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 19:18, 17 August 2004 view sourceAngela (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users45,368 edits →[]: Undeleted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025 view source Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,328 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}}
{{Shortcut|]}}
{{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
|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.
Stuff is deleted by ]. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. The forthcoming ] may address many of these issues, but that is some way off. See also:] and ].


== Purpose ==
'''Please note that the archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 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 3 December 2003.'''
<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;
#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:
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:


#because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be ]);
# 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), or because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion, but were ignored.
#(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.)
# 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.
#to point out ] that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
#*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.
#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==
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.
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:DELREVD}}</noinclude>
<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 '''undelete''' an article, list it here with a brief reason. The procedure explained at ] will then be followed, and if the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.
{{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===
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 - either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it.
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:
See also ].
* <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==


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.
History only undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for deletion 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 case of copyright violations.


===Temporary undeletion===
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 ]
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===
== Votes for 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.
'''''Add new votes at the bottom.'''''


If the administrator closes the deletion review as '''no consensus''', the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
=== August 12 (end August 22) ===
*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.
====]====
*If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
] - now to be listed in the 2005 edition of ''Who's Who in America'' --] 18:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:No undelete history for this page. ]] 18:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
::Suggested as a Requested article now. --] 20:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


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.)
'''Keep deleted'''
*Keep deleted - This or a slightly differently named article was voted on VfD and deleted. - ]]] 20:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*Keep deleted. Is it still listed on requested articles? I deleted it a couple of days ago. ]] 20:47, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep deleted. Do we even accept undeletion nominations from anons? This should be especially suspect considering how Mr. Boyer himself is a wikipedia user who frequently edited his eponymous article, spread links to it into multiple articles, created articles about his family members, and dragged out the VfD debate into an exhausting morass over his supposed notability as an artist, all while feigning disinterest in whether it was kept. I wonder how many other people got themselves included in Who's Who by relentlessly spreading their own name over the internet; as the VfD debate revealed, there are innumerable online art sites which take no effort to get mentioned on. Absent some concrete, non-obscure source of information about Mr. Boyer, undeleting it is just going to make it into a vehicle for self-promotion and a source of futile edit wars again. It's going to take a pretty strong showing to convince me that including this article would be useful to anyone but Mr. Boyer. I really believe the anon who nominated this is a sock puppet&mdash;his edits have mirrored Mr. Boyer's contributions, and he apparently tried to create another article on a Boyer relative (only the redirects survive). ] 22:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. Ignore request from anonymous editor. ] 06:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. Wait until he is listed in Who's Who and then reconsider. ]] 06:51, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted, for good reasons described above. ] 08:23, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted until verifiable and then evaluated, including review of WWIA's criteria unless this has been adequately done before, and estimate of fraction of WWIA folks currently meeting our standards. (There have been people in WWIA that i've never heard of and who have no Web mention.) --]] 23:32, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
** Though I would agree with this in general, I question whether requiring someone to have a Web mention as a criterion for an article is appropriate. Is Misplaced Pages just to be a regurgitation of material available on the World Wide Web? Why are offline sources "lesser"? --] 20:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. Danny, I don't think you're neutral here. :) - ] ] 18:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
** I don't know what the point of this is as if you'd bother to read below you'd see that my vote is "no vote" and I note that if I did vote it would be to keep deleted. --] 20:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. ] &mdash; ] ] 18:45, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted, if nothing more than to discourage Danny and his anonymous alter egos from coming back. You've succeeded in making me care enough to not want you here. I agree with the above comments on WWIA, although there are people with articles here I don't know about either. - ] 20:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. IIRC, the article was contentious for many reasons, not the least among them the presence of the sort of extensive "neutral advocacy" typified by the discussion below for each edit to the article. Further, the content inclusion standards have grown gradually tighter, making its proposed retention even less plausible. I would suggest that any new evidence of notability justifying inclusion should be provided by the anon sponsor before undeletion is seriously considered. ] 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. I'd have to research the details to be sure, but I don't trust Who's Who in America as a criterion for notability; I believe they may do a fair amount of paid listings. They claim to have one million listings, which would work out to 1 in 300 residents of the US. Beyond that, no new information provided in support of undeletion. --] 22:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Keep deleted, since someone as wholly undistinguished as myself has received junk mail, shilling for by biographical info, in exchange for a purchase of this huge and rapidly-becoming-less-trustworthy tome -- ] 15:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


==== Speedy closes ====
'''Undelete'''
* 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}}
* Undelete. I don't know or care who Daniel Boyer is, but Misplaced Pages needs to stop this deletion fetish before the project self-destructs. There is not, nor can there be, a fixed definition of notable. Misplaced Pages is dynamic and is an '''alternative''' encyclopedia. There is plenty of room in Misplaced Pages for articles about people who may be notable only within small communities. ] 02:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
]
'''Other comments'''
]
*In my opinion UtherSRG's vote should be discounted, as it is admittedly based on prejudice against a person ("This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''."). --] 20:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
]
**You missed the sarcasm. YRTE. - ] 20:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* While I don't know about WWIA in particular, many related "Who's who" volumes will accept sponsored listings for a nominal fee (usually around $100 US). ] 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
** This is true of a some "Who's Who", but not Marquis' ''Who's Who in America.'' --] 14:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*Neutral for the time being. If the previous article was deleted on the grounds that Daniel Boyer was not famous enough, and ''if'' he has become more famous in the meantime then IMO the previous VfD debate is irrelevent. ] 20:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*No vote, but if I did vote it would be for the article to stay deleted on the simple basis that the history is now gone. Postdlf does hint at an interesting question, however. Are we to take into account self-promotion, or the extent of self-promotion, by individuals, when considering whether there should be articles about them? There are a number of fields in which it is of the essence (for fame, money &c.); we could simply note business (it's called advertising), and certainly it is a usual practice for artists (are we to discount the heavy, heavy role that their own self-promotion played in the fame of Salvador Dali, Andy Warhol, &c.?), aspiring actors, &c. I think Postdlf is setting up an unworkable standard. We can judge the fame alone of individuals, but discounting the role their own self-promotion played in that fame is going to be difficult, and is going to lead to some obviously ridiculous results. --] 00:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
** Self-promotion is prima facie evidence for the need to self-promote and thus of non-notability (tho such evidence can be overcome). It is also evidence of a need to examine contrary evidence especially closely, lest further self-promotion be mistaken for recognition. And show us some "obviously ridiculous results" to consider instead of hypothesizing them ... oh, never mind, that's not your job, that's a job for someone with an interest in getting people who belong in WP onto it, not someone interested in self-promotion. --]] 23:32, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
*** I would agree with only some of this. I don't think self-promotion is necessarily "prima facie evidence for the need to self-promote and thus of non-notability" as such a standard, without any additional subtlety of application, seems to spring from some bizarre conception of purity that is laughably inapplicable to certain fields; it posits, for example, that the painter paints secretly in his studio, hoping that somehow by magic gallery owners will see the virtue of his painting, without him sending out any slides or doing anything else which will ever allow them to know he exists. That said, self-promotion that can be done immediately by the mere wish of the self-promoter, without any filter (such as an editor, gallery owner, &c.), ''if'' unaccompanied by any evidence that people have noticed this self-promotion and it is beginning to shade into recognition or fame for the self-promoter, should obviously be ignored by Misplaced Pages. However, if the product of self-promotion is recongition or fame, to ignore that recognition or fame because it is the product of self-promotion is absurd; this is what I am saying. I would, however, also agree that "examine contrary evidence especially closely." (I might note that it is a violation of "assume good faith" by Jerzy to draw implications about my character from this discussion.)
**** Huh? Ignored until the supposed implications are identified on my talk page. --]] 20:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
*** As for the "obviously ridiculous results," I would have thought that they were clear from what I said above, but obviously, not clear enough. What I am saying is that ] and ], amongst others, were relentless self-promoters, to a degree that many found distasteful. One can almost not escape the argument that their fame derived, to a greater or lesser degree, from such self-promotion. Is the argument that there might be some possibility that Dali and Warhol ''shouldn't'' have articles about them in Misplaced Pages because we are going to discount this self-promotion? This is what I am describing as "obviously ridiculous". On the other hand, criminals committing significant crimes, who wished to conceal their identities yet were nonetheless arrested and convicted, received "recognition" that they in no way wanted. In summmary, my argument that it is the evidence of recognition, however that recognition was obtained, that should be chiefly considered, and the entire spectrum ranging from whether the recognition was constantly pushed for by its subject, to whether the recongition was completely unwanted, that I find pretty much unworkable. --] 15:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
****There's a difference between being responsible for your own notability and being responsible for the only supposed evidence of your notability. A graffiti artist could claim that he's notable because his name is on every building in the city, but that doesn't mean anyone has taken note of him among the thousands of taggers, anymore than they've noticed one listing among thousands in web directories, no matter how many web directories that entry has been posted to, or one participant among dozens in one group show among thousands. If, however, enough people have noticed that graffiti artist everywhere so that they start talking about him and wondering who he is and actively appreciating or loathing his tag, then that may be a different story. But if the only one I hear talking about the graffiti artist is himself, I don't give a damn how many buildings he's slapped his name on. But keep it up. The more you pursue this, the more you guarantee that no one will ever want an article about you on wikipedia even if you show in the Guggenheim and make the cover of Artforum. ] 17:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*****I would fully agree with your four sentences, and if you would read what I wrote above, I would hope that that was made clear enough there. What I vehemently ''disagree'' with is your conduct when I am clearly discussing a general issue, not myself in particular, and you persist in ascribing motives to me. While I would clearly say that if ''you'' are saying that if I had a show at the Guggenheim and made the cover of ''Artforum'' ''you'' would not want an article about me in Misplaced Pages, you are admitting to a sort of anti-Daniel C. Boyer bias that has no place in Misplaced Pages just as bias regarding another subject would not, I am obliged to remind that I did ''not'' vote on this, and that I said that if I would, it would be for Daniel C. Boyer to remain deleted. I am not "pursuing this." It is a breach of Wikiquette to read motives like this into general discussion of issues. --] 17:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
******"General discussion of issues"? Please, you just happened to pop up when an article about yourself was nominated for undeletion, and you're clearly trying to influence the discussion. Whatever presumption of good faith you deserved was erroded long ago. Stop trying to act so innocent. My only "bias" is against people trying to use wikipedia for self-promotion, particularly when they feign disinterest, a bias shared by most of the serious contributors on here. ] 18:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*******Stop trying to act so innocent yourself. You repeatedly make statements that are either false or misleading, and then when corrected on them slip out of the accusation by repeatedly reframing the original accusation. When presented with evidence about something you admit that you can't be bothered to actually ''read'' all the evidence, yet feel completely qualified to draw conclusions about it. (You have done this not only regarding Daniel C. Boyer but the subject of surrealism, in which I have offered a great deal of citation and documentation to debunk your claims about it, citation you have completely ignored.) When you start talking saying that because I am generally discussing issues if I have a show at the Guggenheim or am on the cover of ''Artforum'' people on Misplaced Pages will not ever want an article about me you could just as well have been said to have had any presumption of good faith eroded as I have.
*******The issues regarding self-promotion I brought up are just as relevant to many other articles or possible articles as they were/are to Daniel C. Boyer. --] 18:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
********I love how you keep claiming people are biased or prejudiced against you. The harsh judgments you are receiving are based entirely on your exhibited past and present conduct&mdash;how else are we to form any opinion of you? I also don't know what you're talking about regarding ], because as far as I can remember, I've never edited that article and haven't made any "claims" about it. But I'm done responding to you&mdash;thus far, no one has ever managed to change your mind about your approach, or get you to admit that your "neutral advocacy" is anything but neutral, and I obviously don't have to worry that others won't see your comments for what they are. ] 22:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

=== Aug 16 (end Aug 26) ===
====]====
* ] was deleted despite two voters on ] who think the title is useful for a Dab, vs. nominator favoring deletion. (This would seem to be a precedent for eliminating all Dab pages whose titles are surnames.) --]] 20:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

*Undelete. - ] 21:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*Undelete. ]] 23:35, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
*Undelete. ] 02:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*Undelete - ]]] 15:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Undeleted. ]] 19:18, Aug 17, 2004 (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 10}}</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 10}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 10|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

10 January 2025

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

Guite people

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)

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

Raegan Revord (closed)

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.

Category:Fulbright Scholars

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)


Recent discussions

31 December 2024

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States (closed)

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

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)

29 December 2024

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

WP:BADNAC. The support for keeping, while strong, was not unanimous or nearly so, and there was considerable support for merging/redirecting the article. The closer made no attempt to weigh votes by the validity of the arguments, and many of the arguments made by keep supporters were weak and should have been discarded/downweighted. I would put the discussion personally at "no consensus", but I wouldn't mind somebody else (preferrably an admin) closing the discussion as "keep" provided that a proper and thorough rationale was provided. 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs)

  • Vacate per WP:NACD and let an admin close or relist. This was a clearly contentious AfD, making it unfit for non-admin closing, especially by a relatively inexperienced one. It's bound to end up at DRV anyway, but that's no reason to skip a proper closing. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 29 December 2024 (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.
Greg Flynn (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is clear to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. Several solid sources were found late in the deletion discussion. I think if more editors were involved who examined those sources, the article would have been kept. Thriley (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Endorse The discussion clearly shows that you and others made their cases there but failed to convince the other participants. DRV is not for taking a second bite at the apple. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse That was closed correctly. There was a clear consensus the available sources were not good enough for an article, and in reviewing those sources I don't see clear error. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The close correctly reflected consensus. It isn't the function of DRV to re-review the sources. The title has not been salted. The appellant may create a draft with the additional sources and submit the draft for review. The AFC reviewer is likely to request that a copy of the deleted article be emailed or userfied to them so that they can compare the draft and the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Self endorse as closer. To be honest, I don’t remember this AfD, but reading it now as if it were in the queue I’d close the same as I did. The discussion ran about ten days after last source added so I think it’s fair all had time to assess sourcing. That said, Thriley if you want this for draft I have no objection. However, I won’t be able to enact it in a timely manner, as I’m editing on mobile and not that comfortable with multi steps and without scripts so leaving it for another admin if that’s an outcome that would work for you. Star Mississippi 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse the close as a correct reading of consensus. There is an active WP-wide dispute across AfDs on what kinds of interviews "count" for notability purposes, and until there's a clearer policy, cases for notability based on interviews are going to be based on participants' judgment. I would have probably !voted to count the Forbes and SFGate pieces toward a GNG pass, but clearly the consensus did not. (Thriley would have been advised to supply sources in their keep !vote, not merely assert that they exist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a valid reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The participants adequately rebutted claims that the sources were significant and independent/secondary enough, including multiple editors noting that primary content from interviews does not count. @Alpha3031's dissection of the sources also went unrebutted for a full week. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 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.

28 December 2024

  • Jennifer Parlevliet – Deletion endorsed. Regarding restoring to draft, while proposed and normally accepted, Cryptic's comment at 18:28 29/12 precludes me from doing so due to usefulness. Will contact the applicant directly regarding draftification given Cryptic's comment at 18:28 29/12. It sounds like a total rewrite from scratch would be preferred, if any editor is so inclined. Daniel (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jennifer Parlevliet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Olympian who is also in the Equestrian Victoria Hall of Fame. I don't think sufficient research past a basic google search was done. Australian newspaper coverage online is very poor from the 1990s due to highly concentrated media ownership and tightly held copyright. Should be draftified as a minimum, or redirected to the olympic event she competed in. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you try asking the closing admin for a draft to work on? Owen× ☎ 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Asking the closing admin for a draft is going to be the best result I feel, I did my own WP:BEFORE search and could not find any significant coverage of her that wasn't the Equestrian Victoria Hall of Fame, but if you can find sources draft space will be the best option. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I notified them as per the instructions of point #2 of not section of WP:DRVPURPOSE. The-Pope (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Restore to draft based on The-Pope’s good faith request to recreate this page with SIGCOV that may or may not exist. Best case, coverage is incorporated and the draft is accepted at AFC. Worst case, minimal or no SIGCOV is found and the draft will be abandoned and eventually G13ed, which is not a big deal at all. Frank Anchor 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse the close, and advise the appellant that they may fix it by creating a redirect, creating a draft, or submitting a draft for review. The title was not salted, and permission from DRV is not required to create and submit a draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse Nom is making an argument to keep the article, not an argument that the closer read the consensus wrong. El Beeblerino 22:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse, no other way to close it and DRV#3 is limited to significant new info, which being in some HoF is not. JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 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.

27 December 2024

Clock/calendar (closed)

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

This was closed as delete by a non-admin in contravention of WP:NACD, which states that non-admin closers should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages. The actual deletion of the page was carried out by a participant in the discussion, which I interpret as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Additionally, I think this is a close-enough call that it ought to be closed by admin anyway per Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. In particular, arguments involving WP:XY should be interpreted as in support for a retarget to the location that discusses both topics, as that is explicitly a solution to that problem (and the proper alternative to deletion). -- Tavix 20:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Since it's relevant to this discussion, here's a shameless plug for my essay on non-admin deletions. -- Tavix 00:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I figured that my deletion was okay because it had been closed by an uninvolved user, and I was carrying it out against my own position. I've had others close discussions I was involved in and ask me to implement them before, like Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination), etc. and didn't see this as any different. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:INVOLVED (emphasis added): Involvement is construed broadly by the community...regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. -- Tavix 20:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED also says: In straightforward cases … the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. IMO, pressing a button to delete a page at the behest of someone else is an obvious action, although I can imagine reasons to disagree. Anyway, it would probably be better if that question was discussed at AN and this DRV focused on my closure. —Compassionate727  20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it would be quite problematic for several reasons to interpret someone's vote for a position as a vote for something else because they cited policy incorrectly, which is what it sounds like you are saying I should have done. (One of those reasons was demonstrated in this very discussion: sometimes people invoke a policy as a way of eliding. If it's pointed out that the policy doesn't actually say what they thought it did, they may flesh out their argument to say what they actually meant, rather than, e.g., changing position.) I could discard their vote as contrary to policy, and if that policy was clearly controlling I could find a consensus solely on its basis, but it would be wrong to pretend that they personally supported something that they didn't. Anyway, XY is relevant here, but it doesn't say that the redirect must be retargeted if possible, only that it may be possible and that the redirect should not necessarily be deleted solely because of its form in such cases. A discussion must then be had on whether the redirect is serving the encyclopedia, and several editors made reasonable arguments that this redirect still wouldn't be doing so with the new target. With good arguments on both sides, but the delete position being supported by far more people (five voted to delete, two for voted for Tavix's retarget proposal, one was okay with either deleting or retargeting to a different place), I found a consensus to delete. I think any other outcome would be quite a stretch given how the discussion unfolded. —Compassionate727  21:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that you should not have closed the discussion at all because in doing so you violated WP:NACD. There are no policies at play here; WP:XY is an essay. However, XY says It may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed. Once a suitable location was presented, as I had done, "Delete per WP:XY" !votes should also be okay with a retarget because that is the better way to resolve the conflict at hand. I find this akin to a more common situation in which "Delete per no mention" !votes would be okay with a retarget to a place that has a mention if one is found. -- Tavix 22:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I find this akin to a more common situation in which "Delete per no mention" !votes would be okay with a retarget to a place that has a mention if one is found. In many cases that's a reasonable assumption. But if many editors subsequently voted to delete anyway, I wouldn't assume that those editors were unaware of the retarget proposal, or whatever it is that you are proposing a closer should have done here.
As for my not being an admin, I already explained on my talk page why I did that. If editors agree here that I shouldn't have, I'll respect that; I thought I was in the habit of doing this for all kinds of discussions, but looking back over my CSD log, it seems that before today I've only done it for CfD discussions, which WP:NACD explicitly permits. But closures are rarely (never?) overturned solely because the closer wasn't an admin, so I think it would be more helpful to focus on the substance of my closure than the propriety of my doing it. —Compassionate727  23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse I simply don't see this as a BADNAC nor as a violation of INVOLVED. Not being able to implement the decision probably should have meant it was closed by an administrator, but there's not a lot of people closing these, and consensus was correctly determined. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The close was against WP:NACD and the closer admits it, however I feel RfD should be made an exception to this, just like CfD is. The RfD backlogs go upto 25 days of logs, with a time range in months. Closers (admin or non-admin) aren't doing enough to close backlogs. The newer page entries see a good rate of closes, but older (and more participated) ones are ignored for weeks. If a non-admin wants to close older (and this was one of the oldest, from Nov 14) discussions as Delete, I would support that.
On INVOLVED, I do not understand the quoted text enough to see if it is relevant. Does "dispute" equate to "discussion", which the RfD is? I would believe the "dispute" quoted in INVOLVED refers to long-term participation on topics, not one-off RfD discussions where each nomination is a different "topic". I don't know how to interpret involvement with respect to outcome of the dispute. Can someone explain that, or Jclemens who added it, may want to explain the context behind adding that text. I think Tavix's concern here is not that Pppery deleted the page, but that Pppery did not call out the closer for violating NACD, and that is not really an argument for DRV.
Agree that this was a close call, and that the closure summary should have had justified it. Jay 💬 08:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. All I'm seeing here are technical "violations" - correct actions that violated the letter of the law, but not its spirit. The reading of consensus was correct. Compassionate727 is an experienced RfD participant, and while we don't (yet?) have a deletion queue for RfD like we do for CfD, he followed the same process, using the {{Db-xfd}} template for its intended purpose.
I don't see why arguments involving WP:XY should be interpreted as in support for a retarget. WP:XY offers both approaches as an option, and consensus landed on the delete one. The appellant cites WP:ATD, but there is no meaningful history to preserve in this redirect. In its 18 years of existence, this page has never been more than a 19-byte redirect, and one of highly dubious value at that.
As for the "WP:INVOLVED" accusation, I can't help but laugh. An admin responsibly carried out a G6 housekeeping deletion against his own !vote. How much less biased can you get?
WP:NOTBURO applies here: Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. We have a non-admin and an admin who carried out a necessary administrative task, dutifully and without colour of prejudice. They should be thanked, not dragged to DRV. Owen× ☎ 10:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree: carrying out an action against your own preference is not always a problem. INVOLVED says This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. It's really difficult to understand "he voted to keep, an uninvolved editor determined that the consensus was delete, so he went along with the consensus" as "being, or appearing to be, incapable of making objective decisions". This looks more like WP:How to lose with grace.
That said, I don't think that NACs should close deletion discussions as delete, and if they do, I definitely don't think they should tag the page as {{db-xfd}}, because speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions, and the fact that we're here indicates that this isn't uncontroversial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the correct close, with a caution to the non-admin closer. Either the guidelines should be changed to allow non-admin Delete closes, or non-admins should not make Delete closes. If the rule is unnecessarily restrictive, don't ignore it, but change it. My own opinion is that we at DRV have seen that the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Once the RFD was closed, the deleting admin was performing a purely technical function and was no longer involved. Take the guideline to a policy forum. It isn't clear what if anything the appellant wants to change in the outcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Because non-admin deletion closes are not allowed per WP:NACD, the closure needs to be vacated and properly closed by an uninvolved admin (ideally explaining how they arrived at their decision). Pppery is involved, so he can't be the admin to take over the close. The guidance is correct, there's no need to change it. -- Tavix 21:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit off-topic so I've responded on your talk page. -- Tavix 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse with caution per the above. However, I want to echo the above that INVOLVED is specifically not in play here. Admins are people too, and we want them to actively engage on topics of interest, while working to implement consensus even when it's against them. If we need a verbiage update to INVOLVED, then by all means let's work on that, instead. I'm also not opposed to rolling the whole thing back and letting a different admin reclose and perhaps delete. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Since you, Jclemens, originally penned much of those policies, I think it's only fitting that you boldly update this one to exclude cases where the administrative action is clearly not in service to the personal opinion of that admin. Owen× ☎ 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Is there any other case where INVOLVED should be clarified? In other words, is this a general case (admins implementing consensus they personally did not support) or just a NAC implementation issue? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I had raised some questions above on the understanding on NAC. In general for "dispute" vs "discussion". And regarding "outcome of the dispute", was it meant to cover cases such as the current case, where the admin acted against his !vote? Jay 💬 17:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see this as being NAC-specific. Any situation where the administrative action is patently noncongruent with that admin's expressed views should qualify as an exemption to INVOLVED. This could include anything from an admin closing an XfD where they !voted the opposite way, to a bureaucrat closing a SNOW-failed RFA where they were the nominator. We're basically spelling out the NOTBURO exemption to INVOLVED. I'm sure you, Jclemens, can come up with a better wording than mine here. Owen× ☎ 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse with little enthusiasm. Should have been left to admin, but the consensus was reasonably clear. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - I asked about this at Village Pump. Please see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Non-Admin_XFD_Close_as_Delete. On the one hand, non-admins should not be making Delete closes. On the other hand, we, DRV, can endorse such irregular closures. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn for reclosure by an administrator. Irrespective of whether the closure was correct, it was procedurally flawed in that it violated WP:NACD. And here at DRV we are supposed to review deletion procedure, not the merits of deletion decisions. Sandstein 08:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn. We should stick to the established principle that non-admins should not close with the outcomes they can't technically implement and not water it down further. This is a very good principle. The most expedient thing is to overturn and not discuss this at length here or at VPP through finding ways to extrapolate an acceptable general case of this for the future, because there's no acceptable general case. Non-admins should not close when they can't implement the outcome unless there's an established mechanism for this and as an absolute last resort due to shortage of admins in particular areas. CfD is that area in certain periods. RfD is not that area.—Alalch E. 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse I do not see a WP:INVOLVED problem and the decision was correct. I see a difference between a non-admin closing an AFD as delete versus a RFD or CFD. --Enos733 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    AfD and RfD are on one end and CfD is on the other. CfD is distinguished by there existing an accepted practice, basically an established mechanism, of non-admin delete closes. Particular admins will monitor particular pages for non-admin closes by particular trusted non-admins who habitually close CfDs to help prevent a gigantic backlog and will implement them. That's because too few admins are comfortable closing XfDs with minimal participation; too few understand CfD outcomes, such as "merge" (does not have the same meaning as "merge" in other contexts); because categories are too arcane for many people, etc. RfD is normal NACD territory. —Alalch E. 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse per IAR. The closer's determination of consensus was correct, and there is no INVOLVED issue. We should not be so obsessed with the literal text of DELPROC that we forget what deletion discussions are all about—namely, determining consensus on whether or not a page should be deleted. And in this case, there was such a thing. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Yes, technically Compassionate727 should not have made this close, and they should feel free to admonish themselves with the world's tiniest trout at their own convenience. An admin would have been correct to decline the CSD as invalid. However, an admin did in fact carry out the close and nobody other than Tavix seems to think that the outcome of the close was substantively wrong. The close seems perfectly reasonable to me; I am not convinced that making another admin reclose it would have any actual effect on the outcome. Given all that, it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to recreate the redirect just to let some other admin delete it. (And the idea that Pppery was too INVOLVED to push the delete button because they had opposed deletion seems absurd. The whole point of INVOLVED is to prevent admins using their tools to enforce their own beliefs; deleting something they think should be retained is the opposite of that.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse; first, some minnow-slapping is in order for C727. But the consensus assessed is appropriate and I don't see the violation of INVOLVED. The administrator in question followed community consensus after a closure against their stated position. It's entirely appropriate. Iseulttalk to me 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The outcome was correct. Overturning would be a bureaucratic waste of time. But this DRV should not be used as precedent do this again. That would require a community discussion on non-admin delete closes of RfDs. FWIW, I disagree that RfD is all that different from CfD, given the even larger backlog and similarly low participation. Toadspike 09:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:BigMacButton1975.png (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:BigMacButton1975.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

On the deletion review, there was NO "discussion" or "review". Iruka13 asserted that the image can't be used, I posted the reason that I believe it can be used. Then @Explicit: deleted the image. The image needs to be restored pending an actual review & discussion per WP policy instead of arbitrary actions by individual admins/editors. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy @Iruka13: to fix template issue Star Mississippi 15:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn close and Relist at FFD. After no discussion, the FFD should have been relisted, and should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is not a correct description of FFD practice. Unopposed deletion nominations at FFD result in a delete closure. See WP:FFDAI. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The image was a faithful reproduction of a copyrighted 2d image - not CC-BY-SA-4.0, as labeled - a black disc with the two-all-beef-patties jingle split into three lines at the top (but otherwise with spaces omitted), "McDonald's Big Mac" at the bottom, and a picture of the sandwich in the center. The image of the text isn't copyrightable, beyond the copyright for the text itself; the image of the burger certainly is, and is inarguably redundant to the high-quality free image in the infobox (which I see you also took - thank you!) and other images in the article. There was no discussion of the button in the article other than the caption ("Big Mac button worn by Canadian crew members during the 1975 campaign"), and no attempt at the xfd to show how it increases understanding of Big Mac#"Two all-beef patties" jingle - which already includes the full text, and not a whole lot more.Length of the discussion isn't unusual for FFD, and it didn't even need to go there - it was technically an F9 speedy because of the wrong license. That was trivially fixable, of course, but that leaves it as an F7 for a disputed non-free use rationale, and I assure you that F7 tag would've been honored. —Cryptic 18:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    In the initial dispute, I asked for help with the re-licensing. Unfortunately, no one seems to care to help... speedy deletion is all anyone offers by way of "help".
    Regarding whether or not the image adds value on the page, it also shows how the jingle was used: all lowercase, no spaces (as you noted); moreover, at the very least the image makes the page more interesting.
    If the standard to be applied is whether or not the image "increases understanding", then the next image on the page, captioned "McDonald's playground Officer Big Mac climb-in jail", should also be deleted; as should every album cover posted to WP (because they don't "increase understanding"). Christopher Rath (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    There's no point fixing the licensing if we have to delete the image anyway, which is why I said it was only technically an F9 and trivially fixable.The standard for inclusion of non-free imagery isn't just "increase understanding", it's "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" from WP:NFCC#8 (emphasis mine) as mentioned by Iruka13 in the FFD. "Significant" is problematic here - it can be read as having to increase understanding either a lot, or at least a little - but the burger part of the image doesn't meet even the more lenient reading, and that's the part that makes the image non-free in the first place.It's not immediately clear whether playground equipment like in the Officer Big Mac photograph is legally architecture or a sculpture; the image would be free in the first case and non-free in the second (Freedom of panorama#United States). There was no such ambiguity in the image of the button.I actually agree with you with respect to albums. The cover is solely marketing material, and shouldn't be included unless there's sourced commentary specifically about the artwork or some other aspect of the cover; the nonfree content we should be defaulting to for audio works is a sample of the audio. —Cryptic 18:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Assuming that Iruka13's description of the image was correct, this was correctly deleted. I cannot view it to confirm, however. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Assuming that the image's license is corrected, what is your objection to it appearing on the Big Mac page? Christopher Rath (talk) Christopher Rath (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:F7. This is not a content issue. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Why don't you believe that the image can be used under a fair use provision? How is use of a photo of the button any different than use of an album cover? Christopher Rath (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as copyright violation of the underlying . Fair use was not raised at the FFD.
    If there is now going to be a proposed fair use rationale, that should be put forward now. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deletion was obviously correct. A fair use rationale needs to be a concrete one to be seen as significant new information that would justify recreation, not just the idea that there is potential for valid free use.—Alalch E. 13:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Principal Snyder (closed)

  • Principal Snyder – There is no consensus in this DRV to overturn Sandstein's closure, which therefore remains undisturbed. I decline to exercise my discretion to relist the discussion; my recommendation on the way forward is that subsequent to the RSN discussion on Slayage, a discussion should be started at Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters as to whether the Principal Snyder article should be spun back out. Such an editorial action can be performed without further resort to the deletion processes. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Principal Snyder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per my (and earlier, Darnios') discussion with Sandstein on his talk page,

1) Sandstein incorrectly characterized two RS'es, journal articles from Slayage which is discussed at Buffy studies, as self published sources when the publication was peer-reviewed and indexed at DOAJ at the time in question.
2) Sandstein raised an objection to the sources as non-RS when this was not only not brought up in the discussion, but the one editor commenting after they were posted in the deletion discussion had specifically mentioned them implying their suitability to expand the article.
3) WP:NEXIST exists for a reason, and this is a textbook case of it: there's now no dispute that this character has RS'ed commentary, so the multiple editors objecting to the current state of the article are not articulating a policy-based reason for deletion. "It sucks since no one has worked on it" has been accepted as a reason for deletion by multiple administrators, when it runs afoul of our WP:NOTPERFECT policy.
While this is a redirection with history intact, I maintain that it is still not a policy-based outcome. WP:BEFORE is designed to filter out such nominations; three separate participants made the correct, cordial observation that no BEFORE was articulated by the nominator, an editor who made numerous questionable deletion discussions, was counseled by Liz for this, and then vanished rather than address criticism here. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC or relist there is reasonable split both in the discussion and at Sandstein's talk that the sourcing was misassessed. NB did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them a how they are referred to has no bearing on their standing in RS. I'm not convinced this is a clear keep, but more time to discuss would be a viable outcome. Star Mississippi 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Relist. This was a sloppy AFD by an inexperienced editor who has since left Misplaced Pages, and a sloppy DRV by an experienced editor. The appellant states correctly that the nominator failed to perform the before AFD search, but that is more of a conduct issue than a content issue, and DRV is a content forum. Failure to do the before search is a waste of the community's time, but is not a basis for a Speedy Keep. Either No Consensus or Merge or Redirect (with history retained) were valid conclusions by the closer. The appellant repeatedly stated that sources exist, but has not inserted the sources into the article, maybe because they are expecting the community to do the work of inserting the sources. (So both the nominator and the appellant were expecting the community to do their work for them.) The appellant's comments on the closer's talk page appear to be expecting the closer to do the work of researching the sources, which is not the closer's responsibility, and the closer was reasonably annoyed. One more week of discussion may clarify whether the community, which is divided, thinks that the stated existence of sources is sufficient to Keep the article. Or someone might be constructive and add the sources to the article for a Heymann keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    1) Speedy Keep was not invoked by any participant in this discussion.
    2) Per WP:NEXIST and WP:VOLUNTEER there is no requirement by anyone, at any time, to take any specific action to improve an article. This is the third and most important point in my argument. Sandstein is far from the only closing administrator to have acceded to arguments that "Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT", and it's time to either stop it or change the guidelines to match conduct. Not one of those arguing for redirection asserted a complete lack of sourcing; everyone arguing for keeping asserted that sufficient sources existed even if not present in the article. Does a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS allow an administrator to assign WP:NOEFFORT votes equal weight to those based on WP:NEXIST? Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sandstein did not accede to "Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT". Sandstein's close is clearly predicated on the lack of any evidence that the page meets GNG after two weeks at AfD. This is also the upshot of the discussion on their talk page. It is a policy based close. It is not the closer's fault if participants at AfD do not bring sources to the table. And looking at the wider argument: those not voting keep cannot prove that they cannot find sources. We don't prove a negative. But AfD is thus heavily biased towards keeping information, in that a failure to achieve consensus keeps an article, and alternatives to deletion are preferred to outright deletion. We cannot then just allow that any hand wave arguments like "I don't believe you looked properly" will do. AfD requires us to do some work. We are not compelled to do that work. No one has to contribute. But if an article is brought to AfD, and if it is not obvious the article is notable, then sources need to be discussed. Rather than saying please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage it would have been far more productive to have said: I searched Google scholar, and by adding the additional keyword slayage, I was able to find multiple sources including the following secondary sources, and . These meet GNG because... Yes, it is more work. No, you are not required to do any such work, but when an article is up for deletion, this is the time to look at the sources. It is often the only time an article has ever had a proper review of its sources. The attention it gets will greatly benefit the article. That is the added value of AfD. And I am sure you are already preparing to say that deletion is not for cleanup. It is not. But article improvement is often the happy result, and if the attention finds no secondary sourcing, the article should not be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding the passing reference to WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sirfurboy, please excuse the late reply; I stepped away from the discussion, and find this worth addressing. Thank you for addressing the heart of the matter: while many other participants are sucked into the minutae of the sources mentioned, you've been nearly alone in addressing the burden of proof issue.
    There's a fundamental reason we have BEFORE: Hitchens's Razor What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. When combined with WP:NEXIST it is clearly against policy for this to have even been seriously considered for deletion, because the default is to keep an article unless compelling evidence that it should be deleted is brought forth. "There's no sources", without a BEFORE search articulated, is a less efficacious argument than my reply "There's multiple sources right there on Google scholar, here's how to find them." Adding references to the sources, as was done later, doesn't fundamentally change the dynamics of the burden of proof, and everyone in that discussion or this who requests that those AfD participants arguing to keep an article provide proof of specific notability is, consciously or not, reversing the burden of proof.
    Sure, it would have been easier to post the links myself, but that's not the issue. If I or Daranios or others implicitly accept that responsibility, we've fundamentally rewritten the de facto standards for inclusion. Why should the bare assertion of non-notability be assumed to take priority, just because someone takes the time to nominate an article for deletion? Why is it somehow proper to assume good faith for the nominator, but not those rebutting the nomination? This is a question not just for this article--which could have been improved and un-redirected long before now--but for every AfD that turns on assertion of notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - I had written an Endorse but Allow Submission of Draft but am persuaded by User:Star Mississippi. This is a difficult DRV because both the AFD and the DRV were sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I won't say that assessing sources' reliability is a job solely for an afd's participants, but it's pretty close. It would have been reasonable for a closer to discount sources if they were inarguably unreliable - from open wikis, perhaps, or sources listed as unreliable at WP:RSP - but even then, best practice is to comment on the afd instead and leave an easier job for the next closer to look at it. Introducing a new argument like this in the close, when there's any chance at all that it could've been rebutted had the discussion not been simultaneously ended, isn't on.This, ironically, would've been a more reasonable close, and a harder one to overturn, if it hadn't included an explanation, just the result. —Cryptic 03:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse (but maybe a relist is a good idea) A reasonably articulated close entirely within the closer's discretion for an AfD that had been open for two weeks, and where keep voters had failed to show that sources exist. The two "BEFORE not articulated" !votes were rightly discarded, and although, per the above, these were intended as a "cordial observation", text based communication loses nuance, and they could easily be read as an assumption of bad faith. I see from evidence here that the AfD nom. did have a habit of not searching for sources, expressed on their talk page - but there is no way the closer could be aware of that. It was the job of the keep voters to actually select and present some of the sources they claimed were so easily found, so they could be discussed at AfD. Only one !voter presented sources, but there was no indication in the presentation as to what those sources were or why they met GNG. Sandstein, on their talk page, explained what is equally clear to me, that prima facie, these add nothing. Who wrote them? are they independent, reliable secondary sources? None of this was addressed, and so the last redirect !vote notes GNG is not met. Not one keep voter showed how this met GNG. Also on Sandstein's talk page, I do not think Jclemens' A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. is a suitable way to address a closer with queries over their close. That is a demand with a threat, not a question. And there is no way in the world that this was a keep outcome. It is closed correctly on the face of it. However, as most of the failure here is on the part of keep !voters who have simply not addressed the issue, and as it is possible that sources do exist, relisting this might be a reasonable outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • As closer, I endorse my own closure based on the information presented in the AfD.
If somebody presents new information after a closure (here, that the two sources linked to by Daranios in the AfD were from a supposedly reliable academic journal), that information can not be reflected in the closure because it was not presented to the other AfD participants and could therefore not have been the subject of discussion or consensus. In such cases, the person making such belated arguments must accept (as Daranios in fact did) that the closer will make their own determination about the merits of such a belated argument rather than reopening the AfD to let consensus decide. Here, I concluded that even assuming for the sake of argument that the two sources were reliable academic sources (which remains questionable given their amateurish presentation), they did not establish notability because only one of them covered the subject of the article more than in passing. For that reason, too, I concluded that a relisting was unwarranted.
I note also that this DRV was preceded by a threat by Jclemens against me. DRV should not reward such misconduct. Sandstein 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: You are asserting that my statement that if you did not correct your incorrect close (accompanied in the same edit by a justification of why I reasonably believed your close was incorrect) I would bring the close to DRV constitutes a threat in your mind? If not, please clarify what you thought was a threat. Threat is a very serious word that I do not see can be reasonably used in this case consistent with WP:ADMINACCT. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Edit conflict, this was written before the statement just above.
Overturn to no consensus or relist, pretty much agreeing with Star Mississippi and Cryptic. (And in that regard I am grateful to Sandstein that they did take the time to elaborate on the closure rather than just posting the result). Since the AfD I've learnt that the way I've posted the two exemplary secondary sources was rather inconvenient and I should have elaborated on those sources. But I believe they are reliable and discussing the sources rather then dismissing them right away is the more helpful way to go. And the information that they are from an ISSN-listed magazine is there now even if that was not clear then. Likewise I agree that the closer would have no obvious way of knowing that the nominator purposfully ommited a WP:BEFORE search, making the nomination flawed. But that information is known now. So in the interest of the project, deciding what to do with the article now while considering those facts is more relevant than figuring out if the closure was wholey justified then or not. Daranios (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
So I guess this means that this is a case of a deletion review under 3. of WP:DRVPURPOSE: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." Daranios (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse I agree with Star Mississippi that the closer could have better characterized the sourcing of the two pdfs provided by Daranios in the discussion, and that a relist may have been acceptable. It is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources provided in the discussion - only to characterize them. In this case, the visible links to the pdfs were to "offline.buffy.tv" and "dashboard.ir.una.edu" and described as secondary sources, the former which could be easily seen as an SPS. And the closer only needed to look at the next comment in the discussion (following Daranios' comment) that said that the sourcing did not meet GNG (so we must presume that at least one editor did not feel the sources provided by Daranios was sufficient). In addition, early in the discussion, Jclemens pointed discussants towards Slayage, where the articles Daranios pointed to are hosted. Shooterwalker suggested the sources were "trivial mentions or WP:PLOT and this doesn't pass GNG." So all of this being said, the closer saw at least two editors concluding the sourcing did not meet GNG, with general handwaving by editors supporting a keep decision, and suspected SPS sourcing, a redirect close is well within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist. It is impractical to the point of absuridity to expect an AfD closer to do their own WP:BEFORE and their own source analaysis. It is also anathema to the administrative role of an unbiased adjudicator reading consensus. I don't know a single admin active in AfD who gives much weight to !votes that are merely, "I've seen sources, they exist!". WP:NEXIST tells us that sources need not be cited in the article to establish notability. It does not--and cannot--tell us that a mere claim about the existence of sources, even when made by an established, trusted WP veteran such as Jclemens, counts as a citation for establishing notability. The entire AfD system would grind to a halt if we gave weight to such claims without substantiation. How would we record such citations in the article - by a link to the AfD where there was a claim about their existence?
As for the two PDFs cited by Daranios in the AfD, please note that six days passed after they were cited before the AfD was closed, and the only interveneing !vote was a Redirect. I don't see why Sandstein was expected to carry out his own source analysis as a closer, especially in the absence of any !vote expressly deeming those sources as RS. The appellant's rebuttal to Piotrus was correct, but neglected to even mention the two identified sources on the AfD. Had Sandstein done his own source analsysis, and used Daranios' sources to overrule the preceding Redirect !votes, he would likely be accused of a supervote.
As for Jclemens' note on Sandstein's Talk page, I see it as unnecessarily combative, but not an actual threat. Under most legal systems, a threat must involve the expression of an intent to carry out an unlawful or punitive action, which clearly isn't the case here. Typically, an appellant would ask the closer for their reasoning, and after some back and forth, one of the two would suggest taking the case to DRV. I like to think Jclemens simply wanted to cut to the chase here. However, I know Jclemens to weigh his words carefully, and therefore cannot escape the conclusion that he chose the belligerent language deliberately. Not a WP:CIVILITY violation per se, but an unnecessary preempive escalation in tone we could have done without. In my dealings with Sandstein, I found him to be very accommodating, and have no doubt this whole thing could have been settled between the appellant and him had Jclemens broached the subject as a question or polite request, rather than as a demand, if not an outright ultimatum. Or as the kids say, "This could have been an email." Owen× ☎ 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • My experiences with Sandstein, which span parts of three decades now, do not match yours. I am honestly surprised he felt offended, as I expected him to have understood "threats" precisely as you articulated them. If you look back, you will find plenty of times when I've criticized Sandstein for similar reasoning in discussion closures, so it's not like this is the first time we've clashed on things. However, to those not sharing this same history, this might have looked abrupt, and I should probably have couched things a bit different for their benefit. Again, trying to play the ball not the man here, I did not expect my direct statement to provoke anything like the response articulated here. I'll note that I've asked for clarification on how Sandstein would prefer to have been addressed both at the talk page discussion and here, without any reply in either venue. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per Enos and Owen, but if a relist would better solidify consensus then I guess that can be done. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse I also would have closed that as a redirect without prejudice for recreation. As a closer, I simply don't think keep !voters were persuasive that this character passes WP:GNG on its own. After making that conclusion I performed the source search and viewed the sources in the discussion just to make sure this wasn't redirected in error and that's not clearly the case. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist. I see no consensus that the sources mentioned in the AFD fail notability guidelines, nor do I see consensus to either keep or not keep a standalone article. A second relist, along with the added visibility from from this DRV, May be enough to find a consensus at the AFD. Frank Anchor 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Evaluating sources is generally outside the scope of DRV, but listing Slayage at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard could clarify its suitability. Does anyone have WP:Canvassing (guideline) or other concerns? Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Flatscan: Sounds like a good idea to me, and this being somewhat of a niche area of publication, the more editors and projects are pinged for input the better in my view. Daranios (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Seeing Daranios's support and no objections, I posted at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Slayage. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist. The final keep !vote was unrebutted, and the closer seriously erred by a) rebutting it himself and b) rebutting it incorrectly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist. AfD outcomes should not be overturned because of objections to particularities of the closing statement's content. The new sources came in late, after the discussion had already been relisted once. This AfD was reminiscent of a scenario of really poor sources (or hardly even sources) being brought up as the discussion nears its natural end; it could have been that what is brought up simply lacks relevance and weight for the given discussion. The linked files didn't look great, outwardly. Yet, it was asserted that they are "secondary" sources which contain "enough ... commentary". For multiple days then, no one supported that argument, and the only subsequent comment evaded the question of the sources possibly contributing to notability. Ultimately, this lack of substantive engagement between the keeps and deletes combined with the argument that there exist secondary and substantial sources should have been recognized as a good situation for a relist. It was possible to close as 'no consensus' as well. A consenus to redirect did not exist.—Alalch E. 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • On the fence, leaning endorse It's correct that Sandstein mis-identified Slayage as an SPS - it is not. However those sources are awfully light to support an independent article and so the likely correct interpretation of the AfD consensus would probably still be to redirect to the list of Buffy characters. Basically I think Sandstein made the right decision for the wrong reason. Ultimately I don't think we need to overturn the close on the basis that a correct read of consensus was flawed by some incorrect commentary but this is a marginal case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The two pdfs were never identified by participants in the discussion as from Slayage, and even if the closer were to hover over the links, one of the pdfs was hosted on "offline.buffy.tv" - which to a casual observer would look like a SPS. - Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that commentary on the sources was lacking, but I also think a conclusion, which was not present in the discussion, should not be drawn based on casual observation. Rather, I concur with Cryptic that "best practice is to comment on the afd instead and leave an easier job for the next closer to look at it", meaning a relist with a corresponding question could have clarified what was not clear without closer observation. Daranios (talk) 10:10, 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.

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: