Wikipedia:Deletion review

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.


Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

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


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


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:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2023 March 25}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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=2023 March 25}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 March 25|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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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

  • 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 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".

25 March 2023

Marcos Caballero

Marcos Caballero (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted on March 18 per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos Caballero. (I'm not contesting the AfD closure.) User:Frank Anchor recreated it on March 20 as a redirect to Sportivo Ameliano (the club Caballero played for), and GiantSnowman, who had !voted delete in the AfD, deleted the redirect without discussion a couple hours later. No reason was provided, but he explained here that he meant to cite WP:G6. Now, it may be that this wasn't an appropriate redirect, but I have a really hard time seeing how it could be "uncontroversial maintenance" to delete something that was created intentionally and for a good-faith reason—especially not when the deleting admin had taken a position in the AfD. This should be overturned, I think, with the understanding that anyone can send the redirect to RfD if they really think it's objectionable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn agree entirely with the nominator, especially given that the AfD did not have any significant discusison on the merits of a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore redirect G6 certainly does not apply as it was not a “technical deletion.” This was a reasonable ATD which received no objections over nine days in the AFD. It can be sent to RFD if someone desires. Frank Anchor 04:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn the redirect deletion, this does not fall under G6 at all and the fact the AfD ended in Delete does not prevent a redirect from being created. Hut 8.5 08:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn out of process deletion. Got nothing to do with G6.—Alalch E. 09:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Feel free to restore the redirect and close this discussion, and then I'll take to RFD instead, a more appropriate venue for this kind of discussion. Please ping me when done. GiantSnowman 09:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Speedy closes (applied analogously to challenged speedy deletions), you can simply close this DRV yourself as a "speedy overturn" and do all the other actions yourself. Taking that you don't stand by your action, and seeing that everyone !voted to overturn, everyone is now in mutual agreement, the matter not in dispute, and you are not considered to be involved in the relevant sense. —Alalch E. 12:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24 March 2023

Faraz Anwar

Faraz Anwar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This non-admin closing AfD needs more inputs from experienced AfD regulars to get a clear consensus as the page references are interviews and primary sources. Additionally, the topic has only few name drops in reliable sources with other bands or songs that have no significance and no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak endorse while a relist may have been appropriate due to the low turnout, there was unanimous support to keep (outside of the nominator) and the appelant appears to be relitigating the AFD, which is not permitted. Probably not the best time for a WP:NAC, but the result is the correct interpretation of consensus. Frank Anchor 15:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modified based on Hut 8.5's comments. My biggest concern was this being a NAC, however I have always considered endorsement by an administrator to validate questionable NACs. Frank Anchor 13:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unsure, but I don't like it - on the one hand there appeared to be a numerical advantage on the !keep side. On the other, a NAC with less (I think) than 7 days of discussion and with little time to examine the offered sources seem unnecessarily rushed. Tough to conclude that the debate had really run its course.
JMWt (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion was open for 7 days and 11 minutes and several sources were presented within the first day, so there was ample time to discuss, though nobody (including the nominator) chose to. Frank Anchor 16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how to reply to that without relitigating the AfD JMWt (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak endorse. Weak because there was low turn out, and two editors disagreeing with the nominator. I think community support for non admin closures exists in very narrow circumstances, and not in difficult cases, this is borderline. I think giving it another week would be more common and I think preferable. Endorse because nobody refuted the two arguments to keep, both provided sources, and presented a credible arguments, linked to policy, closure has participated in 100+ AFDs and is approximately aligned with consensus in their votes, which isn't a huge amount, but I'd not endorse if it was fewer.
CT55555(talk) 17:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Um, why are we even suggesting that an AfD open for seven days with no non-keep input is a) not a clear keep, or b) controversial enough that a NAC is not appropriate? Sources were presented and endorsed, not refuted or challenged even by the nom. Not asking for a nom to badger other AfD participants, but when no one else has contested sourcing, there's simply no justification to NOT keep. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see any particular problem here: the AfD was open for seven days, it had enough participation for a close, nobody apart from the nominator supported deletion and there wasn't any attempt to rebut the sources presented. The OP should have responded to the Keep comments in the AfD and it generally isn't the closer's job to judge the sources. I guess we could relist it but don't take that as an indication the closer did anything wrong. Hut 8.5 08:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly a good NAC. —Alalch E. 09:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I just thought I should make a brief comment as the closer. I generally set myself a very high bar on the uncontroversial requirement for my NACs, so I'm sorry if anyone thought this close was controversial. To explain my reasoning, I saw unanimous keep !votes (barring nom), a number of sources presented early in the discussion with a plausible GNG/NEXIST argument made, and no challenges made to the sources presented for the remainder of the discussion. Conesus appeared to favour keep, although I accept that a relist would have also been valid outcome. I should also say that I am now due to be away until Wednesday but I'll support whatever consensus is reached here. WJ94 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23 March 2023

Bimble's Bucket

Bimble's Bucket (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

During the AfD, an IPv6 user claimed to have added new content to the article using newspaper sources. No discussion was carried out about the sources allegedly found by this IP, and therefore the closure as delete was premature. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP made no claim that the sources established notability for the article, and the consensus (to me) before this comment seemed clearly that there was not notability to be found. There is a difference between verifiability (which the IP's additions may have addressed) and notability (which the IP's comments didn't speak to). Eddie891 Talk Work 17:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We will still need an admin to list the sources used by the IP, if you can find the edit(s) they made to the article, in order to review their found sources ourselves. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sources added by the IP were all to the episode list. While I haven't seen the most of the actual sources cited (they're offline), the references were largely to the TV sections of either the Nottingham Evening Post or the Huddersfield Daily Examiner on the day the episode was broadcast, and I strongly suspect they just confirm that the episode was indeed broadcast on that date and don't provide significant coverage. For example "Dad's Tomatoes - First broadcast: 11/5/1998" was referenced to "Television and radio, Nottingham Evening Post, 11 May 1998 (pg.26)". The other sources were to a database which lists the collections of the British Film Institute, e.g. [1], which again isn't going to help meet the notability guidelines. I don't see much reason to revisit this. Hut 8.5 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • for me at least this is in the google cache [2] and gi ven the references seem to be tv pages on each and every episode, I doubt it proves much beyond existence. -- (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer correctly found a consensus to delete. No argument to keep was made. Talking about a list of episodes, sourced or unsourced, is too dissimilar from a statement that the topic is notable, in order for it to be understood as an argument to keep that went unaddressed by the preceding participants. —Alalch E. 13:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22 March 2023

Triggernometry (podcast)

Triggernometry (podcast) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Referenced in reliable source for the podcast itself. The podcast has now been referenced in reliable sources, e.g. the podcast review from The Times:

I believe now there is a case for a Wikipedia page for the podcast. Jschanna7 (talk)

  • @Tone: you were the closing admin on this. Would it be alright with you if I move this to draft so that Jschanna7 can work on it, and I'll replace the redirect? I don't think there needs to be a full discussion here for a nearly three-year-old deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but it does not seem to be an appeal of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft, or Recreation subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse unanimous consensus not to keep. Allow recreation, preferably via the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 15:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow un-redirection with appropriate sourcing improvement expected, with any editor free to re-AfD it if sourcing remains contested. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse and disallow restorationfollow WP:SPLIT. No significant new information has come to light since the redirection that would justify restoring the redirected page. Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. It is simply too obvious that this should not be a separate page per WP:PAGEDECIDE and no single new source can change that; this was the general mood in the AfD. The content already overlaps with content in the target article. Instead, more content can be merged from history and/or new content about the podcast can be added to the target article, and a split can be proposed if and when that ever seems appropriate (if the passages about the podcast become so long as to be out of proportion to the rest of the article about the podcast creator). I don't favor moving to draft because the process around drafts can't do anything here. —Alalch E. 09:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paragon Cause

Paragon Cause (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I wanted to bring up restoring this page. After reviewing this and notability, I am perplexed why this page has been deleted and continue to be deleted. The notes from Reviewers seem to only highlight the negatives in terms of ref and not the positive. I reviewed original authors notes and agree. I still wonder if this is an example of the lack of female representation in wikipedia and why editors only focus on negatives and not the positives.

As for notability, here are points in response to wikipedia's own guidelines

1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. The band has appeared in a number of non-trival articles including National Magazine exclaim! Magazine [1], CBC Music[2] Rogers TV[3] and Salt Water News among many others, [4]

2. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). The band released 4 albums and these albums were all produced by The Raveonettes Sune Rose Wagner and songs include performances by liam howe of the Sneaker Pimpsan Eric Avery of Jane's Addiction, all internationally known artists.

3. Has won or been nominated for a major music award The artists have won two ECMA

4.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The artits are on rotation for Stingray Music, CBC Music, Corus Radio have appeared in top 50 National Charts in both the USA and Canada to name a few

Previous notes from editors also reference misleading information as well as information that can bias future reviewers such as saying a 'band member' wrote the prior article and thus warn of caution. This creates considerable bias for any other editor reviewing.

Its very easy to review many other artists articles who are male fronted bands that have far less notability and are on wikipedia. Examples include Slowcoaster[[3]] are two examples.

Jbonapar (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ LaPierre, Megan. Exclaim! Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Carter, Adam. CBC Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ "Rogers". Retrieved 22 March 2023.
  4. ^ Salt Water News Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Endorse the two deletion discussions, if this is an appeal of the deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - If the appellant is looking for a bias, I think that the bias is against conflict of interest editing rather than against female musicians. (The appellant is a member of the band). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The appellant is advised to request advice at the Teahouse before submitting a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - both of the deletion discussions were clear consensus to delete. There is already a draft at Draft:Paragon Cause, please consider contributing to that especially if you can address the notability concerns. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The last deletion was over 3 years ago, the correct course of action would be to read WP:COI and then continue with the draft. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asian African Association for Plasma Training (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Asian African Association for Plasma Training (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<Wish to i) understand when and why page was deleted so as to improve it, so this is a request to undelete it to save to draftspace or userspace. Unable to notify admin who deleted it as identity unknown. Johncdraper (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The article deleted was a copyright violation, these cannot be restored. There is no bar to the lister, or anyone else, writing about this organization in their own words. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 March 2023

Mateusz Grzesiak

Mateusz Grzesiak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dear fellow wikipedia users. The following article was delated earlier in October 2022. In comparison to the previously delated article a number of changes were implemented. This includes reliable sources as well as neutral language which cannot be considered as ‘promotional’. In fact the text which was published today does not share any similarities with the previous one. However, after publishing it was tagged for speedy deletion without any possibility to contest this decision.

It is also hard to agree that the person fails WP:NPROF as he is in fact one of the most popular psychologists in Poland who has appeared many times in mass media and has published over 27 books. He has also received a well-known and significant award or honor, i.e. he was awarded the Bronze Cross of Merit by the Polish President. ([4])

Overall, bearing in mind the above-mentioned argumentation, I kindly ask you to reconsider the decision for speedy deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix1917 (talkcontribs)

You would probably do better to talk to the deleting admin at User talk:Hadal first. I have provided a note there that this discussion is taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Phil Bridger and Matrix1917: Thanks for the head's up Phil! Re: Mateusz Grzesiak, I deleted it because from my perspective it did meet the CSD criteria for WP:G4. Same subject, same general claim to notability, same general content. Per the G4 policy, it would have been better to create this 'new' version as a draft for review before publishing it in the main namespace. Now that it's deleted, perhaps this is better handled at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
I don't claim to have any special knowledge of Polish culture; yet, I will point out that this individual does not appear to have an entry on the Polish Wikipedia and he is not listed, even as an unlinked mention, at pl:Grzesiak. When looking at this instance together with the previous AfD discussion, it is also interesting that the proponents of the article have very few major edits outside of this specific BLP topic.
As a constructive suggestion, if you plan to request undeletion, that you bring this to the attention of editors who can offer an informed opinion: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland as a place to start. --Hadal (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the original close if this is an appeal of the original close, but it does not appear to be an appeal of the original close. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No Opinion as to whether the G4 was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - the way G4 is written, it's for pages that are basically identical to the deleted version. This wasn't identical but is similar enough to be an edge case, however one of the edits to the recreated page literally has "repost" as an edit summary, revealing the editor's intent. I endorse this as an WP:IAR G4 - we're not a bureaucracy, articles which are obviously unsuitable should be removed, regardless of what the written rules say. An alternative could have been to draftify but I can't fault the deleting admin's choice. As for the earlier deletion discussion, it's clearly a consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn Admin's description of deleted content is very clear that it fails the It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version clause of G4. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    G4 doesn't require the restored page to be byte-for-byte identical, only substantially similar without having addressed the reason for deletion. The exact wording of the criterion is not intended to be used to end-run a deletion discussion to repost a deleted-by-consensus article with only trivial changes; that would be both wikilawyering and gaming the system. Undeleting an article just to have a new deletion discussion where the same result can be expected is just a waste of everyone's time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please note that the word 'similar' does not appear in G4; the operative phrase is sufficiently identical. The restored content demonstrates that G4 did not apply, based on this comparison. The wording is different, the claims are different, and different sources are cited for similar claims--e.g. the National Education commission medal. While what you state about "trivial changes" is clearly true, it does not appear to be applicable to this case. Regardless of whether the revised article should prove unworthy, a second AfD is in order, and can provide much better opinions on whether an editor is recycling content with trivial changes--disruptive editing--than can a single administrator processing a speedy deletion request. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. If editors in good faith disagree about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies then it does not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I suppose I can't endorse my own deletion, but I wanted to point out that the article title was salted for a reason. Per the AfD discussion there have been repeated efforts to introduce this BLP at the Polish Wikipedia with similarly negative results. Despite the language of CSD:G4, the actual information in the article and the claim to notability were the same. Given this context, I strongly suggest that any restoration of the article content be done in the Draft namespace. --Hadal (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • information Administrator note: I have undeleted the version most recently deleted, as well as the last revision of the version deleted at AFD, so that everyone can review and comment on whether or not this was valid as a WP:G4 deletion. Please check the page history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn. Not sufficiently identical. G4 serves to save time by avoiding superfluous consecutive AfDs, but applying G4 to insufficiently identical articles, despite a very high likelihood that a new AfD would have the same outcome (—apart from not being what WP:CSD says—) doesn't reliably produce efficiency because there's a probability that the deletion will be challenged, which then may need to be discussed at DRV, such as in the present case; this is not very expedient. Drafts have nothing to with this because drafting can't make an already provenly non-notable topic notable. What should have been done instead of G4 is AfD, and what should be done now is still AfD. —Alalch E. 11:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks

List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Neutral filing on behalf of @Parzival1780: who raised it at my Talk. See extended discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Why_was_the_list_of_emergency_workers_killed_on_9/11_deleted? While I believe my close was correct, happy to have this discussed and support their query. Star Mississippi 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC) -->Reply[reply]

Still so bad at templates. AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks Star Mississippi 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Change to no consensus, a very close call which, in terms of keeping a page, should be enough for a no consensus. Many editors gave good reasoning for keeping the popular page (pointed out to have 12,000 views a month) and in situations like this a no consensus close would be as common as a delete, this one just happened to fall on the delete side by the comments of one or two additional editors giving opinions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close - a tough call, and I think you could have explained better ("you see where the deletes edge out" isn't really an explanation - why do they edge out?), but I find myself agreeing with the conclusion. The core arguments to delete were WP:NOTMEMORIAL (a longstanding Wikipedia policy), and that the list constituted a grouping of inherently non-notable individuals. The keep counterargument was that WP:NOTEWORTHY, part of the main guideline on notability, exempts members of lists based on a notable group from being required to meet notability standards individually: since the notability of the group is established, the notability of the members of the list was not a reason for deletion. It can be seen from the last few days of discussion that new comments continued to back up the nominator's rationale despite this keep argument, which suggests that editors did not consider it convincing. There were no new "keep" !votes after 19 February (except one that was plainly an appeal to emotion and an argument to avoid), though the discussion was open for another 17 days afterwards and relisted once in that time. This is a rather clear consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to NC CT55555's takedown of NOTMEMORIAL was never adequately addressed, giving policy-based edge to the Keeps. Keep would have been a reasonable close, but NC is adequate. WP:VAGUEWAVEs must yield to specific rebuttals of what the policy, guideline, or essay, actually says every time. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm tempted to say overturn, but I'm involved and think this review would be better lead by people less involved. But I do agree with Jclemens that my (I think, I hope) careful explanation of why NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply was not addressed. CT55555(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note for closer, here's one more comment from Parzival1780 which ended up in the wrong spot. Want their input to be included so flagging. While I'm aware that Article was useful, did not need to be deleted is not a reason for DRV, I encourage new user leniency as the discussion on my Talk indicates. Star Mississippi 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is based on the argument that the list mainly consisted of non-notable people. There isn't actually much in the way of policy/guideline support for this as a basis for deletion. WP:LISTPEOPLE does give this as a standard, but it isn't exactly mandatory and it's mainly used to keep lists with a broad scope from becoming too big, which isn't a problem here. WP:NLIST is the usual standard to apply for notability of lists, but I don't see anybody on the Delete side citing it. The argument that it should be deleted as unencyclopedic based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL is rather stronger, in my view, but that's very much a judgement call for the participants and I don't see much of a consensus on it. Hut 8.5 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close, not an easy call to make, but ultimately well and sensitively made. While there were some claims made that WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply but WP:NLIST exceptions should, those claims were reasonably rebutted by some and apparently found unpersuasive by others. The closer did a reasonable job reading policy-based consensus accurately. That's process; getting into substance: 1) reading the surrounding discussion (including on the closer's talkpage prior to this DRV being opened), it's pretty clear it is precisely because many people feel there should be such a list *as a memorial of the individuals* that this is such an emotive discussion; 2) I can't but help think this would be a noncontroversial delete close if it were a (comparably sourced) list of victims of a tragedy, first responders or no, elsewhere in the world. I agree that as a society, America should remember these heroes by name; but that doesn't mean a en.wp list is the way to do it. Martinp (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editing to add: In the event the deletion does not get overturned here, I would expect any admin would be willing to userfy the deleted list to someone, anyone, who would want to move it to be stored elsewhere on the internet, for instance a wiki with different scope than en.wp. I am sensitive to the arguments like those of Randy Kryn and Parzival1780, which I don't think are strong from a deletion discussion/deletion review point of view here, but do reflect that this is material assembled with effort and dedication, important for many people to keep available somewhere. So I am sure the goal is not to unceremoniously nuke it, rather to enable it to be moved somewhere where it is not out of scope/policy. Martinp (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of why Parzival found their password, in addition to making communication slightly easier, was that Randy Kryn and I had advised them that your suggestion was a potential route. I would absolutely support this outcome. And while I'm here, @Ivanvector, thanks for feedback on improving closes. Very helpful. Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Both the delete and a no consensus close would be an acceptable reading of the discussion. The policy arguments were strong in both the keep and the delete statements, but there was a small or solid majority of comments in favor of not keeping the article (including the redirect and merge comments). --Enos733 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Well-reasoned, sensitive closure and NOTMEMORIAL applies. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It isn't the job of DRV to decide whether the close was perfect, or whether the close was what each DRV participant would have done, but whether the close was a valid assessment. I haven't tried to assess how I would close the deletion discussion, and don't want to. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - Overturning to "no consensus" would mean undeleting the whole list, and this is something that is too risky at the moment. The close was correct, and the !del arguments weigh more than !keep ones to me. If policy is stronger than guideline, then let's not overturn and undelete. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay George Ho, I'll bite. Why would it be "too risky at the moment" to undelete the whole list? Curious, as I haven't read the article, which is behind the admin wall. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Undeleting the whole list would mean reviewing longstanding policies that are expected to be usually enforced by editors and readers, like NOTMEMORIAL. Trying not to apply that policy is something that I don't want to do. Furthermore, even with reliable sources verifying past existences of such workers, I agree with others about the criteria being broader than it should have been. Moreover, this project isn't the place to use just to attract viewership. Plus, I would fear further content disputes over and over. George Ho (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That sounds to me like you're itching to apply the Supreme policies of Wikipedia, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Editors and closers almost always forget that WP:IAR is policy and think of it as an exotic rarely used back door when, in fact, it's a policy that is above both guidelines and all other policies. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You mean ignoring WP:NOTBURO also? I know that NOTMEMORIAL seems too bureaucratic or too preventive to you and not set in stone, but the policy and its spirit are too hard to ignore, especially when the project's integrity is at stake. Same for NOTBURO, which also mentions IAR. I appreciate the editors' efforts to contribute to the deleted list, but.... Still, the close should be followed and set a precedence about such lists. George Ho (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:NOTBURO tells us "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." The original RfD and this discussion include many editors who say that the page does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL - I personally don't know because I haven't read the page - so that should be a consideration that a solid point-of-view exists that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (as original nominator). Keep arguments boiled down to variations on the theme of "I like it" and "it's notable" (sans sources). Nobody explained how there was encyclopaedic value on a long list of non-notable, poorly sourced names (which is not to slight those people in any way; it's just that knowing the name of every casualty adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the incident). If this were any event besides 9/11, this would be a textbook case of a memorial page and an indiscriminate collection of information. The keep votes either ignored the policy arguments in favour of guidelines (WP:NOT is policy, notability is a guideline) or their arguments focused on the coverage of subject rather than the names; some were just appeals to emotion. I completely get that 9/11 is an emotive subject but Wikipedia should cover emotive subjects dispassionately. I suggested several times that a prose article about emergency service casualties or the emergency response would be appropriate, though I've since learnt that we have not only List of emergency and first responder agencies that responded to the September 11 attacks (which in my opinion fails exactly the same policies as this list) but also Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Perhaps an appropriate redirect would make sure that readers can still find encyclopaedic information, and appropriate external links can direct them to some of the many sites with a more fitting scope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20 March 2023


Artfi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Why Artfi was deleted under CSD A7 while the page is about a notable company and has been covered multiple times with proper reliable and independent sourcing Entrepreneur (magazine) - (1), Gulf News - (2), Entrepreneur (magazine) - (3), Forbes India - (4), The Pioneer (India) - (5), NewsBTC - (6), Finance Magnates - (7).

As per Wikipedia:Speedy deletion "A7 is to be used only in situations where there is absolutely no indication of notability. This one makes several claims of notability, including being awarded by one of Dubai's leading news papers Gulf News, renowned contemporary British artist Sacha Jafri collaborated with Artfi. There are various other claims in article.

Similarly, G11 does not fit here as well as the article was not promotional in nature. It was carefully written and sourced from reliable sources. As per G11, "this applies to posts that are overtly promotional and need to be rewritten substantially" If the post has some promotional elements, please tag it to allow me to fix the issues. I would request you kindly restore the page. Thank you! VirenRaval89 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strong overturn A7, weak overturn G11 and send to AfD or redraftify. This was definitely not an A7 candidate as the award from a major newspaper is clearly a claim of significance, and the associations with notable people are arguably so. G11 is borderline, but CSDs only apply in "the most obvious cases", however there is no chance that the article would be kept at AfD in its current state so I struggle to muster much enthusiasm for undeletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's usual to discuss with, and mandatory to notify, the person whose decision you are disputing before making a listing here. Please would the lister explain why they chose not to do so? Stifle (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deleting admin here: I speedied it as crypto spam. Speedies are instantly reversible if anyone wants to do that. I'd suggest draft first, though - I've restored it to Draft:Artfi. In particular, I suggest much more solid RSes and no crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not sure I'd agree with a general declaration that "speedies are instantly reversible if anyone wants to do that"; copyvio or attack pages certainly wouldn't be. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn both, send to AfD It may suck as an article, but restricting it to draft on the basis of bad speedy deletion (I agree with the above about why neither A7 nor G11 applied) inappropriately makes it a WP:FAIT issue. The right thing to do is move it back to mainspace where any editor may start an AfD. Who knows... better coverage may appear within a week. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, send to AfD believe that CSD did not apply (based on the content/sourcing in the draft) per User:Thryduulf though I would vote to delete or draftify in an AFD setting. However I would not be the only one to vote in an AFD so I think this should go to a full discussion. Frank Anchor 01:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy with agreement of the deleting administrator. The appellant has the choice of submitting the draft for review, or of moving the draft to article space, knowing that there will be an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As the deleting admin has chosen to restore the content to draft space, I suggest no further action here. The nominator is welcome to move it to mainspace whenever they wish, and anyone will be welcome to nominate it for AFD if they do. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15 March 2023

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Palestinian intifada (2022–present) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was erroneously deleted, the editors involved in the discussion only wanted a rename, not an outright deletion. Also many editors who voted to delete are heavily editing Israeli-related articles. There was agreement in principle to move the article to an appropriate name, such as the fact that the event is taking place on the ground with the recognition of the United Nations and the concerned parties. Sakiv (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse as pointed out by the closer, a rename would not resolve the WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues inherent in the topic. Even if some people who took part in the debate are also editing Israeli-related articles that doesn't make any difference. Hut 8.5 08:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. I had been looking at this article in order to close the discussion, but Vanamonde was just a bit faster. I would also have closed it as "delete", with much the same reasoning. And as Hut 8.5 remarks, what articles some of the !voters edit or not is absolutely immaterial. --Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as the discussion clearly supported that a rename would not solve the central SYNTH argument, and while I don't have access to the deleted article, per the discussion, the attempt at rewrite that was done didn't compel any changed votes or new keeps. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. It's impossible to transmogrify the substance of an AfD from deletion into something else as long as there are relevant deletion arguments, through formatting !votes as if it was an RM, only then to present a complaint how the AfD was not a real AfD or something. Unlike what the nominator said, the discussion shows that many editors wanted exactly deletion, based on valid reasons to delete, and their arguments were not disputed substantively enough, which means that a consensus formed around the delete case. —Alalch E. 00:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. I concur with the above opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Archives, by year and month
Year 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