Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and Modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result 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[edit]

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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[edit]

 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2020 March 18}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2020 March 18}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2020 March 18|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Any editor may express his or her 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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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[edit]

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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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[edit]

It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.

  • 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).
  • 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.
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive 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".



Active discussions[edit]

18 March 2020[edit]

Southern Pacific 9010[edit]

Southern Pacific 9010 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Keep consensus was heavily influenced on contributors favouring the subject rather than policy. Majority of discussion focused on the notion of WP:ILIKEIT and not about the general quality of sourcing and overall notability of subject. None of the contributors that I queried responded to my concerns, IMO meaning they had no evidence to give. This should have closed as a no consensus or relisted. Appreciated this hasn't been deleted but it should have been on the lack of sourcing. Nightfury 11:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Void close and relist although overturning to a flat-out delete or merge wouldn't be unreasonable. The article is a poster-child for WP:FANCRUFT and the AfD was a disaster. I have great sympathy for Pax:Vobiscum who had to close it, but making the tough calls is what we admins get paid to do. The vast majority of the arguments in the AfD are classic WP:ATA. If we have pages on ... I do not see why ... cannot have their own is WP:OTHER. The page has existed for over eleven years is WP:OLDARTICLE. It is the last of it’s type is a good argument to disqualify WP:A7, but nothing beyond that. All of those types of arguments should have been ignored. Looking at the sources (both in the article and presented at the AfD), they're deplorable. A mix of Facebook (seriously?), fan blogs, etc. The Trains Magazine articles at least look reasonable, but they're press releases (note the Home/News/News Wire/... slugs), which are generally not considered to contribute to WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

17 March 2020[edit]

Leila George[edit]

Leila George (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to have Leila George restored. Since the closure of the afd well over a year ago Mortal Engines has been released and been reviewed widely. George has also since had a significant role in The Kid. That's multiple significant roles. She has also got more coverage for GNG such as [2] and [3]. These things directly address the concerns of that afd. Checking with the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila George they stated "That sounds fine. I have no objection to restoration" [4] and pointed me to DRV [5]. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Endorse the deletion as correct at the time it was carried out, and restore the article on the basis that Ms George is now somewhat notable and a restoration would facilitate adding the new sources.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and restored the deleted versions in the history. Not quite sure why we're here. The deleting admin agreed that restoring it was fine, what's unclear is why they bounced the nom to DRV instead of just restoring it themselves, but whatever. I see there was a bit of edit warring about the redirect (WP:G4 a redirect, really?), so maybe at least this DRV can lend an authoritative voice to the restoration to prevent that from happening again. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

15 March 2020[edit]

User:Tellyaddict/userbox/snowmanbuilding[edit]

User:Tellyaddict/userbox/snowmanbuilding (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WP:DRVPURPOSE use cases #2, #4, and #5: unilateral deletion without explanation or a CSD number. I'm not sure exactly what was deleted but it sounds innocuous and allowed by userbox policy, especially if in user space. I tried contacting the deleting admin, but it is clear that he just doesn't like off-topic userboxes. Although this was deleted in 2007, it is still transcluded on five userpages. I'm not sure if this is worth keeping, but I would like it reviewed given lack of suitable reason for deletion, as well the contemptuous attitude demonstrated today. – voidxor 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Restore. Unclear why anybody cares about it, but it's in userspace and it's harmless. The real issue here is this edit by John Reaves which is totally inexcusable for an admin (or even an ex-admin). The only reason I haven't blocked them on sight is to allow them to respond to this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize the depth/history of this dispute. I agree it's not worth stirring up. I was mostly reacting to the WP:UNCIVIL response of the deleting admin, but also agree that this is the wrong forum to be pursuing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • If you remotely cared about this project, you wouldn’t be talking such nonsense. And the only reason you haven’t blocked me is the fact that you don’t have a leg to stand on. -- John Reaves 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore - This is probably very sad, because this appears to be a case where an administrator has gone to pieces. But this is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much for the sympathy. Also, what the hell is a “content forum”? -- John Reaves 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The distinction between content disputes and conduct disputes goes back to the early years of Wikipedia. A content forum is a forum where Wikipedians resolve issues about encyclopedic content. There are also conduct forums, such as WP:ANI, where editor conduct is addressed. The issue here is whether the userbox should be restored and not why you, User:John Reaves, cursed about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Do nothing. There was a lot of trouble with this user, over ten years ago. I'm guessing that User:John_Reaves was emotionally involved. John Reaves was always prone to that. I assume there is some historical context for this edit, and I do not believe that anything good will come from digging into long gone troublesome cases. The history is very murky, but this is an interesting place to start reading. It is from the middle of the story. Do not undelete without either: (1) An explanation as to the context of the time and relevance moving forward; or (2) an appeal from an editor in good standing who is one the users with the userbox transcluded. Feel free to remind admins to stick to accurate CSD codes, but don't start with mostly retired admins over actions 13 years ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • We've got to restore this. Arbcom have made clear and specific findings about how sysops should deal with unencyclopaedic material in userspace, see MZMcBride's first desysopping principles #4 and #5. We have absolutely no option but to enforce Arbcom's decisions and principles. Oppose any punitive action towards sysops, ex-sysops and discussion closers at DRV. We've never done that and there are good reasons why. DRV needs to be a safe space to encourage reflection and, where appropriate, admission of error. If there was ever a user conduct issue discovered at DRV we would refer to a drama board.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The way I understand decisions and principles may differ from the way you understand them. I think Arbcom's "principles" describe the way things are: prevailing consensus, custom and practice, etc. I think their "decisions" are the way things shall be henceforth. I agree that their decisions aren't retroactive. I suspect that their principles might be... because violating a principle is grounds for sanctioning an editor even if that principle has not been previously articulated by Arbcom. But am I overthinking this?—S Marshall T/C 13:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I don't think voidxor is intentionally trying to stir up drama, but the net effect is that this user is and it needs to stop. It's a terrible idea to be poking these bears, so to speak. If you're concerned about broken userboxes on user pages, you're welcome to remove them. Though it seems your concern is greater than that of the users who actually have placed these (now broken) userboxes on their pages and left them there for years. John Reaves is absolutely correct these discussions are a distraction and a waste of almost everyone's time. We do not need to re-litigate the userbox wars and we do not need to give attention to these subpages that belong to users who were appropriately blocked or banned. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    I never intentionally poked a bear. I saw a deletion that didn't make sense (even given the policy as of 2007; userbox migration started in 2006) and asked the deleting admin for clarification before proceeding. That is WP:DELREVD step #1 too. The reaction I received made me further question the motive for the deletion, so I brought it here. Had I wanted to focus on conduct, I would have gone to ANI. As far as re-litigating the userbox decisions, I've been citing those decisions all along because this deletion seems to have gone against them. – voidxor 19:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    To be clear, I don't blame you and I think you're trying to do the right thing. But I think going through these deleted userboxes is going to dredge up muck and I think we should prevent that. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Why are we bothering to debate this, exactly? Sure, it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but it is a pretty pointless userbox created by a user who was indeffed for disruptive editing and it was deleted thirteen years ago. I can't see any value in restoring it or debating it here. We have better things to do. Hut 8.5 22:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • At heart, DRV exists because editors matter. When a good faith editor is unhappy about something, we engage with them and take it seriously and work out whether a mistake has been made. If it's not worth discussin, we could speedily restore and close the DRV. Given that this was an out-of-process deletion, I don't think it's open to us to speedily close the DRV without restoring.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Editors matter, absolutely, but do disruptive SOCKing blocked editors' NOTHERE userboxes count? From 13 years ago? Ugly stuff happened in the userbox wars. Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. The Germans#Don't mention the war. Acknowledge the history. Don't try to fix the history. Don't clean and hide the history, but acknowledge it and move on. The user in question came back, unblocked, for another two years without ever returning to this userbox. Why should someone unconnected bring it up here and now? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this editor need standing to open a DRV? I don't recall any other DRVs being declined because of that.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Well no, definitely not decline due to lack of standing to open. He is welcome to open this DRV, and we should discuss it seriously. My considered opinion, based on a a little bit of reading around the user, User:Tellyaddict & User:Qst, and my memory of the feel of the userbox wars, is that yes there was a procedural problem with the deletion of an unimportant userbox, but there is no harmed editor who has edited for ten years, there is no evidence of the deletion having been an issue for any user who used the userbox, there is no evidence of continued misuse of the delete button by the semi-active admin, and it was 2007. The wrong thing was done, but I don't think that WP:EM implies a need to undelete it. I think digging up such old deletions is counterproductive for the improvement of the project. If you think I am wrong, then maybe I need to ask for a temp_undelete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't necessarily think you're wrong in what you say there, but I'm curious about where you stand on the Arbcom principle I linked.—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this a bunch, and have come to the conclusion that we should keep this deleted, if only to discourage this sort of thing in the future. There's probably been millions of deleted pages since we started this thing. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we could find thousands of bad deletions, even egregiously bad ones. Every discussion has a cost, and there needs to be some value that we get back for that investment. For reviews of recent actions, we potentially get value in three ways. We restore valuable material. We give somebody who has a stake in the page their due process. We educate active admins so they do a better job in the future. None of those apply here, so this is just effort expended for no potential return. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • S Marshall, I stand very firmly with those two principles. #4 Notification of deletion. Quite right, John Reaves should enter proper deletion log records. However, the statute of limitations is surely less than 13 year for a “not needed“ where a CSD code belongs. #5 Personal expression in userspace. I think I might be Wikipedia’s most contributing person to this question when it arises, and push comes to shove at MfD. Reasonable leeway in userspace for a productive Wikipedian is an old and well respected principle. In this case, at that time, the user’s ratio of userspace snowmanbuilding to productive contributions was overtly under challenge, and was substantiated. The principle speaks to the admin’s responsibility to talk to the user, to ensure that the user understands the problem. I think that angle was fine, even if what John did was handling the problematic user poorly. Like I said above somewhere, if any user, in good standing (not blocked, presently active), who has ever had this userbox transcluded, wants this back, then yes undelete. But don’t undelete this time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

So are we deciding that we won't review deletion decisions that are more than ten years old except on the application of someone directly affected? This idea of a statute of limitations is a novel concept at DRV and if that is indeed the consensus, I think it might need to be documented somewhere.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It is documented. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:S Marshall, I don't agree that I have !voted to "not review". I have reviewed. The nominator's request is

"I'm not sure if this is worth keeping, but I would like it reviewed given lack of suitable reason for deletion, as well the contemptuous attitude demonstrated today."

My latest stab at a consensus position is: That deletion was improper. However, given the age of deletion, and the contemporaneous controversy surrounding both the user involved and userboxes in general which is not ongoing, do nothing more. Do not undelete, not without an actual interest in the deleted userbox. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm with you on all your reasoning until the very last part. My thought process goes: (a) By unanimous consensus, this deletion was out of process; (b) By unanimous consensus it's unproductive to discuss; therefore (c) We should restore without discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

13 March 2020[edit]

K. Surendran (politician)[edit]

K. Surendran (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AFD was formed due to a clear political rivalry.The deletion was justified at the time. However, he has received a flurry of coverage in the media since appointed head of BJP Kerala state.makes he is clirly meet WP:GNG More specifically. Although a politician has not won any election but ,If he has received significant media attention as per WP:POLITICIAN (2) He is presumed to be notable.About Him more than 100+ reliable sources available in outside of wikipedia..Before I came here Also contacted the deleted admin.He moved the article to a Draft space and Now I expanded the Draft. But the admin said,Mainspace move depending on the opinion of the editors who supported the deletion of the article in the discussion. They're never ready for Support, and I have no choice. The article is worthy of presence in Wikipedia as per WP:POLITICIAN , WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC.This is a magazine that came out about him recently Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  11:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Endorse. This is really out of scope for DRV. There's zero chance we're going to overturn a well-attended, unanimous, AfD. The article is in draft space, submit it for review. If it gets accepted, the mainspace title can be unsalted at that time. Until then, there's nothing for DRV to do. BTW, the fact that the portrait image is a professional quality photo, obviously downloaded from the internet but noted as "Own work" by a user named "Honesteditsvj", doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about the overall situation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    Struck the bit about the photo being a copyvio. Based on the upload date and the date of the Indian Express article linked to above, it looks like they got it from us! -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not completely convinced that the AFD got this right. They might have held Mr Surendran to the wrong standard. He fails one particular SNG, but at first glance, that looks like a possible GNG pass to me. From a search of RSN archives, I think the New Indian Express and The Hindu may possibly be reliable, although I'm less sure on the other sources.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a correct assessment by the closer of the consensus. User:S Marshall is probably right that the AFD got the wrong result, but that isn't what we are doing here at DRV. (Is it?) Less than a month after the AFD, I am not ready to say to go ahead and create a draft. If I were the AFC reviewer of the draft, I would Reject a draft on notability grounds if it were so soon after the AFD. (I normally Decline a draft if there was a previous Delete at AFD, but if it was this recent, I would Reject.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • If the AfD got the wrong result, there needs to be a way to correct it. Deletion review's role is to scrutinize deletion decisions and, when we find them defective, find a way to repair the error. Although this is rare, deletion review has on occasion overturned an XfD to the diametrically opposite result on the grounds that the original decision was simply wrong. As a really clear example of this I'd cite a review of a CfD from more than ten years ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24. This case is not similar and I would not advocate a straight overturn in this case, but subject to the views of other editors, we might perhaps go so far as to relist at AfD with a request to consider the GNG angle.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment In the sense that some are making edits here with political objections there is a dispute within and outside Wikipedia about some of the editors involved in the AFD debate, which undermines the credibility of this AfD.I wasn't involved in the AFD debate,I submitted the news links that prove this person's notability before the Deleted Admin but the admin says; That the article was deleted based on the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. Draft Move' will be contingent on the opinion of editors who supported deletion of the article in the discussion. I can't argue with them, because my knowledge is limited.I am afraid that if I invite other editors on the talk page of the Delete Admin, it will become canvas and become lawless. So I have no other choice to consult the opinions of other experienced editors.

Thanks -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  06:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Padavalamkuttanpilla: You state that "there is a dispute within and outside Wikipedia about some of the editors involved in the AFD debate". Please identify which editors involved in the debate are the subject of such a dispute, and explain how this relates to the credibility of the AfD. Please bear in mind that User:Johnpacklambert and User:Bearian are among our most experienced and trusted editors, and although I am less familiar with User:GPL93, I have no knowledge of any dispute involving them and no reason to doubt their credibility. BD2412 T 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi BD2412 Sorry I was just talking about 'DBigXray'. Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  04:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
You said "some of the editors", which is clearly a plural phrase. What other editors besides DBigXray were you referring to? BD2412 T 04:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse: I honestly think it's too soon to reconsider notability. This coverage is really only talking about his new appointment as state president, which might be considered to fall under WP:BLP1E and all other coverage doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. I could be convinced otherwise, but for the moment I'm leaning to endorse the recent rather emphatic consensus to delete close. Maybe revisit in six months and see if the news coverage persists. Waggie (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The sources I have pointed out here are perhaps the most recent ones,He was deeply mentioned in several sources even before this article was deleted.you can verify the draft or check it on the Internet.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  07:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse There was nothing defective about that discussion, and I would have voted delete myself. I'm not sure state presidents of political parties have inherent notability - this seems like a WP:BLP1E, and we're typically pretty careful with political articles. Suggest draftifying. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    SportingFlyer, it's already at Draft:K. Surendran (politician). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Then it seems as if that were a decent suggestion :) SportingFlyer T·C 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. First off, thank you for the chance to comment. I've been active on and off for 13 years as a Wikipedian. I have been "out" about who I am and what COI's I have since I was doxxed over a decade ago. Anybody can google me and see my social media accounts. I have had a reputation as an inclusionist. I'm not notable (yet) but as a blogger, academic, attorney, and political activist, but I'm out there. I've also been out in another sense - my domestic partner of almost 12 years is Asian-American. So I have no biased reason to delete this. My only bias is that the subject just doesn't meet our current standards for notability. I remind the gentle reader that we are an American charity. The taxpayers of New York, Florida, and 48 other states indirectly subsidize our work here. We are not a web host for political parties. Our charitable status in fact forbids it. In 2007, a person might have been excused for wanting their state/local political party officer to have a "page on Wiki". However, it's 2020, and the state of affairs should be known by all. Bearian (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that while we are an American non-profit, donations do not just come from the US.[1] It's also worth noting that donations in no way affect our editorial policies and guidelines, this is something that Wikipedia editors feel very strongly about and would be the case irrespective of our non-profit status. Waggie (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse I have no COI and my previous voting history on state-level party leaders has been consistent regardless of nation or political affiliation. Even with the new draft I notability isn't there, although if coverage is sustained over a period of time Surendran could meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close was appropriate considering the deletion discussion. No voices in support of retaining the article. While many of the arguments made in support of overturning the close may have validity, they should have been brought up in the deletion discussion, where other editors could evaluate and respond. --Enos733 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

11 March 2020[edit]

Bapunagar Darpan[edit]

Bapunagar Darpan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary as per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. The article is about the local bi-weekly news paper which is registered entity. I want to expand the article as well but it gets deleted again and again though I have added reliable sources. I would be grateful if the deletion result could be revoked. - Hamza Ghanchi 10:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Allow WP:REFUND to draftspace or userspace. It is a new local newspaper, WP:TOOSOON applies, it may be found to be notable later, and so it is good for being a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify to enable this user to improve it as he requests.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse but Draftify - I do not see an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The appellant states that the administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. I have looked at the closing instructions for administrators, and it appears that the closer is supposed to say that the result was Result, such as Delete with optional additional information. Am I missing something, or is this a complaint that the closer didn't add something optional? Was the reason for deletion that there was a consensus to delete? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I can only assume that the OP wants the deleting admin to specify in the deletion log entry that the page was deleted for violating WP:N, WP:NOT or whatever. This isn't usual practice, when deleting a page as a result of a deletion discussion admins usually just link to the deletion discussion and leave people to read that if they want to know the rationale. Besides it's not the deleting admin's call as to whether the subject is non-notable or whatever, they're just implementing the consensus of the discussion. I can't see anything wrong with this deletion and there's no good reason given for overturning it here, but I'm sure we can draftify the page. Hut 8.5 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse / draftify. Based on what was in the deleted article, and what I found in searches, I think it highly unlikely this is notable, but I can't see any reason to deny restoring this to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bapunagar Darpan. If the editor can present few reliable sources, I would suggest draftify. He has failed to provide any reliable source at AFD and unlikely to have any RS because this local newspaper is established in 2019.-Nizil (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    We're not the draft police. If this user wants to work on a draft it's not for us to stop him.—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Parthesh Patel[edit]

Parthesh Patel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have created the article of the Gujarat based political analyst Parthesh Patel but it got deleted though it had multiple reliable sources which cites the importance of the person. During deletion, Administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary as per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. The article is well explained in details and it did had trustworthy information. I want to expand the article as well with more information and media but it gets deleted again and again though I have added reliable sources. I would be grateful if the deletion result could be revoked.

Here are the references which cites the importance of the entity. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - Hamza Ghanchi 10:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ "54% Facebook users support BJP to rule Gujarat, as against 41% favouring Congress in a unique social media poll". Counterview.com. 22 November 2016. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  3. ^ "Bapu to set fire to digital Raavan in Vastrapur today". Ahmedabad Mirror. 30 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  4. ^ "Will Bapu join Jan Vikalp today?". Ahmedabad Mirror. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  5. ^ "Months ahead of Gujarat elections, Vaghela announces third front". ABP Live. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  6. ^ "Strategically positioned". ABP Live. 22 April 2017. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  7. ^ "Trending Modi". The Hindu. 17 May 2013. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  8. ^ "BJP dismisses row over Narendra Modi following abusive trolls on Twitter, calls it 'farcical'". First Post. 8 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  9. ^ "BJP IT Cell Chief Justifies PM Modi Following Abusive Trolls, Gets Slammed". Scoopwhoop. 8 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  10. ^ "Vaghela leads 3rd front in Gujarat". The Hindu Businessline. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  11. ^ "Gauri Lankesh murder: BJP defends PM Modi, says following someone on social media not character certificate". Financial Express. 8 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  12. ^ "Quick Reads: And the credit goes to…". Ahmedabad Mirror. 24 November 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  13. ^ "Gujarat elections: Why Vaghela has no candidate in seat that elected him". The Hindu Businessline. 5 December 2017. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
  14. ^ "Vaghela, Modi's brother keep Congress, BJP on tenterhooks in Gujarat". The Hindu. 15 May 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  15. ^ "Mahendrasinh Vaghela chooses Dussehra to do Ram-Ram to BJP". Ahmedabad Mirror. 18 October 2018. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  16. ^ "In Gujarat, the embarassments continue for Congress, BJP". The Hindu Businessline. 11 January 2018. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
Discourage allowing REFUND or recreation as a draft for six months to show respect for the clear decision at AfD. This never-elected “politician” is not close to notable, and there is no reason to think this may change soon. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The notability of the person is about the social media adviser to the biggies of Indian Politics. He is in line with Prashant Kishor who helped individual parties to win election with the help of social media. I request you to re-look at notability of the article.-Hamza Ghanchi 08:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify as above. The deletion may have been correct but that's no reason to stop this user working in draft or userspace. Applicant should note that this person is quite a long way below Wikipedia's notability threshold and better sources (not more sources, better sources) will be required before the draft can go in the mainspace. It may be more productive to work on something else.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Question - Is this about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthesh Patel or about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bapunagar Darpan? I don't see an error by the closer either way. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This is about the article of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthesh Patel, I have bunch of references to the article which clearly states about the importance of the Person, Can you help me get it approved?-Hamza Ghanchi 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse Created three times before and each time deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthesh Patel and recreated Draft:Parthesh Patel. -Nizil (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse there was no error in either AfD (both of which I participated in) and Patel has been deemed non-notable three times now. This appears to be more of a case of an editor who is unhappy with the outcome of the AfD than any particular error by a closing administrator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I do contribute to the Wikipedia Gujarati and Wikipedia English and I have history of creating new articles of persons and places, I do know about importance of notability of the person and that's why I cite multiple reliable news sources which proves the notability. Can we have this article approved?-Hamza Ghanchi 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not the place to have an article approved, this is a review to see if the administrator properly closed the AfD (which he did). Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse Couldn't have been closed any other way. Yunshui 雲水 09:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The draft is essentially a copy-paste from the deleted mainspace page, so if nothing else, it needs proper attribution and/or histmerge to comply with our licensing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

7 March 2020[edit]

MauBank WithMe (closed)[edit]

5 March 2020[edit]

Archive[edit]

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=938471331"