletion and against wikipedia guidelines on notability. The article clearly passes GNG with multiple sources of sigcov, but this was ignored as per the closers talk page because the closer didn't want to deal with a deletion review from pro-delete users by keeping the article. This isn't a legitimate reason for a delete decision. It also gives false legitimacy to the views of a group of pro-Delete users who aggressively misinterpreted essays regarding "presumed notability" as if they were a requirement for passing GNG, instead of supplementary information that aren't consensus in the first place. Articles need to be deleted or kept based on consensus and guidelines not because a closer thinks one side of an argument might be more annoying to deal with afterward.Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (involved) I am not sure what the formal appeal of a close is either, but I agree that in this case the best verdict would have been a "no consensus" close. Which in this case, would mean a restoration of the article to what it was during the AfD. The weight of the arguments in my view was tilted even towards the Keep side, but even if that is not the case, "No consensus" would have been and still should be the correct close decision. The closer, respectfully, even mentioned that this was a bit of a tortured decision. When it is that painfully close, and again, I do not think it really was, but in this case a "No consensus" is warranted and a restoration implemented. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some serious WP:ASPERSIONS being cast at @Ritchie333 here, you’re accusing them of deleting the article to avoid personal annoyance or something? GraziePrego (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of bad faith. This is his quote on his talk page "NC close would have probably resulted in those wanting to delete the article raising a deletion review anyway", and indication that he chose to delete instead of Keep/NC not on guidelines but personally wanting to avoid a review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. I have summarised the reason for the close both below and at the AfD. In fact, the reverse is true, if I wanted a quiet life I would close as "keep" to avoid bludgeoning here. (See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Unrealistic assumptions) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) I understand the perspective of those who !voted to keep. The guidelines at WP:NPOL create a bit of confusion and there is currently a discussion that will hopefully provide a bit more clarity. Amelia Hamer does not have any sources that establish notability outside of the 2025 Australian federal election and there is nothing extraordinary about her candidacy unlike that of Teresa van Lieshout or Katherine Deves, therefore I think the arguments of deleting were stronger. There is also a draft which can be improved, and if she wins the election the draft will be moved to main-space. If she loses then the draft can still be submitted to AfC if consensus changes. Also note I have nominated Roshena Campbell for deletion who's article is a very similar situation to Amelia Hamer.
GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is only "confusing" when it is incorrectly assumed to be a requirement that must be passed in addition to GNG or a reason to discount GNG passing sigcov. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (nominator) Fwiw, the point of determining a consensus isn't to get a majority vote, it's to decide whether the page meets the community's rules and norms. I feel that the stronger policy-based arguments were in favor of deletion, and I think that's consistent with the outcome for other unelected political candidate pages who aren't notable outside of campaigning. She might become notable, but she just isn't now (she isn't the first candidate to be accused of hypocrisy). But I'm the nominator, so I'm biased :^) BuySomeApples (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved), Ritchie is an experienced AFD closer whose closes are high quality. I think he would have correctly assessed that there were a number of keep !votes, which were casting aspersions about delete !voters being engaged in a partisan push and that such arguments were subpar and should be appropriately down-weighted. In general the keep !votes were of lower quality that the delete !votes. As per the argument above that the subject clearly passes GNG, that was the view of the keep !voters and no one else. TarnishedPathtalk 08:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The so called "aspersions" only started in the discussion in the first place because of this line from a delete commenter "The Aussies might not be aware that the richest man in the world is trying to cripple our charitable foundation by using political articles against us". Is it an "aspersion" to defend yourself from being accused of being on the side of Elon Musk and that wanting to keep an article means you are participating in a "springboard for crippling the foundation"? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That truly was a ludicrous comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved), the closing was premature. Spurred by this article, there's a very lively discussion over Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#Unelected_political_candidates_with_notable_coverage over how WP:GNG and WP:NPOL fit together. I think even the most ardent delete voters people would agree that the current wording of WP:NPOL does not square up with the (alleged) "consensus" that unelected candidates are not notable, even if their candidacy has have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (read: meets WP:GNG). Until this is resolved one way or another, we should not be deleting articles of political candidates that match this description. Jpatokal (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Overturn. An election campaign doesn't count as a "one thing" that can collapse all the independent coverage that would otherwise establish general notability. Newystats (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newystats register your thought then with a clear bolded !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see a clear consensus to delete the mainspace version - even clearer once you weigh the arguments based on their P&G merit. The appellant's argument here seems to be directed at the participants of the AfD. We're not here to discuss the article and its sourcing. We're here to review the process followed in that AfD. I think you have to be pretty biased to see an obvious lack of consensus for a deletion. I know exactly what Ritchie meant when he said, It's a hard life being an admin closing difficult AfDs!. As Liz often says, some AfDs are bound to reach DRV no matter how you close them. My read of the exchange on Ritchie's Talk page does not support the appellant's claim that he didn't want to deal with a deletion review from pro-delete users. Ritchie made the difficult, correct decision here despite knowing it would likely be challenged. Although frankly, I don't see this particular appeal as much of a challenge. Owen× ☎ 11:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even remotely true. There absolutely was a complete lack of clear consensus for a deletion. "No consensus" was the only "obvious" close. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn, do you intend of commenting against everyone who !votes endorse? TarnishedPathtalk 12:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off. I did not do so, and what is the purpose of this comment? Iljhgtn (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and restore article history to draft. When weighing the !votes based on P&G merit, there was rough consensus not to keep the article in mainspace such that a delete/draftify close was reasonable. However, there was no reason to delete the history of the article, particularly when parts of it were significantly more developed than the current draft version (specifically the election campaign). When an ATD is identified that would normally preserve the history of an article and there is no specific reason to delete it (e.g. copyvio or personal attacks), then it is best to find a way to maintain the history to assist in the development of the draft. Frank Anchor 13:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason that hasn't been done (yet) is because it's technically difficult to history merge the two independently-created and written pages together. However, if an admin experienced in history merges wants to give it a go, I don't think there'll be any objections. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, but please not while this DRV is open. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, understood and thanks for your response. Frank Anchor 14:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close (involved). There is a continued failure to assume good faith in disagreements on this article. The appellant is claiming that the AfD only went in favor of a deletion because the closer was lazy and the people who disagree with the appellant(?) are bad contributors who seek to be disruptive out of malice by doing some version of this appeal. There is a Wiki-etiquette against this exact thing laid out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I also want to note my disagreement with the idea that "no consensus" was a better way to close. AfDs are not a vote at a town meeting where closers are just expected to count the number of hands raised. They consider the substance of arguments which involves contributors explaining their viewpoint on the merits of the AfD using policies and yes, even essays. In that regard, I believe the sides were weighed appropriately. I also think keeping this in DraftSpace while deleting the article (which does not happen for most candidate articles) was not a compromise to placate those voting delete, but to preserve work that COULD be useful should this person get elected (personally, rooting for Labour from afar). I have never been asked to contribute to this kind of discussion. Am I expected to need to reiterate my views in favor of deleting the article or is my reply that I believe the closer acted reasonably a sufficient endorsement to close? --Mpen320 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mpen320, what you wrote here is sufficient. As an aside, even if we do go by nose-count in that AfD, those arguing against retention still have a clear, 2-to-1 majority there. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The decision to send the article to draft space is well within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as long as the article history can be recovered, I have no problem with the closure. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved). AfD discussions are decided by the arguments made for keeping or deleting an article. The closer has failed to explain why they came to conclusion that the delete side made the better case, and did so three times (on the AfD page, their talk page, and here). Omitting an actual explanation can't be excused by an AfD supposedly being "difficult". Cortador (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I see two issues. The first is whether an article should be in article space. The closing admin found that the deletion arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, and that was a valid conclusion (which also was consistent with a vote count). The second issue, if the article is deleted, is whether to draftify the existing article, or whether to delete the existing article and leave the draft standing. I am not sure that is being challenged, and I see no reason to question that closer's judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This argument is different from many deletion discussions and deletion reviews concerning political candidates in that it appears that opponents of the candidate want to keep her article. Usually it is supporters of a candidate who want to keep the article. Either way, being a political candidate is not ipso facto notability, and general notability must be established. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Usually it is supporters of a candidate who want to keep the article." 100% unsupported speculative assertion. I am not from Australia and do not even know of this woman prior to seeing the AfD. That said, the subject has clear notability as well established by the many cited reliable sources and deep and not routine or passing coverage of the subject. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis do you claim that those supporting the article be kept are political opponents of the subject of the article? Cortador (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon, I !voted delete and I am by no means of supporter of the candidate. I'm merely an editor who thinks we reduce our creditability by allowing the hosting of pages dedicated to nobodies. TarnishedPathtalk 22:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I based my comment on [1] rather than anything in this DRV, and I concede that it was not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't live in her state and I'm not a member of any political party. My comment was to provide important context of why her coverage was significant and not the "routine" coverage any generic candidate would receive in an election (such as being included on lists of nominations, minor biographies from party sites or the AEC). I stand by my original call that this was a Type 3 Speed Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep due to the scope, volume, and duration of coverage. While she is a political candidate, she is not covered solely in that context. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, point 5 under "Deletion review should not be used" "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". Deletion reviews are not for repeating the same arguments already discussed in the original AfD, this is to discuss whether the admin was procedurally correct in interpreting consensus and closing the discussion in the way that they did. GraziePrego (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As per closing statement, there has been no interpretation of consensus at all. The closer just stated that they decided to delete the article without noting what arguments convinced them to do that. Cortador (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't make any arguments at the AfD, so I can't possibly be repeating them. And no, DRV is not limited to procedural considerations; the most fundamental question is "Was the outcome correct?" which is a content decision and is the basis of my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Involved) As per WP:DRVPURPOSE, the point of a deletion review is not to relitigate the arguments made during the AfD, as many of the “Overturn” votes here are doing. The only argument to consider is “did the closer interpret consensus correctly”, and I believe they did. I certainly don’t believe the argument that the appellant and others have made that’s essentially accusing the closer of being lazy or scared of confrontation. GraziePrego (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I see no issue with the closing, it was entirely appropriate to be merged with an existing draft space article on the same where it can be developed appropriately and assessed before becoming an article. Gnangarra 10:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Bearcat's and ITBF's delete comments are particularly well thought out, and go into detail on why the article should be deleted. There aren't really any equivalently well thought out keep comments. Most just assert that the article meets GNG without a good explanation, if any. It seems many of the people who voted keep just want an axe to grind rather than wanting to improve Wikipedia. Steelkamp (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I would not be entirely opposed to a relist for a deeper assessment of the sources, but from the discussion, I do not see a "clear" pass of GNG or an "obvious" lack of consensus as alleged by the nominator (of this review). I do not see a reason to strongly weigh one side more, although AfD participants, both for and against, could have expanded on more detail on their views on routineness of coverage, which is typically the primary issue in unelected-candidate cases (I see it was mentioned 4 times, in only 3 of the close to 90 comments).
In my view, it is well within discretion for an administrator to judge the discussion as having sufficiently assessed the sources, and that the overall assessment is in the negative. If an administrator instead judges the source assessment in the discussion as inadequate, I would suggest that relisting with instructions to address the perceived inadequacy be the best option, and while closing as no consensus might also be valid, I would consider it less preferred. I do not see any way that the discussion could reasonably be closed as keep based on the discussion, and I decline to make an independent review of the sources, as out of scope for this review unless someone wants to argue there were sources not considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an evaluation of consensus well within the closer's discretion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment few if any of the pile on "Endorse" comments address the notion that "No consensus" really looked to have been the best close prior, and one that would have avoided wasting all of the additional editors time in coming to this appeal. The discussion need not center around "Keep" versus "Delete", but realize instead that the "No consensus" close would likely have been, and still would be, the best and most accurate close for this discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that has been addressed. Endorse editors have stated that the delete !votes were of better quality than the keep !votes. TarnishedPathtalk 23:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about the votes, it's about the closer's decision. The closer has failed repeatedly to explain why the delete side made the better argument. Cortador (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete !votes are only "better quality" when you have an incorrect interpretation of GNG. For example, using essays or guidelines that aren't relevant or saying that those essays or guidelines over-ride the very low requirements for a subject to pass GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your position isn't one that was the consensus of the AFD. TarnishedPathtalk 10:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse if anything the close was generous to those seeking to keep the article. This clearly fails NPOL. Yhere is too much passionate argument about the rights and wrongs of the close rather than the calm assessment of argument against policy. I suggest some the more bellicose participants here would benefit from toning down their rhetoric. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Regarding GNG I completely agree with the deletion !vote from Bearcat: if that were how it worked then NPOL would be rendered meaningless and unenforceable. Yes. I'm fine with that. NPOL explicitly defers to GNG.
    Delete !votes like that from DesiMoore and GMH Melbourne should have been completely disregarded. Whether it needs a lot of work or whether we prefer a duplicate draft has no bearing on notability. The commentary by Oaktree b is essentially that if we ignore a bunch of sources then the subject is not notable. The !vote by Servite et contribuere doesn't even attempt to comment on notability. So there goes around half the delete !votes.
    Doing a few quick searches finds sources going back more than a year at least. In other words, more sustained coverage than Hawk tuah, for which we have not only a stand alone article but also an article on the person. Deferring to a draft doesn't address the issue of notability, and if the subject is notable, then the content should be merged. We are by convention and policy fine with a lack luster article on a notable subject in the meanwhile. GMGtalk 12:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI— My comments about the article needing work were said in passing and weren't the reason for my !vote. I also mentioned how Hamer is an unelected candidate who does not meet WP:NPOL. I decided on my !vote after reading previous comments, reviewing the sources, and reviewing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like a comment that belongs on the original XFD rather than on this deletion review per WP:DRVPURPOSE. GraziePrego (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a thin claim to notability as a political candidate; the focus seemed to be on the so-called "scandals" that were really none of our concern for notability. This would still be a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so much "ignoring sources", simply the fact that they don't help the notability discussion. They help flesh out the article, but don't add to or take away from the notability of the person. No comment on the decision taken at AfD, simply stating my views on notability of the individual. If you decide to list this article again at AfD, I'm happy to re-participate. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-ish Draftify is the correct answer, but I'm an ish because it shouldn't be left to AfC, just stored in case she wins, especially given the delete !votes were also more numerous. Not a single !keep voter showed why she would be forever notable as a result of this election - just that GNG is met, but we specifically have a carve-out for unelected politicians because candidates will receive coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 April 2025

  • Sikh–Wahhabi War – "Delete" closure endorsed. The appeal and the "overturn" opinions are beside the point as they seek to re-argue the AfD on the merits, which is not the purpose of DRV. We only determine whether consensus to delete was properly assessed by the closer. Sandstein 07:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sikh–Wahhabi War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletionist participants in the discussion cited reasons such as "pseudohistorical," "neologism," or "close paraphrasing" — issues that should have been addressed on the article’s talk page or referred to WP:CCI. There was a lack of focus on actual the topic and instead the discussion veered into discussing unimportant and irrelevant issues. Had the arguments been based solely on the sources provided, there would not have been a need for this DRV, even if the article had been deleted. However, the arguments presented clearly contradicted the sources, which offer extensive coverage and support 'Sikh-Barelvi War' as the most appropriate title." AlvaKedak (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close - The OP hasn't notified the AfD[2] of this discussion. CharlesWain (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The appellant notified the closer, and I've just added DRV notice on the AfD. Neither is a valid reason for a procedural close. Feel free to amend your !vote to address the merits of the case. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see a rough consensus to delete among the P&G-based arguments in that AfD. Some of the Keep votes carry no P&G weight at all, including the appellant's own "Speedy keep". An accusation of bad-faith AfD nomination is not a valid criterion for a SK close per WP:SK, especially without evidence supporting this accusation. Similarly, "No WP:BEFORE" is not a reason to keep an article after valid Delete arguments have already been entered. Having been a potential FA candidate is neither here nor there. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Good closure, the article failed WP:GNG and was created under a neologism invented by the author and therefore pseudohistorical. It was entirely plagiarised from the sources. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I also see a rough consensus to delete. With the exception of Rangers Rus, the "keep" advocates did not have a strong P&G basis for their !votes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971: Vague wave is not a rough consensus, and shouldn't be seen like it. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close with the the ability to recreate an article (possibly under Sikh Barelvi War or Syed Barelvi holy war against Sikhs per RangersRus and through the AFC process). Copyright violations are a sufficient reason to remove a page. --Enos733 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enos733: But there was no copyright violation. If there had been, it would've been speedily deleted. It's really not hard to understand that close paraphrasing can be a subjective case, unless an admin gets involved and gives their nod to delete the copyrighted part. Shakakarta (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (closing admin) I have reread the discussion and don't see any other way I could have closed it but have no issue with this being opened. AlvaKedak, I don't think you meant anything by your use of "deletionist participants" and English may not be your first language, but that can be a loaded phrase here. In future discussions I'd suggest: "those who vote to delete" or similar language. Star Mississippi 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion review is for cases where deletion process has not been properly followed, not for where you merely disagree with the outcome reached. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) - I would differ from the closer, we have dozens of pages for the coverage, which have been provided in the AfD. For the sake of verification ease, here are the sources:
  • www.DiscoverSikhism.com. History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore (Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839). pp. 159–167.
  • Khān, Mu'Īn-Ud-Dīn Aḥmad (1968). "Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd's Campaign Against the Sikhs". Islamic Studies. 7 (4): 317–338. ISSN 0578-8072.
  • Adeem (2019-12-18). Sayyid Ahmad Barailvi His Movement And Lagacy From The Pukhtun Perspective By Dr. Altaf Qadir. pp. 54–191.

Given the sizable ammount of coverage, arguments indeed looked puny. The sources could have easily satisfied a non-partisan !voter. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to delete something for a content reason, such as (for example) there are no acceptable sources, then the content is deleted and may not be recreated until new sources emerge. We might call this a Type I deletion.
If we decide to delete something for a user conduct reason, such as (for example) it's irretrievably promotional or advocational, or the copyright issues are simply too rife to fix, then the content is deleted but can be recreated by a good faith editor. We might call this a Type II deletion.
This was a Type II because it was the close paraphrasing that sunk it. So an "endorse" here isn't a final murder of the article's chances. It should be userfied to any good faith editor on request to enable them to fix it.—S Marshall T/C 03:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per the sources. I initially thought to endorse the closure but checked out the books given and the last one had 100+ pages of coverage, only for the broader conflict. So in my opinion, it's an important topic to fill the gap, issues such as cleanups, copyediting, grammar or close paraphrasing which existed could be solved by draftifying, also support renaming it to Sikh Barelvi War𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse if this is as heavily plagiarised as suggested then this content cannot come back as it breaches a core principle. I suggest you start a draft and begin from first principles. Spartaz Humbug! 07:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not heavily plagiarised, the creator has previously made decent articles like this one without any close paraphrasing issues. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alex O'Connor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedily deleted under WP:G4 because the page was deleted in 2024 for a lack of coverage in reliable sources. This page should not have been speedily deleted because the current version of it is much different than the page from 2024, containing more references covering the article's subject, such this article in The Atlantic. I contested the speedy deletion on the talk page but it was speedily deleted without addressing what I mentioned. Cyrobyte (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jason King (journalist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I can't really imagine how it was decided the the founder of The Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at New York University, now (several years after the deletion) Dean of the University of Southern California Thornton School of Music is not notable. ("Journalist" is long-outdated as a description, though he was one once.) Article may have been under-cited, or something like that, but he's a pretty heavy hitter. I would think that just founding the Clive Davis Institute (literally a unique institution within American academia) would be enough to make him unquestionably notable, and he is now dean of a department with roughly 1000 students and over 150 faculty members.

Here's the page about him on USC's site: https://music.usc.edu/jason-king/

I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, so if someone wants my specific attention, please ping me. Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but this was six years ago. If the situation has truly changed you can just remake the article - that doesn't mean the original ruling was wrong. I am also not sure it has changed because per WP:NACADEMIC "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone". If he is notable it's surely not for being a journalist so another disamb should probably be used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and encourage re-creation, using the old text as a starting point if desired since there were no allegations of G10-11-12-type content. I don't like the old discussions that much, but they were reasonable for their time and life moves on. I'd actually recommend a new article be written from scratch using current bio principles, inoboxen, etc. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but feel free to recreate if you believe sufficient sourcing exists now. Lots of things change in seven years. Star Mississippi 11:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct reading of consensus. Recreation is allowed and does not require DRV approval since the title is not salted. I have no objection to restoring the deleted version to draft for Jmabel to build upon it with sourced content from the past seven years. Frank Anchor 14:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no other way to read consensus in that discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if the appellant is asking us to overturn the previous AFD. But see: Deletion review should not be used:... to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted. Restoring the deleted article to draft space is probably a waste of time. Write a new draft or new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore it to draftspace pending an update since it's now more than seven years out of date, and, yes, the referencing was always subpar. Contra the statements in the AFD, it was at worst mildly promotional, so no harm using it as a base to work on. (Not nearly so bad as what Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music used to redirect to.) —Cryptic 16:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete to draft. I'm able to see the page via the Wayback Machine and there is some okayish prose in it that could be supported by citations and reused. The content is stale but not in any problematic way.—Alalch E. 17:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the consensus is clear. I'll get to it some time (my home wiki is Commons, and I'm busy there and on Wikidata for the next few weeks). FWIW, I ran across the absence of an article when adding a recent photo of him, from a conference I attended for which he was one of the principle organizers. I'm an admin, so I can undelete it myself as a draft to start from, just didn't want to do that if it was against consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Jmabel - In that case, why didn't you, being an admin, explain that you wanted permission to refund the draft, which we almost always routinely provide, rather than apparently challenging the old deletion? Or were you challenging the old deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1271841323"