Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VFU)
 |
| 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".
I took a look at the discussion about the article Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza and I mostly disagree with the arguments presented, which seem biased to me. I would like to know how and where I can reopen this discussion so that the article can be rewritten and with new sources (which I provided, by the way).
I don't know if I should argue here, but in case it's useful: the mere previous existence of the article and the discussion about whether or not it is relevant due to its connection to the former Brazilian monarchy are proof that the topic of the article is, in fact, relevant. After all, it's been almost 140 years since the fall of the Brazilian monarchy, and its heirs are still being discussed. The argument that initiated the deletion process seems to me to be entirely based on the fact that the republic is well established in Brazil and the monarchist movement is weak, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic of the article, whose purpose is ultimately to inform. Furthermore, I disagree that a person cited in so many international and mainstream newspapers such as The New York Times, ABC, Estadão, G1, El País, etc., and who lives in an old imperial palace in the middle of the Brazilian republic, is so totally irrelevant that he doesn't deserve an article.
And as I mentioned, based on the arguments for deletion, such as the lack of sources that are directly about the person in the topic, in this case Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza, I took care to add new sources specifically about him and that are reliable, for example:
- [1] This one from Vanity Fair about his marriage.
- [2] This one from about the dispute for the headship of the House of Orléans-Braganza.
- [3] This one had already been mentioned in the pre-deletion article and used in the argument for deletion as "it's about the sales of historical objects that Pedro Carlos made", and it's true. What the argument tries to expose is that it's from a mainstream Brazilian newspaper, O Globo, which calls him "Dom (D.)", which is an honorific, recognizes him as a member of the imperial family (extinct or not) and says that he lived in the former imperial palace of Grão-Pará. Three points that, together, make the topic of the article, the person of Pedro Carlos, worthy of note, at the very least.
- [4] Finally, this source was already mentioned and the argument for deletion goes as "Prince Pedro Carlos visited a museum". This clearly demonstrates his notability, since there would be no news, or even an article, about a visit by a non-notable person to a museum in the official media of the city of Juiz de Fora. It is worth remembering that Pedro Carlos is not a historian or museologist, so his notability comes from his ancestry and this does indeed confer notability on the individual.
- ^ P., D. (9 December 2021). "Se casa el príncipe Pedro Carlos, primo carnal del rey Juan Carlos y pretendiente del trono de Brasil" (in Spanish). Retrieved 20 June 2025.
- ^ Dellorme, Philippe (23 July 2022). "Au Brésil, le très disputé titre de chef de la maison impériale". Pointe de Vue (in French). Retrieved 20 June 2025.
- ^ "A realeza brasileira ao alcance das mãos - Brasil - Estadão". Estadão (in Portuguese). 9 April 2017. Retrieved 20 June 2025.
- ^ Ribeiro, Vinícius (8 Mar 2019). "Museu recebe a visita do príncipe Pedro Carlos de Orleans e Bragança". Prefeitura de Juiz de Fora (in Portuguese). Retrieved 20 June 2025.
Von Burgundy (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy close. No valid ground has been advanced to overturn the prior deletion decision. However, the discussion was four years ago and not particularly well-attended; the title is not salted and the page may be recreated if the appellant believes sources will support standalone notability. I would recommend that @Von Burgundy use the articles for creation process to minimize the chances of a return trip to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- The Vanity Fair article is alright, but the second and third sources are passing mentions and the fourth is a non-independent governmental source. If you choose to refund this article you'll need to find more sources of significant coverage directly of Pedro Carlos himself, and covering more than just his wedding, to get to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- What's GNG and what's the criteria for which sources are alright or not? I obviously avoid/would avoid biased sources or sources from unreliable sources. But regarding sources that only cite the person in the article, in this case Pedro Carlos, and are not "per se" about him, I don't see why they are any less valid, especially when there are so many of them, which is a clear attribution of recognition to their relevance. Especially given the context of these sources; he may not be the central topic of the articles, but his name is not mentioned "en passant" either. It is relevant, in the sources, who he is for the text presented. Von Burgundy (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Question - Is the appellant asking to overturn the 2021 AFD, or is the appellant asking to overturn the 21 June 2025 G4? The failure of this appeal to say what the appellant wants overturned appears to be the reason why Dclemens1971 calls for a Speedy Close, and I agree with that unless the question can be answered in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't see the G4 in the logs until you pointed it out and was going off the appeal, which only noted the 2021 discussion. If the article is substantially the same as the 2021-deleted one, the G4 should stand, but a different article would not be G4 eligible. Obviously I can't see the histories of the two to know. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm asking to overturn the 21 June 2025. I re-created the article providing some new sources and it was promptly deleted again arguing about its previous deletion in 2021. Von Burgundy (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Temp undelete, please so we can assess whether the mos recent version is eligible for G4. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I concur with the request for a temporary undelete, but would also advise the appellant that submitting a draft via AFC may be an alternate useful approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Diff from the version deleted at afd. Endorse and blacklist. —Cryptic 04:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I closed this discussion as "delete", but have been challenged by the article creator on my talk page. As a deletion review is a better location for this, I am bringing the discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a consensus for delete. There are 3 Keeps and one draftify to 5 deletes. Most of those deletes came after the 3-week mark, after I had asked 2 administrators to close, but neither one of them did. Most of the deletes come from inexperienced editors. I said that, and the administrator decided to punish me. I was not bludgeoning or insulting anyone, just disagreeing. I was very much doing that within limits. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. "Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." Orlando Davis (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- The deletion nomination for the article was kept open longer than the ideal amount of time. And it's hard to know if there wasn't vote stacking going on. The Randy Cooper article includes a source from Fine Scale modeler and the Evening Independent that are both highly reliable and independent. Additionally, it has many interview sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Most of the deletes come from inexperienced editors.
Delete !voter edit counts: 265810, 25756, 14476, 138, 1659, 84573, 10645. What exactly is your threshold for "experienced"? A cutoff of 10000 edits would leave us with 5 delete to 1 keep and 1 draftify... JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)- Fair enough. In my view, it is a combative move to even participate in an AFD unless it's your article. Why do it unless you enjoy arguments? The person who wrote the article should be given some slack from a bunch of people ganging up on him or her. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's how to treat someone whose spent many hours working for Wikipedia for free? Orlando Davis (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Another thing. We don't have any subject matter experts on model making here. That is essential for a fair review. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's how to treat someone whose spent many hours working for Wikipedia for free? Orlando Davis (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. In my view, it is a combative move to even participate in an AFD unless it's your article. Why do it unless you enjoy arguments? The person who wrote the article should be given some slack from a bunch of people ganging up on him or her. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I did not "punish" you. You're bludgeoning here like you bludgeoned there. Endorse close and consider sanctions for @Orlando Davis if the disruption continues.
I'm just maintaining the articles that I have already written and this is the only one I really need to do.
is not an attitude condusive to collaborative editing. FWIW, to my knowledge I've had no interaction with them prior to my relist of the AfD which was normal log clerking. Star Mississippi 00:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)- Maybe they should sanction you also since you don't really keep a cool head yourself. I don't think you are understanding what bludgeoning is or isn't. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Feel free to open a discussion if you think I should be sanctioned @Orlando Davis Star Mississippi 00:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe they should sanction you also since you don't really keep a cool head yourself. I don't think you are understanding what bludgeoning is or isn't. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- As a participant of the discussion, while I appreciate his input, I don't believe Randy Kryn's status of being 20 most active editors gives his opinion or, more pertinently, interpretation of the policies and guidelines, any more weight than mine, Theroadislong's, Oaktree's or Reader's, as Orlando seems to want to. Perhaps a mere ten thousand edits isn't much these days, but I'd like to assure everyone that my input is carefully considered when I offer them. The outcome of a deletion discussion is not punishment, nor are deletion discussions a grand battle between deletionists and inclusionists. Or, at least, they are not supposed to be treated as one. Finally, deletion discussions are not an admin suggestion box. Administrators, when closing a discussion, are empowered to exercise judgement to disregard or reduce the weight of arguments that contradict policy, are based on personal opinion only, or show no understanding of the matter of issue. The closing administrator does not have the discretion to disregard comments they find to exhibit deletionist bias, or to ignore our policies and guidelines. I would endorse both Star Mississippi's valiant (though unfortunately ultimately unfruitful) attempt to keep the discussion rooted in the relevant PAG as appropriate administrative actions, as well as Ritchie's close as the only possible close supportable by a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. There is no other closure within an allowable level of discretion. I will leave the discussion of conduct to another venue if Orlando wishes to continue it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. A clear consensus to delete is ultimately present in the discussion. A "No Consensus" close might have been reasonable at an earlier point, but relisting was not an abuse of discretion. The majority of the contested sources look like interviews, and there is a reasonably broad consensus that those count less for notability than non-interview profiles. The close is not so manifestly in error that I can recommend an IAR, restore. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as the correct close. None of the Keeps addressed the issue of SIGCOV, and some didn't bring up any P&G-based argument. After five rejections at AFC, I see little point in sending this back to draft yet again. The repeated, combative moves into mainspace are a form of edit-warring, and should be handled as such. If Orlando Davis isn't happy with our existing tagging system, they are welcome to start an RFC to change it. Disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT isn't helpful. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I concede that the consensus thus far is for delete. However, I resent being told I was combative, when I had every right to bring up the article myself as an extended confirmed user and never had any obligation to take it up to the Articles of creation any of the other times. I initially preferred that route as I was trying to not be combative and work out issues in private space. I took it up myself to articles of creation over and over again when I never had to. How is that edit warring? Denial at Articles of creation is no big deal since many articles are rejected and later accepted by other editors, sometimes with little change, despite multiple rejections, as opinions between reviewers vary. I've had a couple of editors reject me and another accept me several times. This time I ran out of patience and preferred to bring it up myself since improving the article had peaked in my opinion.
- Wikipedia is in itself very combative as many media sources have pointed out unfair bias in Wikipedia, and one of the founders of Wikipedia has left due to its bias. So there must be something to my point of view. I don't want to dedicate the time to an RFC as I only came back to Wikipedia for this article. I no longer edit Wikipedia very much. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I resent being told I was combative, when I had every right to bring up the article myself as an extended confirmed user
- the fact that your account technically allows you to engage in disruptive editing does not mean you have "every right" to do so any more than I have the right to use my admin tools to force my view in a content dispute. WP:BRD applies as much to article creation as it does to revising. The extended confirmed bit, like the sysop bit, can be revoked if it is used to bypass collaborative editing. Your interaction with the other editors involved was decidedly combative. And your declaration that youonly came back to Wikipedia for this article
presents you as a WP:SPA - not a good look. I strongly suggest you do not abuse your privileges as an extended confirmed editor, and start working with other editors instead of against them. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)- I'm not a single purpose account. I'm just maintaining the articles that I have already written and this is the only one I really need to do. That's not the same thing. You go ahead and do what you gotta do. I really don't care anymore. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as clear consensus to delete. Electing to relist the discussion is well within the scope of administrator action, the fact that 2 admins elected to do so indicates an independent consensus to continue the discussion. The "experience of editors" is irrelevant to the substance of the argument put forth, which is concerns regarding whether the sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Suggestions of "vote stacking" are WP:ASPERSIONS at best. Also of note is the WP:IAR argument brought up during the discussion by some keep !voters, in which case the WP:ONUS is on the argument maker to demonstrate why an exception should be made for WP:GNG. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 21:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Additional note: those seeking to overturn should look into conducting an independent source review, addressing WP:GNG concerns would go a long way in convincing others the page should be kept (or for a non-disruptive recreation of the page, as noted by Owen). — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 21:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Keep arguments clearly failed to convince the majority of !voters that the topic meets our notability requirements. We have 6 policy-based delete !votes including the nominator (and discounting one drive-by), plus a comment from an admin that reads as additional opposition to keeping. Meanwhile one keep !vote carries no valid rationale at all and the other two assert sufficient sourcing without demonstrating such. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Had I participated in the discussion, I probably would have landed on a "keep" based on
WP:NFILMWP:NCREATIVE (typed the wrong damn policy) (and I'm surprised no one brought it up), but this is not AfD round two and there is no defect in Ritchie's close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as a reasonable reflection of consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
The RfD closure failed to account for the fact that Template:Transl, unlike the other redirects bundled in that nomination, was the long-standing name of Template:Transliteration since 2007, which was moved away from that title only in 2022. Although replacement by bot was mandated, deletion still broke a lot of historical references. While there may have been consensus to delete the three other redirects, several participants !voted specifically to keep Template:Transl, and I do not believe consensus was in support of deleting it. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Issue raised with closer DMacks here. Note that the closure was also challenged by jlwoodwa here and by jacobolus here. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, this was a serious mistake of discussion closure which substituted the closer's personal preference for community consensus, and caused (and will continue to cause) harm to Wikipedia, especially since our software has never properly handled transclusions when viewing historical versions of pages, so now almost 2 decades of historical permalinks are going to have broken transliterations on them. –jacobolus (t) 11:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- I stand by my closure (I think I responded to each concern raised on my talkpage there, with specificity...can find the links later if needed). While it's definitely true that not all four involved templates had equally strong support, I saw the general concern did apply to all of them and was more supported than not by the guidelines and their weighting of pros/cons/etc mentioned. I have not been involved in this template-area and do not feel I raised new concerns or other judgement of my own on the issues beyond evaluating what others stated. As I have said, I made no prejudice against non-ambiguous forms. I'm having trouble finding where preserving the original/complete viewability of historial revisions is mentioned (and prefereably pointing to a policy or guideline) by a comment in the DRV. DMacks (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- The harm in deleting such redirects is, I believe, described by the second main consideration under WP:R#HARMFUL. Such deletions aren't prohibited, but should only be considered when the concerns are demonstrably outweighed by the harm caused by the existence of the redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the talk page responses, I already linked the archived discussions above. Apologies on my part for not responding further before starting the DRV, but the discussion had already been archived and given our conflicting opinions I don't think further discussion could have preempted the need for DRV. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a train wreck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Might tagging it {{deleted template}} be an acceptable compromise? —Cryptic 02:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- If preserving historical revisions is a concern, this may be a valid solution that could've been implemented without a deletion review. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unbundle - Put the four trains on four tracks by splitting this into four RFDs.
- Relist Template:Transl, which is the one that is being contested. The closure does not seem to have reflected consensus.
- Leave the three uncontested template redirects in an open state so that they can be closed or relisted by any admin.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not familiar with the usual standards for deleting template redirects, but it seems like the "it's been in use since 2007" argument should have been accorded more weight here. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn transl to either keep or no consensus. I don't see consensus to delete that template. The editors who weighed in on it separately from the rest generally favored keeping this template, while several who !voted to delete all seemed not to understand the purpose of the discussion. I don't think a relist would be helpful – better to close as no-consensus and have a completely fresh discussion on this one template. Toadspike [Talk] 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Those who did favour keeping the template mostly argued on the basis of length of "transliteration" compared to "transl". This, however, is not a policy-based ground to keep ambiguous redirects, and there have been shorter redirects created for this exact purpose ({{tlit}}, {{xlit}}), which mooted the length argument anyway. Some other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy, and TfDs have previously deleted hundreds, if not thousands, of redundant/replaced/renamed/substituted templates as well. Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>> links in the articles, some of which were rescinded, the others weren't until closure. This last line of argument stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process is for, and should be discarded altogether. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn “transl” to no consensus and leave the others as is. There was not consensus to delete that template as there was for the others. No objection to an immediate renomination focused on just the one template. Frank Anchor 02:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Discussion was left open for nearly a month and only commenter stated things about the article's references that patently inaccurate. Close was a no consensus. If there were no commenters at all, that may be appropriate but the inaccurate comment should have been taken into account in the closing and it may have persuaded others not to participate in the discussion. I ask for a relisting to obtain at least one pertinent viewpoint. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as the right closure - No Consensus is always unsatisfying, but is sometimes really the lack of a consensus. The appellant/nominator requests another relist, but it was already relisted three times. The appellant disagrees with the Keep voter about the references; that disagreement is a lack of a consensus. Any other closure or another Relist would have been erroneous. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse I can't remember when a discussion was relisted four times. More discussion would have been better, but closers must only act with the information that is provided. --Enos733 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse Simply enough, and as frustrating as it might be, I cannot advocate for overturning a discussion to delete when no one apart from the nominator agreed it should be deleted, and there was more than one participant. I'd also mention that if anyone wants to save this article by adding clear sources, now is the time... I see a discussion about it on the American football talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Outside of the inaccuracy in the only other comment in the AFD, I can't disagree with the other people who are endorsing the closer's decision. AFDs are not votes, so comments in the discussion that are not accurate should not be taken into account by the closer. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment @Royal Autumn Crest, if you think my comments were "patently inaccurate," I think you should have at least pinged me to the deletion review Jahaza (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- I informed you that your comment was inaccurate during the AFD. This is not about the article, this is about the closure of the AFD. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- You also failed to add the appropriate notifications to Manchester Freedom and to the AFD discussion, which meant anyone with those pages on their watch list wouldn't have seen the deletion review that way. Jahaza (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's not accurate. The instructions for deletion review only require notifying the closer of the afd. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. It was already relisted three times, there is little to suggest yet another relist would have borne fruit. WP:RELIST discourages repeated relistig. Stifle (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. There can not be a deletion without a quorum and one user is not a quorum. Had nobody else participated in the AFD, it could have been deleted as if it were an expired WP:PROD. However, the presence of a keep !vote (no matter how weak) makes this no longer the case. A fourth relist goes against WP:RELIST guideline, which states
repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice.
(emphasis in the policy). I disagree strongly with the appellant's claim that the keep !votemay have persuaded others not to participate in the discussion.
I believe the opposite would be true, as a user who supported deletion (or an ATD) would be more inclined to engage with the keep !voter to point out perceived errors in the vote. Frank Anchor 12:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I would not be opposed to an immediate renomination (after the closure of this DRV), citing the low participation in the original AFD. A fresh discussion with more visibility as a result of this DRV (and possibly placement on more/different del-sort lists) may be enough to get larger pool of !voters.Frank Anchor 12:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Liz Lamere (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural nomination. Original AFD nominator has made a report at WP:ANI questioning a non-admin closure and suspecting canvassing, for which DRV is the appropriate venue. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-Admin_closure_of_an_AfDRobert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Draft:Chinmay Gaur (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Requesting temporary restoration of Draft:Chinmay Gaur (deleted on 14 March 2025 by Jimfbleak under G11). I am the creator (User:Rajat K26). I want to retrieve the content to rewrite it in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, remove promotional material, and resubmit via Articles for Creation. Rajat K26 (talk) 11:11, 21 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. |
|
Hayley Sings is her only album she's made and she hasn't done another album 13 years since 2600:8801:8E:9900:3906:3A8C:E813:1274 (talk) 13:43, 19 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. |
|
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)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
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. |
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)
- As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 16 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)
- As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 16 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)
- As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Even when the comment doesn’t say anything? Anyway, maybe two just generally shouldn’t be considered consensus - I don’t know where else it would. And I imagine if there were suddenly lots more non-consensus status quo closes, it would drive up engagement with TfD. Kingsif (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I can not see any future in any forum in which more no-con closes would increase engagement (or in which this would be healthy whatsoever for TFD). Which as you imply, is the problem. TFD has a second issue that it has no PROD or equivalent, which is how AFD would theoretically get around this case.
- On which point in fact, several admins at TFD will delete templates with solely a nom as a soft deletion despite there being no policy on the point. (I personally relist nom-only TFDs.) I raised that in 2021 (see Explicit talk page link); discussion at the time seemed not particularly concerned with the practice.
- As such, I don't think it's realistic to suggest 'two shouldn't be a consensus' without a wider guideline or policy saying what the minima are. Izno (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how that question is interesting, TBH. If you mean, would someone recreating these navboxes have to contend with WP:G4? Assuredly. Izno (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Even when the comment doesn’t say anything? Anyway, maybe two just generally shouldn’t be considered consensus - I don’t know where else it would. And I imagine if there were suddenly lots more non-consensus status quo closes, it would drive up engagement with TfD. Kingsif (talk) 10:48, 15 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)
- Except there was a procedural error. The “delete per G4” voters did not have access to the previous version which was deleted and recreated. They just assumed, incorrectly, that since it was already deleted once it should simply be deleted again. The procedural error is in the closer (who would have access to both versions and see that G4, whether as an actual speedy or as an argument in an AFD vote, clearly didn’t apply) giving too much weight to these votes which were found out to not be based at all in P&G. That is certainly a valid concern for DRV. Frank Anchor 11:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what G4 says at all - it specifically says the draft must be sufficiently identical. The other wrinkle here is that this does look like it should have been kept looking at the available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 11:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)