Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active
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".
During the original AfD, the article was deleted on the basis that, at the time, there was insufficient third-party coverage demonstrating notability. However, in light of recent events in the Middle East, a flood of news coverage has suddenly popped up over the topic: news.com.au, euronews, The Guardian, Economic Times, Futurism, Newsweek, The Telegraph, Haaretz. If the page is undeleted, I would suggest renaming it to Pizza Index, as that appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Allow recreation (i.e., undelete to draft or sandbox for update) per the new sourcing. This should probably not have been deleted previously; I suspect an appropriate search for sources at that time would have found more. No objection to renaming, anyone can nominate at any time, etc. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- As AfD closer, I do not object to a recreation using the new sources. Sandstein 07:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- As a delete !voter I'm still not sure this will pass our guidelines, but I have no problem with a new draft. SportingFlyer T·C 08:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the evidence that this wasn't even the COMMONNAME suggests an article could have been built with a bit more digging, but given the sourcing above, it's an academic question. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think WP:NOTNEWS could be at play, though. I only see one article from before the last couple days. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the evidence that this wasn't even the COMMONNAME suggests an article could have been built with a bit more digging, but given the sourcing above, it's an academic question. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Restore to mainspace. The AfD was closed correctly, but new sourcing is prima facie evidence of notability, sufficient at least to require renomination if contested. The deleted version wasn't great, but there's no reason to redo that work. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the 2024 close, but see at the top of this noticeboard:
Deletion review should not 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
The requester has the right to create a draft, to submit a draft for review, or to create a new article subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, a new article could be written from scratch, but personally, I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if editors have already written a half-finished article that just needs fixing up. Time is finite, after all. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - These requests don't need to come to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- True, but I see no advantage to redoing the work in draft, when we already have a semi-decent version in the deleted history. REFUND won't handle such cases, so this has to come to DRV if we don't want to waste time unnecessarily rewriting articles. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- These questions should not come to DRV. If you’re unsure and not wanting to waste time, request undeletion to draftspace at WP:REFUND. Improve the deleted article by removing poor sources and adding new better sources. Identify the best WP:THREE sources, by citing them first, or on the talk page, and seek review.
- If you’re more confident, do the above but move it yourself back to mainspace. Th8s is ok, if you’re sure the sources are better, and as the AfD was so long ago.
- DRV is not the right forum for requesting review of new sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I absolutely believe this is the proper forum - this is where the community gains consensus on what should be done with new information after a deleted recent AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Elito Circa, also known as Amangpintor, is a widely recognized Filipino visual artist noted for pioneering the use of human hair and indigenous materials in painting. He has been featured in national and international media, including Ripley's Beleive It Or Not, Reuters, CNN, SBS Australia, Philippine Daily Inquirer, GMA Network, and ABS-CBN. His story is documented in the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), World Vision, Rotary International and Embassies and his works are displayed in public museums and Galleries. New reliable secondary sources are now available, proving long-term notability. 121.200.4.157 (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.4.157 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Recreation is allowed as the title is not salted. As several of the sources post-date the AFD, any new article would not be
substantially similar
to the deleted version, therefore G4 speedy deletion would not apply. If the appellant were a user in good standing, and not an IP, my recommendation would be torequest the deleted page be restored to draft space at WP:REFUND,incorporate the new references into the draft, and then submit it through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 12:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per the below comment, a draft has recently been created, so modifying my response to reflect this. Frank Anchor 23:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the original delete consensus. The same issues exist in relation to the quality of sourcing which includes user-submitted content, churnalism, human-interest or shock-value sources, blogs, promotional puff pieces, homework assignments and perplexing things like this: {{tq|Write an essay about Some Philippine artworks challenge our perspectives and make us think differently [1]. There does not seem to be any analytical art historical/art critical attention that is normally found for artists; no notable museum collections, etc. (Not sure if this has any bearing on a DRV, but the original article was created by a sock-puppeteer with the same name as the artists's pseudonym, see: [[2]]). Netherzone (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the 2022 delete consensus if this is an appeal of the 2022 deletion. The title has not been salted and the appellant or a registered editor may create a new draft and submit it for review. The URL Dump of links is not useful. If the references do provide significant coverage, they should be in support of text in a draft. See also the point at the top of this noticeboard:
Deletion review should not 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
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)- @Robert McClenon, I just checked and there already is a draft for this person, it's located here: Draft:Elito Villaflor Circa. It was created four days before this DRV was posted. Netherzone (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:Netherzone. They are probably the same person, asking the other parent. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon, I just checked and there already is a draft for this person, it's located here: Draft:Elito Villaflor Circa. It was created four days before this DRV was posted. Netherzone (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse and Allow Recreation preferably through the WP:AFC process. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Incorrectly non-admin closed as a speedy keep, when it should have been a standard keep and a move. The move is specifically to an admin protected page so would need an admin to do so. CoconutOctopus talk 14:10, 15 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. |
|
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)
- Restore per above. TFD participation has long been low, and I think that the request to restore is I good faith. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:40, 15 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. |