Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent
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 perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Dear Wikipedia, On 14 February 2025, the Wikipedia article on Moeed Pirzada, a prominent Pakistani journalist and political commentator, was deleted after a second Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion. I am writing to formally request a review of this deletion decision, as I believe that the notability of Moeed Pirzada has not been fully considered in the discussion. Moeed Pirzada is a recognized figure in journalism, having hosted multiple high-profile television programs, including:
His work has been widely covered by reliable, third-party sources, meeting Wikipedia’s WP:GNG: Press Freedom & Legal Actions Pirzada has been at the center of press freedom discussions, facing legal actions in Pakistan due to his reporting.[1] The deletion discussion may not have fully considered his recent impact, particularly in international media coverage of press freedom and journalist persecution in Pakistan.[2] He has been mentioned in major human rights reports, including Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, which highlight the suppression of journalistic freedom in Pakistan.[3][4] Request for Review Given his widespread coverage in reliable sources and his continued influence in journalism, I request that the Wikipedia deletion decision be reconsidered. Specifically, I propose: 1. Restoring the article, or 2. Moving it to Draft space, where improvements can be made in compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Zeeshank9 (talk) 09:30, 14 February 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. |
Rajat Verma has got several significant roles post the past deletion. So can the deleted article be shifted to the draftspace so that it can be edited and developed into an article? ITVaddict (talk) 15:04, 14 February 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. |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip A page on this topic was first deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump proposal for displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip per NOTNEWS (discussion 30 January - 2 February). Then followed the above discussion, starting 5 February, with delete votes like "He'll just forget about it in a week" and "Wasn't this all speculation from a single tweet?" and "Nothing will ever, ever, ever come of this latest idiotic plan untethered in any way with reality" and "Until something comes of it, it means basically nothing." and "Doesn't seem to have any notable impact, coverage seems mostly routine." After the initial delete votes, which were largely incorrect, most people voted keep because the plan, no matter how stupid or ingenious you may believe it to be, has had and continues to have serious real-world impact, as is clear from the massive number of independent, reliable sources from major news sources from all over the world specifically about this "plan", from the last 24 hours alone[1]. This was reflected in the more recent votes, and also lead to the recreation of Trump plan for the Gaza Strip (deleted G4, I can't judge whether it was sufficiently similar or not to justify the G4 tag). I believe the AfD close to have been incorrect, as many of the delete votes were not policy based and/or clearly were made outdated by reality, and the later keep votes and just plain notability had the better position. I had raised this yesterday with the closing admin, who didn't reply for some reason. I would at the very least want the discussion to be relisted, if not outright closed as keep. Fram (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Soon to be forgotten, just a tweet, ... Two weeks later, France24 has a 45 minute debate on the plan[2], the Egyptian president cancels a US visit over the plan[3][4], it was the main topic (certainly in the press) of the visit of the Jordan king to Trump[5], it got reactions yesterday and today from Emmanuel Macron, North Korea, China, Germany, Scotland, ... it may be the topic of an Arab summit[6] or other joined Arab efforts[7], analysis of all kinds of impacts of the plan is being published left and right, e.g. a long ABC article about how the ICC may react and consider executing the Trump plan a war crime[8]... All this only from English-language sources, and only from the last 24 hours. This plan, no matter if anything ever comes from it, no matter even if it gets withdrawn tomorrow, has already had profound real-world impact and is a lot more notable than many routine articles about "events" (sports, weather, tv show episodes) which get created and kept without any fuss. I don't get the resistance against this or the reluctance to admit that yes, the votes arguing to delete it because it was just some tweet which would be forgotten the next day were completely wrong. We prided ourselves on being the go-to destination for the newest correct and up-to-date information during e.g. the Covid crisis, we recorded the other events in the Hamas-Israel war on a daily basis but now suddenly these qualities are to be avoided because, well, no idea really. It's not as if nothing has actually happened, the idea has had and continues to have a real-life impact. Fram (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Just in: Turkey’s Erdogan calls Trump’s Gaza plan a ‘major threat’ to world peace. As you probably can tell, I'm completely baffled by the insistence that this is such a minor thing, while everyone else around the world considers it the one of the most important events of the day even though the plan is a few weeks old now. Fram (talk) 15:19, 13 February 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. |
In spite of the fact there were more delete than keep !votes in this discussion, sometimes we just get things wrong. While I understand why this was nominated for deletion - the article at the time of nomination had three sources and was a recreation of a previously deleted article - the rationale for deletion was fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:LASTING, and I believe all of these reasons were clearly refuted by the introduction of additional sources which shows that it not only met GNG (significant international coverage), but that coverage was continuing (was in the news for months, including articles in April 1986, follow up stories two years later, and mentions decades later) and that it had lasting impacts (change to airframe design and airline safety structure). The discussion also broke towards keeping, and the delete !voters after either did not assess the sources or misapplied WP:NOTNEWS. I'm asking for this to be overturned to no consensus or possibly even a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |