Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:23, 24 April 2005 view sourceRickK (talk | contribs)36,836 edits Reverted edits by Starblind to last version by BanyanTree← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025 view source Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,357 edits apparently my previous approach broke the DRV bot. Let's try this instead. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Floating link|Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions}}
]
{{hatnote|This page deals with the ] and ] processes. For articles deleted via the "]" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at ]}}
]
{{redirect|WP:DELREV|Revision Delete|WP:REVDEL}}
]
{{no admin backlog}}
]
{{Ombox
<!-- I know they're often at the bottom, but putting the cat and interlang at the top keeps me from deleting them off the bottom when I clear the old stuff. -->
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = <div style="text-align:center;">'''Skip to:''' {{hlist |class=inline | ] | ] | ] | {{Purge|(purge cache)}}}}<br /><inputbox>
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages:Deletion review
break=no
width=50
searchbuttonlabel=Search logs
</inputbox></div>
| imageright = {{shortcut|WP:DRV}}
}}
{{Deletion debates}}
{{Review forum}}
'''Deletion review''' ('''DRV''') is for reviewing ] and outcomes of ]. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.


If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "]" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the ] below.
{{Shortcut|]}}
Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by ] if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the ] and ].


== Purpose ==
The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on ] ] are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on ] ].
<div style="border:2px solid grey; padding: 2ex;">
<noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{shortcut|yes}}}|no||{{shortcut|WP:DRVPURPOSE}}}}</noinclude>
Deletion review may be used:


#if someone believes the closer of a ] interpreted the ] incorrectly;
== Purpose of this page ==
#if a ] was done outside of the ] or is otherwise disputed;
It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:
#if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
#if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
#if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.


Deletion review should '''not''' be used:
# People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on ] (VfD), because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion but were ignored.
# Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
#*As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using ], and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the ] feature is completed.


#because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be ]);
This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at ]. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
#(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per ] 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.)
#to point out ] that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
#to challenge an article's deletion via the ] 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 ] for these);
#to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
#to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
#to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to ] for these requests);
#to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
#for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use ] instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
#to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been ]. 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 ] will not be restored.'''
</div>


==Instructions==
==How to use this page==
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:DELREVD}}</noinclude>
If you wish to '''undelete''' an article, follow the procedure explained at ]. If the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.
<section begin=Instructions />Before listing a review request, please:
# 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.
# Check that it is not on the list of ]. 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===
If you wish to '''view''' a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form &mdash; either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it. See also ].
{{Warning|If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a ], restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use ] instead.}}
{| style="border:solid 1px black; padding: 0.5em; width:100%;" cellspacing="0"
|-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" |&nbsp;
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''1.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
{{Clickable button 2|Click here|url={{fullurl:Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j}}|action=edit&section=1&preload=Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/New_day}}|class=mw-ui-progressive}} and paste the template skeleton '''at the top''' of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in <code>page</code> with the name of the page, <code>xfd_page</code> with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and <code>reason</code> with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, <code>article</code> is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
<pre>
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
</pre>
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''2.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
:'''<code>{{subst:]|PAGE_NAME}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>'''
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''3.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrev|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>''' to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''4.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;padding-bottom:1em;" |
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 '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
* If the deletion discussion's subpage name is ''different from'' the deletion review's section header, then use '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
|-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" | &nbsp;
|}


===Commenting in a deletion review===
Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. They are listed at ]. Archives of recently undeleted pages are recorded at ]
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 (<nowiki>'''</nowiki>) on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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 ]); or
*'''List''', if the page was speedy deleted outside of the ] and you believe it needs a full discussion at the ] to decide if it should be deleted; or
*'''Overturn''' the original decision '''and''' optionally an '''(action)''' per the ]. 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:
If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of ].
* <nowiki>*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''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. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~</nowiki>


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 ]; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
== History only undeletion ==
History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on ], it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== -->


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 {{Tlx|TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the ] should not be restored.


===Closing reviews===
== Temporary undeletion ==
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 ] exists. If that consensus is to '''undelete''', the admin should follow the instructions at ]. If the consensus was to '''relist''', the page should be relisted at the ]. If the consensus was that the deletion was '''endorsed''', the discussion should be ] with the consensus documented.
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in
==== a subsection ==== -->


If the administrator closes the deletion review as '''no consensus''', the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
== Votes for undeletion ==
*If the decision under appeal was a ], 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 ], if they so choose.
:''Admins - please review the deleted history of these requests and provide the most complete version for discussion here.''
*If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
'''''Add new article listings below here'''''


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.)
===], ]===
====]====
In 2004, he told us he was scheduled to appear in the 2005 ''Who's Who in America''. What ever happened with that? ] 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Considering how the last IP to make this comment on here turned out to be a sockpuppet of Mr. Boyer ,, I say we disregard this desperate plea for attention. Bugger off. ] 04:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::A quick look at ]'s shows a variety of (irregularly spaced) contributions, mostly of the housekeeping type -- in marked contrast to the diff you cite -- so your off-the-cuff accusation strikes me as markedly unfair to 24.4.127.164. Strikes me as an obvious question to answer, though I'm skeptical of the notoriety a ''Who's Who'' listing really shows.


==== Speedy closes ====
::I think you owe 24.4.127.164 an apology. --] | ] 04:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Objections to a ] can be processed immediately as though they were a request at ]
* 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 ]). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".<section end=Instructions />
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Active}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recent}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Archive}}


{{Misplaced Pages community|state=collapsed}}
====]====
]
Well, I fail to understand what happened. ] closed the ] with consensus to merge (IMO, there were no consensus to merge, but that's not the interesting part). After merging the content, he then attempted to delete it (but it couldn't be deleted due to block compressing bug). If he succeeded then all history would've been destroyed, which is not appropriate when articles get merged (the proper thing is to leave the redirect). The article is protected now and I can't fix it. ] 15:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
]
*As I see there were other articles that he deleted after merging. I suggest they should also be undeleted and left as redirects to preserve history. ] 15:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
]
*I believe we must make some "Merging Awareness". Regularly, things that should be merged get put on VfD - apparently it is rather unclear to new users how a merge actually works. ]]] 13:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
*Looks like no one visits that page anymore... Should I post this to administrators' noticeboard? ] 19:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===], ]===

====]====

I still think it's a vanity page, originally by Mr Bouche himself, though this anon may or may not be Mr Bouche, but he doesn't seem notable, but I'd like someone else to have a look. see ]; also anon comment that follows ]|] 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:'' \Did u see? the links that are enclosed in his article? I am familiar with Paul Bouche. How many of your listings have won an Emmy award? As a matter of fact I was searching for him after Discussion and presentation by him @ Miami International University of Art and Design.

:''He has been arround for many years and has been an inspiration for many young hispanics as myself. I guess you are not familiar with the field of spanish media. That is ok. But know I also searched The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, La Opinion (Los Angeles Main Hispanic Paper), Even Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Hispanic Business magazine have featured articles about him. Perhaps you should too. I don't see anyone on the list of comments that strike me as Hispanic or Latino. Ask arround. Even though you probably know no hispanic americans.

:''Just because you dont know someone doesn't mean they are not relevant for our community 35 million in the US and 400,000,000 arround the world. (end anon comment)
*'''Keep deleted'''. VfU is not a place to try to rerun votes already cast on VfD. ]] 21:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion "WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Skip to current nominationsSkip to:
Shortcut
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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
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=Misplaced Pages: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 January 14}}</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 January 14}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 14|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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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

14 January 2025

Peter Fiekowsky

The article is still in the simple english version, what is the problem? On the search engine Bing, Peter Fiekowsky has more than 2 million views, and it is just about having this valuable scientist and author on wikipedia: the article started as follows: Peter Fiekowsky is an American author, physicist and founder of the field of climate restoration and author of "Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race" (Rivertown Books, 2022). He has founded the Foundation for Climate Restoration, Methane Action, Stable Planet Alliance, the Climate Restoration Safety & Governance Board, among others.'

I contacted the administrator who deleted the article, with no answer from him or her. Is it an action of hostility towards the climate policies? Thank you if you can help to restore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adumoul (talk • contribs)

  • Procedural Close - The statement that there has been no answer from the deleting administrator is incorrect. User:Deb has replied, and says that the originator of the article was a sockpuppet, and the article read like a CV. We review WP:G11G11 deletions, but we don't review G5 deletions when the opening statement is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

1960s in history

1960s in history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

i just want the page to please be added to my user space, so that i can edit it. i thought the deletion would be a redirect, so that i could stil edit the pages. this is also for 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, and 2000s in history. Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

13 January 2025

Callum Reynolds (closed)

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

The article was deleted twice over 6 and 15 years ago when the player didn't meet WP:NFOOTY requirements of the time (since outdated, but would pass now based on that criteria), and there were numerous repeated attempts to recreate the article by various different people which led to an admin protecting the namespace. Since then however, he has arguably met WP:GNG just as much as the articles of his teammates at Bromley as a recently created draft page has shown. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, the AFCH script does not handle this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Raising this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed) SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure what User:SmokeyJoe is saying is wrong with the script's handling of this case. The script says to request unprotection. It is true that it would be helpful for the script to provide more detailed instructions about unprotecting, but the script does handle it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 January 2025

DJ Hollygrove

DJ Hollygrove (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DJ Hollygrove grammy winner https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/hollygrove-of-the-chopstars-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-news-photo/1463285516?adppopup=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

8 January 2025

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

A WP:BADNAC: The page creator closed the discussion as "keep" on the same day it was opened with the only !votes for "delete." Requesting an uninvolved administrator to relist the discussion. (Mea culpa: I originally reverted the non-admin closure erroneously, seeing it as disruptive, before I had reviewed the provision at WP:NAC stating inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator, and I have self-reverted.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

7 January 2025

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

I am not convinced that notability was adequately established. The article subject is a WP:CASTE topic, where many print sources are low-quality, partially based on oral tradition, or ethnically biased — so the nom's statement in a reply that the existing information "is all folklore and no authentic sources are available" is credible. See also WP:RAJ for more background.

Not all of the existing references were checked, but we identified several that are clearly unreliable, and two users failed to find substantive online sources. One user claimed to find various print sources, but did not identify any by name. None of the Keep !votes provided new sources that prove notability, or asserted the reliability of existing references; some users made unjustified assertions of the subject being "well-known". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This was open for three weeks, and I certainly do not see a consensus to delete. I suppose I could have closed it as no consensus, but the end result is the same, so it's unclear to me what we are doing at DRV. Beeblebrox 06:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse Not a single person besides the nom put in a !vote for deletion. There were suggestions, and some indication that a sizeable minority of the references were not RS, but lots of people thought it was OK to keep, even if weakly. While there were a few commentators noting issues, not one, including the appellant, came out and said "This should be deleted". Hard to close it any other way, and I think Beeblebrox is being overly charitable--I don't see no consensus within reach here. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to challenge failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry when the deletion discussion did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse: Well I see that there was surely no consensus for deletion and this is not the venue for doing these things.Also WP:RAJ is an essay not a policy. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse and procedurally close per WP:DRVPURPOSE. The appellant made no claim that consensus wasn't read correctly, nor presented any significant new information to overturn the close. No one is obliged to convince the appellant that notability was adequately established. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse there's simply no way to close that discussion as delete, even if you completely down-weight all of the keep !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Ridiculous DRV nomination. Read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The only possible closure. Does the appellant have some reason why they think that the AFD was handled erroneously? On its face, it appears that they simply disagree with the community, but that is not what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The comments toward the end (only after the second relist and the request to review individual sources) look like the start of a WP:BEFORE. They don't look like arguments for deleting the page, more like preparatory work for such arguments. Too little too late.—Alalch E. 03:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I didn't !vote for deletion, but I did ask for consideration for renaming (moving) this. The admin did the correct thing. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

6 January 2025

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

It seems a bit too early to close this discussion, especially when three relatively new editors, who may not be fully familiar with the notability guidelines, have voted to keep the article with very vague rationales - "plenty reliable sources are present", "added two books that provide significant coverage." (which do not actually provide significant coverage), and "I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Misplaced Pages." While I suspect UPE activity, that is a matter for another day. Requesting a re-list of this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mink (manga) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga) shows that the article was deleted in 2009 due to lack of sources establishing notability. I have since found some sources for the article, such as reviews from Anime News Network (1, 2) and Da Vinci (1). I have also found an old interview from 2000 from the creator of the series here. I have done a full rewrite as a draft. The admin who deleted the article has not been active since May 2024 and the person who nominated the article for deletion is no longer active on Misplaced Pages since 2010. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

5 January 2025

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

Consensus has been reached, but could use review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2025 2601:483:400:1cd0:a1a4:fd62:9508:f4eb (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January (UTC)

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

3 January 2025

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

While I'm suspecting that the result of closure will not be changed, I'm asking that an admin review the closure, as its the manner is troubling in two ways.

  • This was a non-admin closure on a discussion that was not uncontentious, with, in addition to the original deletion request, my !vote for delete and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, who did not !vote, arguing that the article did not meet WP:GNG
  • The closure explanation begins "I would say that judging by the votes below, she just about passes the notability criteria." which suggests that the closer was treating it as an actual vote and that they feel that the arguments paint the subject as not actually passing the notability criteria, which suggests a misunderstanding of "consensus". Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Relist - This was a possibly contentious closure by a non-admin. After one week, a relist was reasonable, and the closer's statement is a little too much like a vote or a supervote. I see no need to vacate the close and let an admin close it when we, Deletion Review, can decide that it should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fulbright Scholars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award.

A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc.

There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants.

Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Misplaced Pages pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs.

It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page.

RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The close correctly reflected unanimous agreement at the CfD. The appellant says that some Distinguished Scholar Award recipients are notable. This is true, but does not contradict the claim that most award recipients are not notable, and that the award itself is non-defining. In fact, of the three examples of "Typical Fulbright Scholars" examples she gives, none mention the award. The appellant has not presented significant new information per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. This is just another kick at the can. Owen× ☎ 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue for re-arguing the deletion discussion because it did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - Are deletions of categories different from deletions of articles as to when they can be reviewed? Are deletions of categories effective for five years or ten years or forever rather than six months? Is that why need a Deletion Review? Or is there some way that Consensus Can Change? Are we really locked in to a three-year-old decision? Is taking another look at a three-year-old decision really another kick at the can?Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The lapse of time itself is irrelevant, if no significant new information is presented. This appeal only claims that the CfD participants erred in their assessment, which isn't a valid DRV claim, not to mention that she hasn't even established the veracity of that claim. Based on the argument she presents here, there is no more of a case for keeping that category today than there was when it was deleted three years ago. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - Is this an appeal to overturn a three-year-old deletion decision, or is this a request to create a new category three years after the category was deleted? This appears to be a request to create a new category three years after the deletion. Do we need Deletion Review for the purpose? Can the appellant just do it? Is DRV unnecessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse It's difficult to endorse an old discussion with only three participants, so I'm treating this DRV more like a new CfD because I'm not sure what else to do - but I do agree it's non-defining especially per Owenx and that it would be deleted again if it were re-created for the same reason it was deleted before. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't policy but for practical purposes, I've found that CFD decisions are considered valid forever. Unlike article deletions which have a Draft space where editors can work on improving the content of a recreated article, that possibility doesn't exist for categories. I've seen categories CSD G4'd from decisions that occurred years and years ago. I'm not a frequent participant there any longer but my perception is that CFD decisions are rarely reviewed and reassessed. I would like this to change because CFD decisions are usually determined by a very small number of editors and shouldn't last forever but I'm not sure that if this discussion would be setting any precendent for the future. Liz 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think it should change. G4 should apply indefinitely, and recreation should be allowed via DRV provided some new fact, and changes of the PAG landscape, of recent practices, examples of other categories kept at CfD in the meantime can also be significant new facts. —Alalch E. 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with Liz that there needs to be an appropriate venue to review CfD discussions, but Alalch E.'s comment highlights the problems with using DRV to do so: Everyone's opining "nothing has changed" which may be true, but does not consider "was this even the right decision in the first place?" Three people opined, and the closer and some other number of people looked at it and didn't participate. That doesn't seem to be enough discussion to make a category G4-able forever since, unlike articles, categories cannot be changed to be not substantially similar to what was previously deleted. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Everything the DRV nom states was the same at the time of the 2021 CfD, so there are no new facts based on which to allow recreation consistent with WP:DRVPURPOSE#3.—Alalch E. 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. I feel the same way I did in the DRV Cryptic linked: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to 'test' an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to would be an exercise in futility." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • No Opinion at this time. The idea that category deletions last forever makes things problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • relist A) apparently we don't allow recreation even 3 years later so a relist is the only way to restore it B) IMO the two arguments show an utter lack of a clue. This can very much be defining, and per the nom, often shows up in orbits. It's a lot more than just a scholarship. Two !votes 3 years ago shouldn't make it impossible to restore this. A relist is the only way forward apparently. Hobit (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

31 December 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Trees of the Eastern United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An extension of the proposal was brought up and sought comments from earlier participants, but the discussion was closed less than 15 minutes later. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I read MtBotany's comment as supporting a single Trees of Northern America, given they opposed a "trees of the United States". Compassionate727 implied that keeping the originally nominated category might be a viable alternative, but explicitly stopped short of opposing the proposal. MtBotany's comment opposed having any sort of "US" division, which I interpret as supporting a triple merge. The Bushranger explicitly wanted a triple merge (explicitly). You wanted to rename, which would have kept the US categories but combined together. Finally, WP:RELISTed discussions can be closed whenever consensus is achieved, to say nothing of twice-relisted discussions which have been past the seven-day mark for over 24 hours.I am going to stand by this closure, though I will hold off on implementing it until this DRV is closed. If you need anything else from me, let me know. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Patrik Kincl – While not the fault of the closer of AfD2 reading that discussion in isolation (as noted by SportingFlyer's comment), consensus of editors below is that AfD2 reached the wrong outcome — in the context of timing & AfD1, as well as a level of contention regarding representations made by the AfD2 nominator on the topic of sources. Consensus here at DRV is to overturn the deletion at AfD2 and restore the article. Regarding a potential renomination at AfD3, if any interested editor wishes to do so, please see the comments below from experienced editors & administrators. Daniel (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Patrik Kincl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The first nomination was closed by OwenX as Keep without prejudice against early renomination, while the second was closed by Xplicit as simply Delete.

The second nominator incorrectly claimed that the "good faith" sources that told about Kincl's "personal life" in the first nomination were not reliable and independent. It may be true or not. Of the five sites, those are secondary in my view. Deník is one of the most frequently used sources for Czech Republic-related Misplaced Pages articles, so as a daily newspaper, it is reliable and secondary. From what I remember, there seem to be not more than five secondary sources before the page's deletion, then their opinion is asked without using a translator at least first.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Endorse The discussion was unanimous and couldn't have been closed any other way. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Restore to draftspace to allow Clariniie or any other user to incorporate sources into the article to improve upon it,considering the "keep" result that occurred less than a month earlier, and the sources that received at least some level of acceptance in the first AFD. Frank Anchor 20:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn It looks like a unanimous delete, but the result here is clearly wrong (not the fault of the closer, though). The second discussion started a day after the first ended so you have to view the first together, none of the participants from the first discussion were pinged, and there were a number of sources listed in the first discussion which weren't discussed or even acknowledged in the second discussion. The simple fact here is that there are many sources if you search in Czech, from all of the top newspapers. This is a list of articles where he's mentioned on only one Czech website: , and the other sources in the first AfD were from one of the top Czech news websites, though they appear paywalled. These were incorrectly discounted, and the article should be restored and marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment as Discussion Starter: The article was nominated for deletion by the fact it failed WP:NMMA, as the person has not been ranked in the world top 10 by either Sherdog or Fight Matrix websites. Even if they meet SNG, all articles of sportspeople or any other public figures must meet the whole WP:GNG for the best and most important. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Clariniie's above comment. Anything can always meet GNG and be notable, until and unless we agree to change N to say otherwise, and SportingFlyer has made a compelling case that that general coverage was inadequately assessed. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - What are we at Deletion Review being asked to do? The AFD was closed as Delete. What is the appellant asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    To fix the mess. —Alalch E. 17:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Destroy the 2nd AfD. Faulty process. It should never be like this. Immediate renomination that bypasses the recent discussion that resulted in keep with a nomination that waves away the arguments which led to the consensus to keep is bad. The whole second AfD should be voided as if it had never existed, and the first AfD should be amended to erase the words "without prejudice against early renomination, if source analysis warrants it". That part of the first AfD's close which creates consequences in the future negatively affects the overarching process of getting to a decision on whether to keep or delete the article. It negatively affects precisely because it enabled a non-constructive AfD like the second one. Currently, the decision is to keep. To start a new AfD, WP:RENOM should be followed.—Alalch E. 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Would you have found a "No consensus" close for the first AfD more acceptable? Consensus to keep was marginal at best. There was no valid reason to shut the door on a justified early renomination. And a N/C close would have practically resulted in the same outcome here - an immediate second AfD. WP:RENOM is a widely-followed essay meant to prevent excessive churn at AfD. When the outcome is a marginal, a renomination is well justified. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The deletes didn't meet the burden to delete. There was a decent effort early on, but through the relist periods and in totality there was not enough argumentation on the delete side. What about the late sources? That had to be a keep. it was a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. It was an imperfect AfD but it was still roughly representative of what we want to see in AfD. It was pretty average, not requiring any special measures via the close in addition to the simple outcome. Allowing an early renomination was just asking for someone who for whatever reason disagrees with this article existing to skirt around the discussion and the rough consensus reached. Even with a 'no consensus' close, the article should generally not be immediately renominated, and administrators are justified in shutting down such discussions as non-constructive, instructing interested editors to wait. —Alalch E. 17:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • No Opinion at this time until I understand what we are supposed to be doing here. If I don't understand what is being asked, then I shouldn't either vote or !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Take no action. The review request is largely unintelligible and does not indicate which if any action we are requested to take. The "overturn" opinions above likewise do not indicate what other closure of the deletion discussion they would consider correct. Accordingly, I would decline to take action. Sandstein 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd either vacate the second AfD or allow the article to be restored, without prejudice for a third AfD. If you take the two AfDs together (considering one started a day after the other finished) there is no consensus to delete. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn: while there was nothing wrong with the speedy renomination here, it's not fair to do so without notifying the previous participants. Since it's been eight months, the most straightforward solution would be to relist in a new AfD, pinging everyone from AfD 1 and AfD 2. I'd also be fine with restoring (to either mainspace or draftspace). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn AfD2 due to too soon nomination and failure to notify participants from the prior AfD.
Chastise User:OwenX for inviting an early renomination. That was a bad call. It is rarely a good idea. After a long running AfD, the few interested editors are exhausted, and time is needed for everyone to take a few breaths. Following a “keep” the standard is six months wait to renominate, stick with that unless you have good reason not to, and the close gave no explanation as to why the might be any such good reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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
Misplaced Pages community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal.
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community
topics
Contents and grading
WikiProjects
and collaborations
Awards and feedback
Maintenance tasks
Administrators
and noticeboards
Content dispute
resolution
Other noticeboards
and assistance
Deletion
discussions
Elections and voting
Directories, indexes,
and summaries
Categories: