Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | 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".
Centre for Sight (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Inproper use of G4. he content was significantly different to the previous content - it was unbiased and factual and had references as well as suggestions for further references in the talk page. Unlike the previous content, it focused just on Centre for Sight as a notable eye clinic in the UK and not on the centre's owner who has his own page. I am a new writer so had nothing to do with the previous page in 2017 (I would have been taking my A-levels then not even in work) and I read the guide for creating new pages carefully and applied it to the best on my ability. Erin Dearlove (talk) 12:54, 13 June 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. |
|
Alisha has become notable now so can her deleted article be restored to draftspace so that I can work on it and submit it for review? Zainyloves (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The reason for it to be deleted was not being widely used, that's changeable. I will put it to use, in addition it, I believe if more people knew it exists, it would also have been put to use more often. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:FDB5:CAB5:3ED6:E92B (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC) -->
- This template was deleted over two years ago. Why are you only requesting this now? Stifle (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Because I wasn't here two years ago. I've already asked the person who deleted it, he didn't appreciate being bothered. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:D79:B3E7:D881:47A0 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't "appreciate" having something like this written to me, either. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand the issue. I used his terminology, following his definition. I had already told him I am aware why it was deleted, he replied by telling me it was deleted because of the reasons I had already told him I have been made aware of, and had already disputed, something which he did not address, and when pressed on it he started making threats. "End of the road for you" are you building up on his intimidation tactics? I'm not even sure why the temporality of the request was even asked; It's only out of [evidently] undue politeness that I even added the section about requesting to have it restored; as to avoid my reply to the admin, who bothered replying to my requesting of a restoration of a nuanced template -which was deleted for no reason, save that one person didn't like it being used only once by one person prior -something which had already been remedied for in this petition- being that of simply pointing out the obvious; I wasn't here then; But I'll add some more now: Nor did I know it exists, Nor do most who would make use of it. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:F4F4:3E0A:508B:CDB6 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't "appreciate" having something like this written to me, either. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Because I wasn't here two years ago. I've already asked the person who deleted it, he didn't appreciate being bothered. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:D79:B3E7:D881:47A0 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Restore based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). That's not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time. We now have a user interested in correcting the reason for which the template was deleted. While I would normally vote to relist a sparsely-attended discussion, it does not make sense to relist a discussion from over two years ago. Any user would be free to start a new TFD. Frank Anchor 12:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that this request reflects the idea that deletion of a template or category, unlike deletion of an article, is permanent, and that any recreation can be tagged as G4 unless it is brought here to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Restore There was too little participation in the TfD, and this was from two years ago so relisting wouldn't be a good idea. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 20:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request for user space restoration only I acknowledge that Draft:Surya Devan was deleted under CSD G11 for promotional content, and I also acknowledge a conflict of interest. I am not contesting that deletion from draftspace. However, I respectfully request a user subpage copy at User:SuryaDevanE/SuryaDevan so that I can work on the material privately for learning and eventual neutral submission — possibly by a third party. I’ve made a clear good-faith effort to understand Wikipedia’s policies and will not attempt to repost the article without editorial guidance. Admin Timtrent has declined restoration; I’m requesting community review. Thank you. — SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn Besides generally supporting procedural relist as DELREV nominator, looking at the production credits that made up most of the navbox (The Little Hours, Ingrid Goes West, Black Bear (film), Little Demon (TV series), and Emily the Criminal), in all cases Plaza is producer and main actor and, at least through our articles or a quick search, was the first producer signed on and a primary creative force in the projects being picked up and finished. Two of the film articles also indicate she was directly involved in casting. It's simply unreasonable to suggest Plaza would not be considered a primary creator, and this in addition to the character links, mean it's both a complete and tightly-focused (distinct creator connection throughout all items) navbox. Kingsif (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- She is most definitely not the creator of Little Demon and she was one of 6-8 producers on a couple of the films you mention. She cannot be considered a primary creator for these. WP:FILMNAV clearly applies here. --woodensuperman 11:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, FILMNAV (no matter what you wanted when you wrote it) is not a deletion policy - you can write a personal argument why you believe some of its content indicates that some items shouldn't be included, but that is 1. an opinion and 2. not something that leads directly to template deletion. At least you now seem to only question inclusion of
a couple of the films
, so regardless there is certainly enough for a navbox to exist. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, FILMNAV (no matter what you wanted when you wrote it) is not a deletion policy - you can write a personal argument why you believe some of its content indicates that some items shouldn't be included, but that is 1. an opinion and 2. not something that leads directly to template deletion. At least you now seem to only question inclusion of
- She is most definitely not the creator of Little Demon and she was one of 6-8 producers on a couple of the films you mention. She cannot be considered a primary creator for these. WP:FILMNAV clearly applies here. --woodensuperman 11:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. Frank Anchor 14:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist - Inadequate discussion for consensus, should have been relisted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist as per above. This should have been pointed out before the closing time. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. Frank Anchor 14:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist - Inadequate discussion for consensus, should have been relisted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist as per above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also, request undeletion so that previous versions (the original TfD nominator noted they significantly reduced it) can be properly assessed. Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. Frank Anchor 14:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist - Inadequate discussion for consensus, should have been relisted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist all three of these, though I think the same result will occur due to our policies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- With the Berry template, it seems likely, but that's okay: in a TfD we must allow the discussion to occur or we are sidestepping accountability. This is why I do take issue, in general, with acronyms (mis)used for authority and "per nom" being ways things get done: no user(s) take accountability and we can't blame a TfD system that has been used improperly, so it becomes increasingly hard to start new discussion or get to the root of decisions, which is how bad precedents are set. Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Relist as per above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article Ilyas El Maliki, which was deleted via AfD. I believe the deletion was unfair for the following reasons:
1. The new article was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version. It introduced at least 50% new sources, including coverage of the subject’s achievements from Dexerto, Kings League’s official website, and leading Moroccan media outlets like Hespress, L'Opinion, Telquel and Morocco World News.
2. The new sources were not properly evaluated. Editors repeatedly called for "speedy delete" without reviewing the sources or explaining why they failed WP:GNG.
3. Skepticism toward Moroccan media reflects potential systemic bias. Editors did not provide evidence that these outlets were unreliable, yet their reliability was dismissed. This reflects broader challenges in recognizing notability for figures from the MENA region.
- I request a review to determine whether the sources and arguments presented were given adequate consideration before deletion.
Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone confirm whether WP:G4 applied? I think we've gotten this one wrong and it looks like we can have an article on him based on the wide amount of coverage he's received. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Temp-undeleted: old version; new version. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination. The rationale for every delete vote was that an article on this subject was previously deleted in an AFD. However, the temp un delete shows the article deleted in the second AFD is vastly different than the one in the first AFD, including multiple references dated after the article was first deleted. G4 clearly does not apply. There is very little discussion of the merits of the actual article or of the references (particularly those that were not in the article during the first AFD) from the delete !voters. Frank Anchor 00:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn A "Delete because G4" when G4 does not apply is no delete !vote at all. It likely reflects fatigue with efforts to craft compliant articles on borderline notability people, and we need to instead properly evaluate notability based on the final sourcing provided. The late-breaking G4s after the earlier ones had been contested are particularly puzzling to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comments - I am puzzled. The old and the new temporarily undeleted versions that I am viewing are so different that no one should say that they are substantially the same. Was the new version of the article expanded while the second AFD was in progress, in which case some of the AFD participants saw a different less complete article?
- This is a difficult case, because DRV is not AFD round 2, but the AFD does not appear to reflect reality. The Delete votes all said to Speedy Delete, and the nomination says that the article being reviewed is substantially the same as the deleted article, but the two articles are not substantially the same. I think that Ignore All Rules should be used very rarely, but this is a case where we need to ignore the rule that are not reviewing the AFD. The AFD was wrong. I was about to say to Relist, but this AFD has been tainted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus as per User:Frank Anchor and permit a new AFD to be started, and the participants will know that G4 is not one of the valid answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn per above. G4 should not apply if there are substantial changes such that the concerns in the previous AFD are addressed. It is probably too excessive to delete the page because of the G4 comments in the AfD despite the author's convincing arguments against the delete !votes. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn and allow a new AfD if you want, but I strongly suspect we're at the point where this will be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 07:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn and allow a new AFD, per above. Mooonswimmer 04:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn, clearly not G4 and also there are plenty of sources about him. Alaexis¿question? 14:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to buck the trend here and say endorse This the result of an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion, so the question of whether G4 actually applies or not as stated in the speedy deletion criteria doesn't technically matter. Instead, "delete per G4" is a perfectly reasonable shorthand way of saying "delete because I don't think the issues that caused the previous deletion have been addressed". And we don't have jurisdiction at DRV to determine that argument is invalid because doing so would merely be substituting our judgement for theirs rather than actually addressing a procedural error as we are supposed to do. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Violations (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article is nothing but describing the plot of the episode. No source links provided, no production information, nothing. This article about the episode is rendered pointless.--Dr. Gregory House's Missing Cane (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The article can't be re-created but has sources such as [[1]] and [[2]] and [[3]] Wynwick55gl (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Douglas Cowgill isn't protected, from what I can see. As a non-autoconfirmed user, you can't directly create it though, please use the article wizard to create & submit a draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Create and Submit Draft or wait four days and create article, subject to AFD. This doesn't appear to be a request to overturn the old A7. A procedural close may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Close (out of scope). DRV is not for giving permission to recreate old deletions. If you’re not sure, use WP:AFC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Chromebook challenge (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
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)
- Go to WP:AfC. DRV is not for giving permission to recreate. The AfD was closed correctly as “merge to List of 3D printed weapons and parts”.
- Read WP:THREE. It is not reasonable to ask people to read 15 sources arguably in support of notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I consider these links to be the best sources of the above post
- 1.https://gnet-research.org/2025/01/08/beyond-the-fgc-9-how-the-urutau-redefines-the-global-3d-printed-firearm-movement/
- 2.https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/terrorism-expert-warning-on-new-simplified-3d-printed-gun-and-manifesto-235518/
- 3.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/feathers-fury-in-depth-analysis-z%C3%A9-cariocas-podcast-interview-f%C3%BCredi-f9g0e/ Superlincoln (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I haven’t evaluated whether they are independent, but they look good. All newer than the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 9 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)
- You initiated this DRV, you don't need to !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 8 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)
- Restore. Substantially different case, new sources look good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse I would not have accepted this at AfC, I don't think the sources are good enough. Most of these are mere mentions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would characterize the focus of the GNET article to be on the Urutau. It is mentioned (exactly I believe) 100 times. My quick research on GNET makes me think they count as reliable and independent. That is only one source, but it's a very good and in-depth source. While the others only mention it in the context of similar guns, it is usually the first one mention and/or listed. One really good source plus a few weaker ones is usually enough for us to cover the topic. So I get your take, but I think we have enough from multiple sources (if mainly one...) to write a good article. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would also characterize the main focus/topic of the 3D Printing Industry (3DPI) article to be on the Urutau. My quick research on 3DPI would lead me to believe they are a major, reliable and independent news source on the matter of 3D printing. Superlincoln (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would characterize the focus of the GNET article to be on the Urutau. It is mentioned (exactly I believe) 100 times. My quick research on GNET makes me think they count as reliable and independent. That is only one source, but it's a very good and in-depth source. While the others only mention it in the context of similar guns, it is usually the first one mention and/or listed. One really good source plus a few weaker ones is usually enough for us to cover the topic. So I get your take, but I think we have enough from multiple sources (if mainly one...) to write a good article. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- No action. Not a matter for DRV. Anyone is free to recreate the article if they are convinced they have better sources now. Sandstein 09:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The appellant already tried restoring the page, which included new information and sources, several times and it was reverted, citing the AFD. DRV seems like a logical next step to me. Frank Anchor 12:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- But that isn't really a matter of whether deletion process was followed, which is what DRV is for. It's a content dispute about whether the topic is better covered as part of a list or as an article. This should be resolved like any other content dispute on the article talk page (WP:DR). Sandstein 13:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- But we're here anyway, even if this isn't the most perfect venue, and a constructive discussion is in progress. Seems like WP:NOTBURO would apply in this case. Frank Anchor 13:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also the people who reverted the article after i restored it never attempted to contact me or started a discussion in the article's talk page. The only way to avoid the article from getting reverted after restoration is to get rid of the AfD. But to get rid of the AfD, u need to start a DRV. Superlincoln (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- After the revert, it is for you to take it to the talk page, Talk:List of 3D-printed weapons and parts. Make the case there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also the people who reverted the article after i restored it never attempted to contact me or started a discussion in the article's talk page. The only way to avoid the article from getting reverted after restoration is to get rid of the AfD. But to get rid of the AfD, u need to start a DRV. Superlincoln (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- But we're here anyway, even if this isn't the most perfect venue, and a constructive discussion is in progress. Seems like WP:NOTBURO would apply in this case. Frank Anchor 13:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- But that isn't really a matter of whether deletion process was followed, which is what DRV is for. It's a content dispute about whether the topic is better covered as part of a list or as an article. This should be resolved like any other content dispute on the article talk page (WP:DR). Sandstein 13:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The appellant already tried restoring the page, which included new information and sources, several times and it was reverted, citing the AFD. DRV seems like a logical next step to me. Frank Anchor 12:09, 13 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. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. 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 above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |