Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
 |
| 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
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 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".
High number of people who wanted to delete the article were WP:JUSTA. They cited policies but didn't give a rationale. Example, the deletion "rationale" simply stated "WP:NOTNEWS" and nothing else. Additional notes: The article cited reliable secondary sources like USATODAY, CBS, NBC, and Axios, complying with GNG.Thegoofhere (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Contrary to the appellant, most of the Delete views were solidly anchored in P&G. On the flip side, some of the Keeps are little more than "give it a chance!" or "it's important/useful". That said, the content is still in the history, and nothing stops the appellant from starting a spinout discussion at the current redirect target, if sufficient sourcing for standalone notability has amassed in the elapsed week. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- All within the past week, does that answer your question? Thegoofhere (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't ask any question. I pointed out that you are free to start a spinout discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- My bad. Thegoofhere (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't ask any question. I pointed out that you are free to start a spinout discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn NEVENT or TOOSOON are not appropriate arguments to delete current events; trying to use them in such a manner ("Surely there will be no lasting coverage")is a reverse-CRYSTAL violation, so no, the delete opinions are not P&G based with respect to a current news item. NOTNEWS was never an appropriate rationale; NOTNEWS and trend-of-the-week are antithetical, in that NOTNEWS presumes routine, run-of-the-mill coverage, which this is not. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- WP:ATA#CRYSTAL is what you're looking for Thegoofhere (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse - I disagree with the appellant's argument that the Delete votes were inadequately reasoned or were vague waves. The closer made a reasonable assessment, and the assessment that I would have made. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- endorse the policy basis for deletion was explicit and explained by multiple voters. The keep arguments were woeful. The op needs to stop policing the comments of other users. They do not have the right to dictate what is a good or a bad argument. Frankly it also looks desperate and is almost always an indicator that you don't have a valid counter argument. Spartaz Humbug! 09:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse correct reading of consensus to not keep. Possible this subject can have sustained notability and can be spun out to an article at that point. The appellant or any other user can copy the redirected version over to draft or user space for the purpose of improvement and to incorporate future coverage when and if it becomes available. Frank Anchor 15:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Urutau recently received press reports from two security research outfits(GNET and The Jamestown Foundation). At the Australian Federal Police forensics headquarters in Canberra, the ballistics team manufactured their own Urutau. Complete and incomplete models of the Urutau have been recovered by police forces in Auckland, New Zealand[1][2] and Lexington Park, Maryland, United States of America.[3][4][5]. They are Visible in the Bottom Left Corner of the images provided in the articles. It got mainstream media coverage 1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7. Urutau (3D Printable Firearm) now certainly meets GNG and has sufficient evidence of notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superlincoln (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7315973288617213953-aBkd
- ^ "'Significant seizure': Auckland police bust illegal 3D-printed firearm syndicate".
- ^ https://www.firstsheriff.com/newsreleases/110824_SMCSO_Recovers_Extensive_Arsenal_Search_Underway_for_Suspect_Jerod_Adam_Taylor_wp.pdf
- ^ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7262119399094988800-l9Wt
- ^ "Maryland man wanted after arsenal of weapons found, including 3D-printed 'ghost guns'". CNN. 12 November 2024.
- Endorse the September 2024 AFD. Create a draft (using the same content as was recently added in article space and is in the history) and submit it for review. A reviewer can compare the draft against the deleted article (which is in the history). There is no need for DRV to be involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- No action. It is possible to replace the redirect with a suitable new version of the article without a deletion review. If unsure and want a second opinion, you can do what Robert McClenon said, but not even that is required.—Alalch E. 16:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Alalch E. - The appellant has already done that several times, and has been reverted citing the AFD each time, mostly recently twice in early May 2025. The subsequent versions have been similar to the deleted version but have added to it, and so have not been identical to the deleted version. Another "suitable new version" will probably also be reverted citing the AFD. Review of a draft is more likely to work than slow-motion edit-warring between slightly different versions and the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- If he makes a good attempt, and restores from redirect while addressing the reason for deletion, he can't simply be reverted. A suitable version is a version suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia: notable topic, no content problems. —Alalch E. 19:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- It appears that the appellant did make a good attempt, and was simply reverted. I, for one, would rather see an unnecessary trip to DRV or an unnecessary use of AFC as opposed to slow-motion edit-warring. What are you, User:Alalch E., saying the user should do? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, we're having a full discussion process now at DRV, when it should have been at AfD. I'm of a principled view that we should not be trying too hard to prevent repeated AfDs, and if it really becomes a bother, the response should address conduct. Appellant did the right thing by stating the notability case on the talk page upon restoring with improvements. Restoring the redirect after that is WP:BLARing. It is explicitly reversible, to be followed by AfD. After being reverted he should have pinged the reverter in that talk topic and directed him to start an AfD instead. This can't be analyzed using the straightforward edit-warring paradigm. Restoring from a redirect in good faith is creating content and this action is privileged. It isn't a normal edit, it's a privileged action that is contested via formal process.The new page reviewer did fine to BLAR. We should trust that he is able to tell if the improvement overcomes the reasons from the AfD or not. But it is still his opinion, which he can't enforce. Seeing that his BLAR was reversed, I am confident that this new page reviewer would not have reverted; there would not have been such edit warring. But then another editor came along and replaced the content with the redirect again, and that wasn't good. That was actually edit warring. The community should be (and is) able to address that without pretending that it requires a Deletion review. It's a matter of conduct, not deletion process. The problem is enforcing one's opinion in a dispute (a dispute around eligibility of an article) instead of using an established venue to resolve such a dispute (AfD).—Alalch E. 13:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- So to conclude, I would rather see a necessary trip to ANI or ANEW, than an unnecessary trip to DRV. There's a power imbalance involved, but DRV should not be a cushion for this power imbalance. That is not nice. That would be a bad regime. Notional review that actually covers for incorrect actions of the power elite. —Alalch E. 13:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- All I saw is that no one read my notability case statement in the talk page before reverting. They saw the previous AfD decision was to merge, then they decided to revert it. Superlincoln (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- So to conclude, I would rather see a necessary trip to ANI or ANEW, than an unnecessary trip to DRV. There's a power imbalance involved, but DRV should not be a cushion for this power imbalance. That is not nice. That would be a bad regime. Notional review that actually covers for incorrect actions of the power elite. —Alalch E. 13:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, we're having a full discussion process now at DRV, when it should have been at AfD. I'm of a principled view that we should not be trying too hard to prevent repeated AfDs, and if it really becomes a bother, the response should address conduct. Appellant did the right thing by stating the notability case on the talk page upon restoring with improvements. Restoring the redirect after that is WP:BLARing. It is explicitly reversible, to be followed by AfD. After being reverted he should have pinged the reverter in that talk topic and directed him to start an AfD instead. This can't be analyzed using the straightforward edit-warring paradigm. Restoring from a redirect in good faith is creating content and this action is privileged. It isn't a normal edit, it's a privileged action that is contested via formal process.The new page reviewer did fine to BLAR. We should trust that he is able to tell if the improvement overcomes the reasons from the AfD or not. But it is still his opinion, which he can't enforce. Seeing that his BLAR was reversed, I am confident that this new page reviewer would not have reverted; there would not have been such edit warring. But then another editor came along and replaced the content with the redirect again, and that wasn't good. That was actually edit warring. The community should be (and is) able to address that without pretending that it requires a Deletion review. It's a matter of conduct, not deletion process. The problem is enforcing one's opinion in a dispute (a dispute around eligibility of an article) instead of using an established venue to resolve such a dispute (AfD).—Alalch E. 13:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- It appears that the appellant did make a good attempt, and was simply reverted. I, for one, would rather see an unnecessary trip to DRV or an unnecessary use of AFC as opposed to slow-motion edit-warring. What are you, User:Alalch E., saying the user should do? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- If he makes a good attempt, and restores from redirect while addressing the reason for deletion, he can't simply be reverted. A suitable version is a version suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia: notable topic, no content problems. —Alalch E. 19:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Alalch E. - The appellant has already done that several times, and has been reverted citing the AFD each time, mostly recently twice in early May 2025. The subsequent versions have been similar to the deleted version but have added to it, and so have not been identical to the deleted version. Another "suitable new version" will probably also be reverted citing the AFD. Review of a draft is more likely to work than slow-motion edit-warring between slightly different versions and the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Restore. The version that was redirected last month was quite different than the one discussed at the AFD in September 2024. Had it been deleted instead of redirected, G4 speedy deletion would not have applied. The merits of this updated article can be challenged at a second AFD if anyone wishes to do so. Frank Anchor 21:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe draftify? There does appear to have been enough new coverage since last time that a new discussion on notability would be due but thats hard to have when everyone is playing red ink-green ink. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Restore. As the version that was redirected last month has most of the above press reports and sources added to the article. It also has significant work done to it too. These works should make it meet GNG. The reason to merge the one discussed at the AFD in September 2024 is because the it doesn't meet GNG. The version that was redirected last month does meet GNG, so it should be restored. Superlincoln (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- restore I'm struggling to evaluate the reliability of some of the sources, but the GNET one in particular looks quite good. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment It appears that this was un-redirected with differing content (from the original; from each other in at least one case) three times since the AfD closure. I'm not sure if we need a G4-like restriction on re-BLAR'ing without a subsequent discussion, but this would appear to make a decent case for it. Overall, I'd restore and start a new AfD if desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Ayesha Singh (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Actress passes WP:NACTOR Alexroybro (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Shehzad Shaikh (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Actor passes WP:NACTOR Alexroybro (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Speedy delete under G4 but article was not eligible for G4 as it was not substantially identical to the deleted version, it wasn't even close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- The original article, Grant Cardone was deleted multiple times, and finally SALTed. The dabbed draft was a (nearly) attempt to circumvent that SALTing. While G4 may not have been the right tag, the article should not have been accepted due to the SALT. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is no speedy deletion category which would apply and the topic is clearly notable so unsure why you're insisting that the salting is relevant... Salts are not supposed to prevent a page from being created if the topic ever actually becomes notable (which this one did sometime between 2021 and 2024) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I really feel everyone (and I do mean everyone) involved in this mess should be presented with a serving of trout. A family sized fish and chips to share, perhaps? In any case, yes, yes, list this at AfD instead or whatever. Safari probably shouldn't have bypassed the salt with an invalid dab because they felt pressured(? I don't know, I suppose I'm not psychic enough.) instead of raising it again at RFP, RFP probably could have just unprotected the first time, and no, this isn't really sufficiently identical to be G4-eligible.
- On the other hand, yelling at people, while it might be cathartic, is hardly appropriate and unlikely to be a good way of getting the issue fixed. I suppose we've now reached the first venue in this whole saga where discussion and a consensus closure is expected to take place, but there's no good reason any discussion should need to happen here rather than at AFD (if anyone thinks the article is sufficiently dubious to actually nominate it). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- If I start yelling you will know... I've been handling this calmly and rationally for months now (the only reference to yell/yelling in the entire thing is one self deprecating comment from me), I would tell you how long but the entire history got is unavailable to me because the article was deleted instead of being turned back into a draft... The level of incompetence and errors I have encountered is staggering. If I wanted to do this the loud and angry way I would have done it in two days months and months ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Horse Eye's Back - While most DRVs should be concise, you made the mistake of not giving us enough information about what the issue was, so that we had to do a lot of research to infer what had happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the comment about yelling: Sure, Horse, I suppose I should make it clearer that I understand that your yelling comment was not entirely serious, and I do not believe your comments quite rises to a level that should be characterised by that term. If I believed otherwise, I would be taking this discussion to a different venue, since this place is mostly about procedure and less about any yelling that might (but didn't) happen during said processes. All the same, if there are three ways you believe an incorrect decision might have been made, and two of them can be characterised with charged language, listing them out gives those ways salience, since people pay attention to such language. Said salience is undue and unnecessary to make the point that the decision was incorrect, that you have a bit that says someone trusts you to make the same decision for your own articles, and that continued protection is no longer needed.
- Coming back to something slightly more on topic: Perhaps we do also need to streamline our processes for unsalting, given that WP:RFPU is possibly more reluctant to do so then we'd often like here (though, given my observations are taken from DRV, I'd obviously lack a sample of titles successfully unsalted without ending up here). WP:UNPROTPOL gives both discretion to unprotect at RFPU to any individual admin but also deference to the protecting admin, and while pages are supposed to be unprotected if there is no consensus it is still required, RFPU requests are not (afaik) routinely evaluated for said lack of consensus. Maybe we should more explicitly define which groups from which we expect an unsalt request to be routinely accepted, whether that includes NPP, AfC reviewers and autopatrolled or a broader group. At the moment though, I suppose the policy is sufficiently unclear to make it a frustrating process, at least occasionally. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- It depends on the decision in question... For example when talking about the speedy deletion incompetent is the only way I can describe that edit, that appears to be the least charged language possible as the other language suggests bad faith editing (and there is no possible way for this to have been a good faith competent edit, its either not good faith... Not competent... Or not either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- If I start yelling you will know... I've been handling this calmly and rationally for months now (the only reference to yell/yelling in the entire thing is one self deprecating comment from me), I would tell you how long but the entire history got is unavailable to me because the article was deleted instead of being turned back into a draft... The level of incompetence and errors I have encountered is staggering. If I wanted to do this the loud and angry way I would have done it in two days months and months ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Questions - Are Grant Cardone and Grand Cardone (businessman) the same person? Did User:UtherSRG compare Grand Cardone (businessman) and the deleted Grant Cardone, using admin glasses, and determine that they were essentially the same? Is it that determination that is being appealed by User:Horse Eye's Back? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- They're the same person. —Cryptic 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comments - This is a mess, of a different type than a train wreck. What I can tell, with regular glasses, is that the undisambiguated title was created five times, and deleted five times, four times as G11, and once in 2017 after a deletion discussion. (I would Endorse the deletion discussion, except that I don't think that is being questioned.) Then User:SafariScribe created Grant Cardone (businessman), apparently accepting a draft by User:Horse Eye's Back. I don't know who disambiguated it, but they should have known that it would look like gaming the title, because that is the usual approach to try to sneak a salted title into article space. The point at which we, DRV, should have been called was when the reviewer tried to approve the draft and couldn't due to the salting. If I understand what happened, then the disambiguated article that was accepted by Safari Scribe and then deleted by UtherSRG, and the 2017 article that was deleted after AFD, should be temporarily undeleted and compared. That is what I think needs to be done at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Minor corrections: HEB did not create this draft (it was created by an IP in 2023), although they did make significant edits to it. Related other discussions at User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Grant_Cardone_(May_23). SafariScribe seems to have decided sua sponte to add the unnecessary disambiguation without prompting from anyone else, an action I would argue is fundamentally incompatible with being an AfC (and by extension NPP since the latter includes the former) reviewer - they are supposed to enforce standards, not circumvent them. So, counter Cryptic I can totally understand why someone would push the G4 button here and want to say "endorse", since I think (and am not alone in thinking) that this action by itself should justify a speedy deletion. But the community thinks differently of the matter, and we as admins are bound by that consensus. So reluctantly return to the status quo ante prior to SafariScribe's impermissible actions, which is to overturn the deletion, move the page title back to draft space, and leave it salted until an admin decides to unsalt it independently of this fandango. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- ... which it appears Discospinster has already done. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- In partial defense of User:SafariScribe, I think that they were not knowingly circumventing standards. I think that I have been warning about the gaming of titles as long as anyone has, and I have also tried to make distinctions between different groups of editors who knowingly or innocently game titles. This was a good-faith error by a reviewer who saw a complicated situation, and tried to solve a problem, and in the process made the problem worse. They were not trying to circumvent the salting, but just did something that is often done on purpose to evade salting. I am sure that they didn't know how common the evading of salting is. And it is still true that reviewers who want to accept a salted title do not have clear and consistent guidance as to what to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- ... which it appears Discospinster has already done. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Reviewers who want to approve to a SALTED title should ask at WT:AfC or a variety of other options. What reviewer are you referring to? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - The reviewer to whom I was referring was User:Safari Scribe, who evidently tried to approve Grant Cardone and was blocked by the salt, and so changed the title. This was a good-faith attempt to work around the salt, but other reviewers of course saw that as gaming the title. That is, it was a good-faith error that, to a reasonable third-party editor, appeared to be bad faith. Does that answer your question, or were you asking something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying that User:Safari Scribe has the New Page Patroller permission? That user is not registered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- The correct username is "User:SafariScribe" with no space. SafariScribe does have new page reviewer permissions. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying that User:Safari Scribe has the New Page Patroller permission? That user is not registered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - The reviewer to whom I was referring was User:Safari Scribe, who evidently tried to approve Grant Cardone and was blocked by the salt, and so changed the title. This was a good-faith attempt to work around the salt, but other reviewers of course saw that as gaming the title. That is, it was a good-faith error that, to a reasonable third-party editor, appeared to be bad faith. Does that answer your question, or were you asking something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Minor corrections: HEB did not create this draft (it was created by an IP in 2023), although they did make significant edits to it. Related other discussions at User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Grant_Cardone_(May_23). SafariScribe seems to have decided sua sponte to add the unnecessary disambiguation without prompting from anyone else, an action I would argue is fundamentally incompatible with being an AfC (and by extension NPP since the latter includes the former) reviewer - they are supposed to enforce standards, not circumvent them. So, counter Cryptic I can totally understand why someone would push the G4 button here and want to say "endorse", since I think (and am not alone in thinking) that this action by itself should justify a speedy deletion. But the community thinks differently of the matter, and we as admins are bound by that consensus. So reluctantly return to the status quo ante prior to SafariScribe's impermissible actions, which is to overturn the deletion, move the page title back to draft space, and leave it salted until an admin decides to unsalt it independently of this fandango. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that I understand why HEB is frustrated. Alpha3031 said that multiple trouts are in order. That is true, but I see no evidence that HEB has made any mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- If not for the added "Legal issues" section, the G4 would seem reasonable, though still incorrect - the rest of the article's structure is identical, and while the text is rephrased, it mostly states the same facts in the same tone; what would make it incorrect is that the references are entirely different. With the new section, which is quite substantial, this wouldn't have been a proper speedy even if it had happened the day after the AFD closed instead of the better part of eight years later, and I can't understand why any admin would think it would be. Overturn. —Cryptic 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Undelete in mainspace, allow AfD. It was an AfC review mishap. Clarify the instructions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Draftify. Undelete to draftspace and instruct proponents to use WP:AfC and to read WP:THREE. ENDORSE the deletion of the mainspace title as evasion of the SALTed title. WP:RFUP may be used to request unsalting, but it is not OK to evade SALT by trying alternative titles. WP:G4 has extra latitude when SALT-evasion is being played. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)- @SmokeyJoe: this went through AfC and THREE has already been checked and accepted before it was moved to mainspace. G4 says nothing about SALT evasion at all but it does say "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." so appears to give exactly no latitude in this context whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I can’t see the evidence for this.
- request temp undeletion
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: this went through AfC and THREE has already been checked and accepted before it was moved to mainspace. G4 says nothing about SALT evasion at all but it does say "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." so appears to give exactly no latitude in this context whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am sorry about this. I accepted the draft to mainspace so that it would be easier for HEB to appeal the original title block at RPP; initially when it was in draftspace, I declined it and during that time when HEB requested a block lift at RPP, it was declined following my AFC decline. After much recheck and assessment of the draft, I accepted it into mainspace with a dab so that HEB could present that the draft has been accepted by an AFC reviewer while appealing the original block at RPP. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @SafariScribe I think the best option next time would be for you to mark the review as "pending", leave a comment using the AfC Helper Script that you intend to accept the draft, and then follow the instructions here by requesting unprotection at WP:RfPP. Toadspike [Talk] 08:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @SafariScribe I think the best option next time would be for you to mark the review as "pending", leave a comment using the AfC Helper Script that you intend to accept the draft, and then follow the instructions here by requesting unprotection at WP:RfPP. Toadspike [Talk] 08:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn and undelete. What a hilarious mess. Like Cryptic, I can tell everyone that this was definitely not G4 eligible, and I encourage temporary undeletion so everyone can review. As Safari notes above, the choice to disambiguate was a creative one to allow page creation while the page protection issue was settled. Wires were crossed, and the undisambiguated page is now unprotected. Nothing but a series of good-faith errors has prevented this page from being published, so let's end the saga. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly right. Obviously right, but only after detangling the mess. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 as not eligible for G4. Contra to SmokeyJoe, I see no reasons why G4 would have any change in scope or reach with an apparent SALT evasion. And, of course, SafariScribe is here explaining why the action taken seemed like the least bad action at the time, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/05#27 May 2025 substantiates that the SALT and AfC processes worked against each other in this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I’m sure if you try, you could see the reasons. SALTing, which per policy should not be done lightly, is an emphatic decision that the topic does not belong, stronger than an AfD delete. And SALT evasion is not a respected way to contest SALTing. I’ve been here a long time, and over all that time, this is policy in practice. You might object to how it is not policy as documented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's basically it: G4 is the most overused CSD, and I don't want to open that door any wider. I'd be fine with a separate CSD for "created under an alternate name in violation of a valid create protection" which doesn't even have a "substantially identical" qualifier, if someone wanted to propose that, and believe that would be a better/cleaner way to deal with abuse of process. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Except, if it is SALT evasion, but not G4-style identical, I think it should be speedily draftified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Speedily draftified at the correct title, with no redirect preserved? I think we may have a working proposal here. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a terrible speedy deletion criterion because it would fail "Objective" and "Uncontestable" principles of CSD (WT:CSD header). It's only a violation if done as a violation, and is not a violation if done as a good-faith new attempt at an article. —Alalch E. 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- So what I think we're actually discussing is a Speedy Draftify with no Redirect criterion, which will amount to content being thrown into a virtual penalty box if it's created in lieu of first addressing prior SALTing, but isn't really a deletion criterion per se. It's a subtly different approach, but I think addresses my concerns about G4 being more overused and SmokeyJoe's about content being left in mainspace when it clearly is there in violation of previous (presumably valid) title sanction. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as a title sanction, only more and less effective technical apparatuses of social control. Given a good-faith attempt that is at least a step in the right direction, we should consider the social control check successsfully passed. We should say "thank you" for the new article and do all that is needed to remove technical obstacles to legitimate content creation. The solution to these situations that are perceived as gaming and are not gaming is to move "Foo (Bar)" to "Foo". If eligibility of the new article is doubted, it's time for a new a AfD. If titles are in fact gamed, meaning that attempts are not serious and things are not heading in the right direction, come up with a suitable blacklist entry and block users. —Alalch E. 17:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- So what I think we're actually discussing is a Speedy Draftify with no Redirect criterion, which will amount to content being thrown into a virtual penalty box if it's created in lieu of first addressing prior SALTing, but isn't really a deletion criterion per se. It's a subtly different approach, but I think addresses my concerns about G4 being more overused and SmokeyJoe's about content being left in mainspace when it clearly is there in violation of previous (presumably valid) title sanction. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- Except, if it is SALT evasion, but not G4-style identical, I think it should be speedily draftified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's basically it: G4 is the most overused CSD, and I don't want to open that door any wider. I'd be fine with a separate CSD for "created under an alternate name in violation of a valid create protection" which doesn't even have a "substantially identical" qualifier, if someone wanted to propose that, and believe that would be a better/cleaner way to deal with abuse of process. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- RFUP: it does not show that the processes work against each other, but that the instructions are poor, and unqualified accounts should not be playing the reviewer. I see that eventually, User:Firefangledfeathers speaks for the draft, and on their recommendation the draft should be mainspaced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- ‘=== Grant Cardone ===
- Reason: The draft article is ready to be moved into main space but this is blocked by an admin move lock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Grant Cardone —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not unprotected. The draft was declined 4 days ago with only a minor improvement since then. I am not seeing a good reason to circumvent the review process at this time. If the prior reviewer deems the recent small change as sufficient for passing, then make a new request here. @SafariScribe: What do you think? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Anachronist: SafariScribe's analysis was either bad faith, incompetent, or mistaken and they have chosen not to support it despite being pinged to my talk page to do so. I have Autopatrolled permission so NPP consent is not needed (and meaning that this does not circumvent the review process, I am allowed to move it to main at any time I want), no more reason is needed than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Discospinster, the protecting admin. Judging from the log, the purpose of the protection was to prevent repeated, problematic recreation. The recreated version back then was an advertisement. A good-faith, experienced editor is trying to create the article, and no one appears to be claiming that it is overly ad-like. The reviewer's decline rationale was probably an error. I'd recommend unprotection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I'm not challenging the validity of the earlier deletions and protection, it seems that people (many of whom appear to have some sort of conflict) have been trying to create an article for him since 2008 and IMO he isn't actually notable until the early 2020s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't think you were, and I'm not either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I like and greatly respect discospinster and it worried me that my comment could seen as throwing shade at them. Just wanted to acknowledge that the waters are really muddy but that there is now a legal sized fish in there so no shade on the game warden who said there wasn't many years ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't think you were, and I'm not either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I'm not challenging the validity of the earlier deletions and protection, it seems that people (many of whom appear to have some sort of conflict) have been trying to create an article for him since 2008 and IMO he isn't actually notable until the early 2020s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Grant Cardone —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- "an emphatic decision that the topic does not belong" that isn't what salting is... Salting is a tool which cuts down on disruptive editing, not a supervote... Its purpose is to prevent disruption, its purpose is not to be a supervote against future notability or to win a content dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I’m sure if you try, you could see the reasons. SALTing, which per policy should not be done lightly, is an emphatic decision that the topic does not belong, stronger than an AfD delete. And SALT evasion is not a respected way to contest SALTing. I’ve been here a long time, and over all that time, this is policy in practice. You might object to how it is not policy as documented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 and restore to draft. Based on the opinions of DRV regulars who have acces to the histories, G4 did not apply as the versions are not sufficiently identical. Whether this should remain in draftspace or moved to mainspace is not a DRV matter and was recently discussed (and declined, then accepted in though that assessment has been considered incorrect) at AFC. Frank Anchor 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Frank Anchor: Actually it was eventually accepted at AFC, for context SafariScribe (who created Grant Cardone (businessman)) was the NPP reviewer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks updated my response to reflect this. Frank Anchor 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Frank Anchor: who considers that to be an incorrect assessment? Unless I'm missing something not a single editor has challenged that assessment (the lack of anyone actually challenging the article's notability at this point is one of the things that makes this such a weird series of events, not even UtherSRG is challenging the notability of the topic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you are entirely correct about everything. Content matters take precedents over process matters, and process matters takes precedence over conduct matters. Here, worries about gaming conduct compromised proper deletion process, all while losing sight of the much more important thing: That the article is fine on content grounds which is the only thing that ultimately matters. —Alalch E. 13:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Frank Anchor: who considers that to be an incorrect assessment? Unless I'm missing something not a single editor has challenged that assessment (the lack of anyone actually challenging the article's notability at this point is one of the things that makes this such a weird series of events, not even UtherSRG is challenging the notability of the topic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks updated my response to reflect this. Frank Anchor 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 and restore to draft space as Draft:Grand Cardone. Unsalt the original title (if not already unsalted) so that a reviewer will be able to accept it. We don't need a temporary undelete; enough editors have said that the article in question is not the same as the deleted article that we should let a reviewer decide whether to accept it and another AFD resolve any remaining questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G4. Not sufficiently identical. The idea that given a salted title "Foo", creation of "Foo (disambiguator)" is disallowed is not supported by policy. Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, not through page protection. Judgement is needed to determine if WP:GAMING is involved or if the creation at the alternate title was done to circumvent a mere technical obstacle to a legitimate page creation. If gaming is involved, address the behavior, and even then, G4 would not apply. Here, the page was created in good faith and the use of an alternate title is not a problem (just move the page to the desired title).—Alalch E. 10:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- The AfC angle is completely irrelevant. AfC is optional. Deletion policy and protection policy aren't optional. —Alalch E. 10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 and restore to draft. At the very least, sufficient time has passed to make the case for finding new sources for a long-ago deleted article. BD2412 T 21:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The Grant Cardone article should exist at Grant Cardone. There are plenty of news articles written about Grant Cardone. https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=grant+cardone&FORM=HDRSC7&PC=APPL Subject is clearly notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article at this point in time. Whatever happened in the past here that is being discussed above doesn’t matter to the average Wikipedia reader. But restoring the article so that readers can obtain information does matter. What is the quickest way to get the article back? DJohnson4100 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not at all impressed at the use of the (businessman) suffix to make an end-run around the title salting. As for the deletion, I am forced to conclude that the content was sufficiently different that a G4 speedy deletion was not appropriate and therefore must be reluctantly overturned. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Unreasonable nomination which consisted of following arguments: 1. Lengthy list → Usually, an article being too short is a reason for deletion but not it being too long. If that was truly a problem it would have to be split up, not deleted entirely. Otherwise, any article that exceeds some specified size would have to be removed 2. doesn't provide notable coverage of any individual models → It provided the sizes, resolution, light source technology, light control technology, ports, refres rate, a notes section which can include any additional attributes like screen curvature and availability among others, as well as references for many models. That is a lot of coverage on the individual models in my opinion. 3. Fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE → In what way? a) Simple lists (such as a list of phone numbers) that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. → Does not apply, it has contextual information listed in 2. b) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) → Does not apply, this is about a clearly delimited topic c) Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" → Does not apply, it's about one subset (TVs) of a range of products from one manufacturer. d) Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. → Does not apply, is about things not persons e) Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. → Does not apply, is about products not electronic programs f) A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. → Does not apply, this was in no form conducting business 4. There was exactly one answer to add any new content which has not been mentioned before which said "It's not the job of Wikipedia to include every single model number of a particular television producer" → The article does not just list the model numbers (which would be 3.a.) but instead with contextual information which include the most important attribues of a TV. Also, there are many other lists on technological products from different manufacturers which are broadly accepted, like List of Intel processors, List of Microsoft Windows versions, List of Apple products, all of which show that these arguments brought up have no foundation or any relevance in any other similar articles. Punkt64 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 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. |
Discussions were improperly closed before 7 days. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 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. |
|
The article shouldn't be deleted, but a notability tag should be added for a few couple of weeks in order to allow a number of people to attempt to improve it and to add three secondary, independent sources - "https://media.info Steve Penk: It's time to rebrand Key 103 and start again", "https://www.jstor.org/stable/853501" and "https://radiojinglesonline.com/legends/the-super-station/"; this is given Gary King's extensive career in presenting and narrating high and medium-profile radio and television programmes. Jw93d59 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 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 AfD is not related to my recreation of the Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka article. I created that article by translating content from its Bengali version. Since then, I have noticed that significant coverage has emerged following the deletion. Therefore, an independent article can now be reasonably created. I would like to highlight some sources to help establish notability per WP:GNG: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] References
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |