Wikipedia:Deletion review
| 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
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria 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:
- 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);
- (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.)
- 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);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- 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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion 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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion 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 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
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".
Ali Niknam (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was speedy deleted by speedy deleted by Primefac per G2 for unambiguous copyright infringemen, I believe we need to follow the guidelines: For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio/url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Spokeoino (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- Draft:RxDB (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This article draft was rejected on the grounds of G11, which seems to boil down to whether the article was written from a neutral point-of-view. Neither the moderator who initially deleted it, nor the deleting administrator gave even the slightest substantiation for why they thought that the article failed this, or any other, criteria.
Likewise, my pleas - as a newcomer - for guidance on how to fix/improve the draft article, or find some other suitable compromise, were completely ignored. Can someone please assist me with this? Nickchomey (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- First, the user is confused about the sequence of events. No one but me deleted it. Nick is calling the person who tagged it a "moderator". Second, his "pleas" were not "completely ignored". I, and I believe others, disagreed with him. I responded to each of his posts on my Talk page, even though, frankly, I got a bit weary of it all as it was going in circles. I told him, though, that he could challenge the deletion here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Nickchomey, the first thing I need to ask is, are you in any way related to the product? If so, you must clearly declare your connection on your User page. Secondly, Orangemike already gave you some very useful advice. So did Bbb23 in his reply to you. Coming here to get a third opinion because you didn't like what the other two admins told you is what we refer to as "admin shopping". They both explained to you what we expect in terms of sources to establish the notability of the product. You chose to argue, rather than to listen to them and heed their advice.Let's be frank here: all of your contributions on Wikipedia are about RxDB - writing the draft, and arguing about its deletion. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. You're here to promote a product. Your claims about not getting
the slightest substantiation
about why the draft was deleted are patently false, as anyone reading the exchanges can see. You're not here to "plea", you're here to haggle. We're not interested in a "suitable compromise". This is--and will remain--an encyclopedia, not a webhost or a product catalogue. And if all you can offer as a retort is a diatribe about how popular the software is, or why similar products have a page here, then all you're doing is wasting our time, not to mention yours. Owen× ☎ 00:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Endorse the G11. I have not read the deleted draft, and I am aware that it is unusual to have an opinion on whether a page was G11 without reading it. However, the appellant's posts to admin talk pages provide me with enough information to see that the appellant had promotional intent, and I am willing at that point to rely on the judgment of Orangemike and Bbb23, two administrators who have shown good judgment over the years.The title has not been salted, and the appellant can submit another draft that complies with neutral point of view and copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)- Comment - Porting a web site is also G12. Don't port a web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- My comment about "porting a website" was not meant literally. AFAIK, there was no copyright infringement.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Now that the draft is visible to non-admins, you should make it clear whether you still endorse.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have speedied this. Remove everything but the first section and it's a neutrally-written, albeit not very informative, stub. —Cryptic 01:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Would an administrator please temp-undelete?—Alalch E. 03:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Done. Correctly, I hope. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G11 It's not a bad start, and it's fundamentally how software articles are written: explaining their unique value proposition. I wouldn't AfC accept it yet, and I haven't reviewed the details in the references, but that's not the issue: Is the text effusively gushing so that it's outside the pale? No, it is not, hence G11 should not have been used on this draft. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse G11 I would not have speedied that, but I would have declined it at AfC for being too promotional and not being an encyclopedia article. Promotionalism doesn't specifically mean selling something, it just means written in a way that is both non-encyclopedic and commercial. That being said, it was in draft space, so I really don't mind if it is restored. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn. Not a G11 case.—Alalch E. 20:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G11. There is some content that reads like an advertisement but it is not
exclusively promotional
and not wouldneed to be fundamentally rewritten
, as required to be a G11 deletion. That said, the most recent version is far from ready to be considered for AFC and if it were an article already it would probably be a WP:SNOW delete/draftify at AFD. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not G11 was applied correctly. Restoring to draftspace will allow the author (or any other user) to modify the tone to be more neutral. Frank Anchor 21:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC) - Overturn G11 - This is not exclusively promotional, but a clumsy effort to describe a product from the vendor's viewpoint. If I were reviewing this at AFC, I would decline it as 'nn' and would tag it with {{whichnote}} and {{vendsays}}. If this were in article space, I would tag it for AFD, not for G11 (and I hold articles to a higher standard for G11 than drafts). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Reluctant overturn. It seems to me to be clear attempt at promotion but it does not come within the tight definitions required by G11. I have doubts that it will turn into an article, or that Nickchomey is here to do anything other than write and push that article, but policy is what it is. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request a review of the interactions with editor MrOllie and the subsequent ban from editing a page. The interactions can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#c-Tewdar-20250218134200-Tdkelley1-20250218013300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdkelley1 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 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. |
Full discussion can be found here as this isn’t a discussion of its deletion per se, rather the most recent G4 CSD, but the tl;dr is, would the Wikipedians that poop category be eligible for a restore as it’s a humorous category that redirects to the category Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, or should it stay deleted; and if so, would the other subcategories linked there need to be deleted as well? Booyahhayoob (talk) 04:42, 18 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. |
Radhika has got several lead roles in notable tv shows like Do Chutki Sindoor and Main Dil Tum Dhadkan after second AFD. So can the deletion be reviewed and article be restored to draft space 103.203.73.164 (talk) 13:38, 18 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. |
Ayesha is presently the lead in Mannat – Har Khushi Paane Ki so that makes her WP:NOTABLE now, so can the deletion be reviewed and the article restored to draft space 103.203.73.164 (talk) 16:33, 18 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. |
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. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion was closed by a non-administrator as "no consensus", with zero further explanation. However, as the !vote counts superficially are close (5 delete, 2 weak keeps, 2 keeps, but with several keeps based conclusively on non-RS), and because deletion would have been a reasonable outcome, I believe this should have been evaluated by an admin, per our deletion guideline Asking the original closer to reconsider was unproductive ( |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |