If you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if they want to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.

A page should stay listed here for at least 5 to 7 days. After that time, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do, and take appropriate steps. If the consensus was that the discussion was closed correctly, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.

Archives
2007–2012, 2013–2016, 2017–2019, 2020–2021, 2022–2023, 2024, 2025

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days. For the archive overview, see Archive.

Current requests

Start a new request

Qajar-Wahhabi war (1808-1811)

Qajar-Wahhabi war (1808-1811) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

Deletion is challenged at Special:Diff/10265300 and Special:Diff/10266210. This is also known as Qajar-Wahhabi war or Qajar-Wahhabi War. Related RFDs can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Qajar-Wahhabi War and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Qajar-Wahhabi war (1808-1811), and the author claimed improvements since the last RFDs. Please let me know if restoration is needed. --MathXplore (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the newer version addresses the original concern of the RFD, mostly regarding sources. I think G5 deletion is valid considering repeated attempt to re-create this page, I would be inclined to restore it in userspace if it created by user with good history or if the user was not blocked, as it is, I endorse keeping it deleted.--BRP^ever 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion basically like BRPever said, G5, the RfD was closed correctly fr33k man 22:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Costalago

The article has been deleted on the basis of "not being notable enough", yet he is the most prolific literary author in Interlingue since the language was created in 1922. I request the article to be undeleted. --Jon Gua (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article. I don't see any particular claims of notability. It seems to be mostly a description of things the person published. There are also no reliable sources to show notability -- the things in the references section seem to be links to the person's works.

If the article is restored, it will need significant cleanup to be appropriate here. It wasn't in simple language. It used several templates that don't exist on this wiki. It had inline links to other websites, especially in the bibliography section.

I see potential in the article if notability can be shown and supported with reliable sources. However, in the condition it was in, I endorse deletion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how notability can be shown? I don't really understand what you mean. The sources for the article are mainly in Interlingue as he has published in that language, and some are radio interviews for his work in Extremaduran. Aren't those enough? Jon Gua (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Gua: The guideline for that is at Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I read:

If an academic meets any one of the following guidelines, with reliable sources, they are notable.

The person's research has made significant impact in their area of study, as shown by independent reliable sources. > Published the only existing study on literature in Interlingue, where he gathered a bibliography of all published works in the language.
The person is in a field of literature (e.g. writer or poet) [...] and meets the standards for notability in that art[...]. He is the most prolific (and one of a few) literary author in Interlingue. He is the only one that has published a drama in verse in the language.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work [...]. Same as the previous one. He is the only author that has published books in Interlingue, not just stories.

Therefore, I believe that person complies with the notability rules. Jon Gua (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Gua: It takes more than believing it, or even knowing it for a fact. It takes making statements about those things and supporting them with reliable sources. The only things that article had for references were links to some of Costalago's works, and at least some of those were dead links. But even if they weren't dead, that wouldn't show notability because it shows only that the works exist -- it says nothing about notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the language is not widely spoken, and the main source for that author's work in Interlingue is that magazine. And I believe it is not realistic to ask for a statement like "his work is noteworthy" or something similar on a publication about the author, which it looks that is what you are asking me for. If the author is the main writer in the history of that artificial language, isn't that notable? The main author in the whole history of an artificial language that is still spoken and used is not notable enough? I don't understand what it needs to have. As far as I understand you are asking for things that don't exist, just because it is an artificial language, it won't have as many references as an author writing in English, I think we cannot demand the same for different cases like these.Also, the author was interviewed on the Extremaduran public radio for his publication in Extremaduran. Would that be good enough for his notability? --Jon Gua (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be in any language, so a source in Interlingue is acceptable as long as it supports a statement of notability. It's also not a question of how many sources there are, just that the sources are reliable and support statements of notability.

It's true that a statement like "his work is noteworthy" doesn't show notability. You need a more-specific statement with a reliable source to back it up.

It might be notable that he's the main writer in the language, but we need a reliable source supporting that. As for an interview, I'm not sure. It might depend on what's in the interview and whether there's a source for it that people can access.

You say I'm asking for things that don't exist. There are cases where there are no sources, or sources can't be found, and in those cases an article can't show notability and wouldn't be allowed to remain. It doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, just that notability can't be shown in an article. I hope that's not the case here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link where the interview can be accessed. Is that ok? Jon Gua (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any source like that needs to support a statement of notability. The statement it's attached to just says that he published a book and was interviewed for it. Neither of those two things are notable. Whether the interview itself is a reliable source, I don't know, but the specific statement that is referenced doesn't show notability. If something is said in the interview that shows notability, and the interview is considered a reliable source, then that might be enough.

I know this is frustrating. It can be hard to learn what's required, and discouraging when people don't see a subject as worthy when you do. All I can tell you is what's required for articles, which is statements of notability supported by reliable sources. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your patience and your explanations, as I am not aware of the rules here.

In the interview (on a programme that is aired on the Extremaduran public radio, like the BBC more or less) two excerpts of the book are read, the author explains how the book was written, the original idea, and one of the interviewers states: "A person from outside Extremadura had to come and write a book in Extremaduran so this is a lap on the wrist to Extremadurans, so that they might start doing something". More things are discussed, but I don't know whether they might be important for this case. Jon Gua (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ask: Is that enough as a reference and for notability? Jon Gua (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of the problems here is that the language is not notable itself. If it were then there would exist a range of reliable sources that show its notability and at least some of those would reference the author you're trying to write about. I really don't think you'll be able to show notability here ever. fr33k man 15:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Interlingue is not notable, but how about his interviews on the Extremaduran public radio? Extremaduran is a minority language, yet it is still spoken by 200,000 people. Or are the interviews not enough? Jon Gua (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the interviews by themselves are not enough. Basically you need to have mentions of him in multiple newspapers, journals, books by others, citations in other people's academic papers and other such mentions. I know you really want him to have an article but I've done a lot of research and I just can't find enough reliable sources to make the page viable. It doesn't take away from his achievements but the main problem here is that the language itself isn't notable so anybody doing research on it isn't going to be notable either. Sorry fr33k man 21:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking your time and researching about that person. If there are not enough references, I understand that an article about him won't comply with the rules. Thanks for your patience and for answering and explaining everything to me and sorry for the inconveniences caused. Jon Gua (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are You Deleting my page please don't delete my page it is loved by me please

Please don't delete "Chandra Shekhar Majhi" page CS Shekhar Official (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Shekhar Majhi (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page) -Barras talk 19:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. In addition to not showing notability, which is reason enough:

The language was not simple.
What should have been an infobox was instead formatted as a collapsible table.
The page formatting was nothing like it should be: all the text was formatted as headings. The editor doesn't appear to know how to format an article for Wikipedia.
The "Note Of Editor's" section was spam.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion no notability made fr33k man 21:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz Syed

Ayaz Syed (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

I am the creator of the article "Ayaz Syed". I understand it was deleted under G11 (advertising), but I have rewritten the page with a completely neutral tone and valid media references. The subject is a public figure with notable work in TV and film, with listings on MovieBuff, IMDb, and coverage in HMag and GoodTimes. I kindly request that the article be restored so I can correct the tone and resubmit under Wikipedia standards. 202.47.46.54 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime science fiction

The article was reliably sourced and even the leading citation specifically used the term maritime science fiction in it's texts. The article qualified as a stub and a number of users contributed to it. Nobody supported the deletion besides the nominator. The argument "it was deleted from main English Wikipedia" was the article did not cite reliable sources. This entry was a DIFFERENT ENTRY from the one on English Wikipedia. Note: that main English Wikipedia has a list on Maritime science fiction media that was renamed to "List of Underwater science fiction media." But there were sources cited that clearly used Maritime science fiction and they were academic. They discussed maritime archeology. Taeyebar (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS users such as Fixature and J 1982 also contributed to the article and the list on Wikipedia as well as J's contribution on the Simple English Wikipedia. They both supported it as notable topic. Anyone can ask them. There is coverage for it.--Taeyebar (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idanim

Idanim (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

The app is notable based on independent coverage in sources like Hindustan Times, The Statesman, and others.

The article is written in Simple English and avoids promotional content. It is similar to apps like Calm & Headspace. I kindly request review and restoration. Thank you!--Vipul619 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'endorse deletion ' no claim of notability made fr33k man 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: I don't see anything showing notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chromebook challenge

Chromebook challenge (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

The page was deleted at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Chromebook challenge (2nd nomination) and the arguments to delete made zero sense. GNG states that an article is most likely notable if the subject has coverage in reliable, independent, significant, and secondary sources. Which it does have. To quote myself here:

"It has coverage in reliable sources such as USA TODAY [1], NBC [2], CBS [3], and Axios [4]. Articles are in depth and direct."

There is no proof of the trend only having "local coverage". TheGoofWasHere (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]