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 11}}</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 11}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2020 March 11|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]

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)

Parthesh Patel[edit]

Bapunagar Darpan (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. [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15] 

- Hamza Ghanchi 10:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)

7 March 2020[edit]

MauBank WithMe[edit]

MauBank WithMe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The administrator did not specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary as per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. I contacted the administrator to seek clarifications to know the reason (See User_talk:78.26#Article_deletion). The reason given was that the references provided in the article was not as per WP:INDEPENDENT. I believe that the closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly, since as per the discussions, it is clear that the app is notable in Mauritius and the references provided are from notable independent news outlets in Mauritius. In this respect, I would really grateful if the deletion result could be reconsider. Thanks. Kingroyos (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  • endorse- It seems that the closing administrator correctly judged consensus in this discussion. Reyk YO! 12:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear friend, please clarify why you think so. --Kingroyos (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There's no possible way this AfD could have been closed differently, especially with a detailed evaluation of every source in the article. Had I run across this, I might have deleted it under WP:G11. Please note WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear friend, please refer to the subsequent reply where I gave some clarifications as to why the references were wrongly interpreted and no reply was given to that before closing the discussion.--Kingroyos (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse the deleting administrator did provide the reason for deletion in the deletion summary, the reason for deletion was the AfD result and they linked to the AfD. The consensus of the AfD was clear, the sources provided were analysed in detail and shown not to be sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 15:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear friend, Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. In addition, no reply was given to me before the deletion process was closed.--Kingroyos (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The debate was not closed on the basis of majority vote but on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS, which is how we close these discussions. The fact that nobody replied to your comment doesn't make it correct, on the contrary it doesn't seem to address the issues which were raised at all. Hut 8.5 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse - This appeal, like the appellant's Keep argument in the AFD, are walls of text. There is no error by the closer and no real allegation of error by the closer. If the appellant wants more coverage of an island country, that is a systemic bias issue to be addressed in some other forum than a deletion content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Friend, please note that I just wanted to show that we cannot expect to have references from well known newspapers worldwide but only from well known Mauritian newspapers as the App is only available in Mauritius.--Kingroyos (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment - User:Kingroyos appears to be raising an issue of systemic bias about inadequate coverage of Mauritius. DRV is not the forum to raise that issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The thing is, Kingroyos, that on Wikipedia, when someone gives their view in a discussion, they don't have to engage in dialogue with you about it afterwards. You're welcome to reply to them, but their view stands unless they change it themselves. This is so because the alternative would be an environment where the last person to reply wins, and we couldn't possibly make decisions in that environment.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The notability threshold for commercial products is especially sensitive to the suggestions that purported sources are not really independent. Kingroyos' defence of the sources absolutely falls short of the standards expected here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse good close. Perhaps draftify and submit when the article can be improved. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

5 March 2020[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

3 March 2020[edit]

Debra Arbec (closed)[edit]

Draft:Adsemar[edit]

Draft:Adsemar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This does not count as hoax since it clarified that the subject is fictional, and speedily deleting it under that incorrect criterion is excessively bitey considering that the author is a newbie. (This would admittedly meet A11 as an article, but it was a draft.) I tried contacting the deleting admin at User talk:Primefac#Draft:Adsemar, but he/she didn't bother responding. Glades12 (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, technically an invalid speedy deletion, but the deleted page said explicitly that it was about a fantasy world made up by the article author. That is absolutely not an appropriate use of Wikipedia so I don't think restoring it would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 07:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record, it's not that I "didn't bother" to respond, I just didn't find it as high a priority as other things in my life (both on and off-wiki). I will agree that it's a bit of an IAR deletion, but I have no intention of restoring a pointless draft. If it does get restored, it will simply be declined or rejected at AFC and then eventually deleted anyway. Pinging DGG who originally placed the tag. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • IAR Endorse. If this was in userspace, it would qualify for WP:U5. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and this has zero chance of developing into an encyclopedia article, so there's no reason to keep it. The entire text consisted of Adsemar is a fictional world created by Dillstan. In the world there are many races(Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Kantchis, Scielanveres). Call it WP:G2 if you have to. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
A fictional world made up by the author of the article can not be distinguished from a hoax; I could write just the same without even making up a world. And what would be the proper treatment for "X is a fictional world made up by my friend John" ? or "I had a dream last night: " But usually I would in fact cal lit a test page for lack of anything closer. The alternative is to call it vandalism, because nobody however ignorant of WP could think this appropriate content ,but I don't like to use the V word for anything that is not actually malicious, but just a foolish joke. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I can't see the deleted article, but if "the deleted page said explicitly that it was about a fantasy world made up by the article author" as stated above, then it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as a hoax since it's not trying to pass it off as true. Smartyllama (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: yes you can see the deleted article. I quoted it, in its entirely, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral - This technically should not have been speedy-deleted from draft space, and technically should have been sent to MFD. It isn't worth wasting the time of either the MFD regulars or the DRV regulars, who are mostly the same editors anyway. It doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Every time someone ignores all rules to speedy delete something like this - and make no mistake, it should have been deleted on sight, and everything similar should be - it becomes that much less likely that we'll ever be able to speedy them legitimately. —Cryptic 05:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't Dillstan's blog.

    Strictly speaking it's our role here at DRV to see that the deletion processes are correctly followed, so I suppose we could restore the draft and then MFD it immediately, but that's one of the most fatuous wastes of editor time that I've ever contemplated. For me the big lesson from this DRV is that we need to start a discussion on whether to expand A11 into the other namespaces: maybe it should be converted to G15?—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Endorse IAR deletion- and I also endorse the suggestion to expand A11 from article-only to cover all namespaces. Although in practice this will still mostly apply to articles and to a lesser extent drafts and the user space, in principle you could also have redirects, pictures, and other kinds of pages containing nothing but made-up gibberish. Reyk YO! 08:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ooh, maybe not userspace. There's a longstanding consensus that good faith editors are allowed to keep personal, unencyclopaedic stuff in their userspace. Remember Mzmcbride's first desysopping? But drafts, redirects and filespace, definitely.—S Marshall T/C 17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • User space does contain a lot of bizarre content but I'm reasonably sure things like fantasy sports leagues, fake reality shows, and such get deleted regularly at MfD. But I think you're probably right that NOTWEBHOST would apply more frequently than a userspace equivalent of A11. Reyk YO! 12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse per IAR, but we are not a web host. SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Userfy - This episode is a bit WP:BITEY (not a new user, but one who is still learning the ropes) and we should not be endorsing use of admin powers to deal with something that could be handled by regular means, e.g., move to user space or a comment on the Draft talk page saying the page had no chance; if you have to invoke IAR, why not PROD first? Using IAR to justify abuse of admin powers is inappropriate here: the page was causing no actual problem (I think we should only be concerned with abuse of WP:NOTWEBHOST when an editor creates more than one two-line page), would normally disappear in accordance with policy after 6 months, and irregular deletions are less justifiable in draftspace than article space. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    So just to clarify, you want to restore and shift to the userspace, while simultaneously telling the creator that it's never going to be an article and will eventually be deleted? The other option being to restore it and then delete it six or twelve months down the line when it meets G13? I understand that it's "causing no actual problem" but this sounds like kicking the can down the road; if the end result is eventual deletion then (while most parties here agree that it probably shouldn't have been deleted) it's pointless to restore. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    If we restore this then the likely result will be an MfD with a very obvious conclusion. The material would also not be acceptable in userspace so userfying it is not a solution. PROD doesn't apply outside article space so that's not an option here either. Hut 8.5 14:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:BLOCK User:Glades12 for trolling. It was disruption coming to DRV to complain about their fictional world draft being deleted, was blatant intensification of the abuse of Wikipedia through creating a draft on about a fictional world. The draft was abuse of Wikipedia, coming to DRV was trolling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe: The draft's creator is Dillstan, not me. And no, neither account is a sockpuppet. I am obviously losing the debate here, but "he's trolling" is a wild assumption. Glades12 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    To add, I do not know who Dillstan is outside of WP, and I only know that they are the page creator from memory. Glades12 (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    I thought you wrote it. How did you come to know anything about the page? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    I found it while browsing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for any obviously incorrect nominations. I even removed the {{db-hoax}} tag, but Primefac deleted the page a few seconds later, so here we are. Glades12 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, fair enough. I thought you were the author. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Do nothing. Primefac has the reputation of being attentive to the letter of CSD rules. Let’s consider this feedback on the meaning of “blatant hoax”, but this case on its own doesn’t say much to me. I think a draft on a fictional world fits “blatant hoax”, noting WP:WAF. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not Endorse but keep deleted Although technically this should not have been speedied, it has no shot of surviving MfD, so per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTBURO, there's no point in putting it through this process. This is not an endorse !vote since the speedy was improper, but at the same time now that it has been speedied, there's little point in restoring it just to delete it again seven days later. Smartyllama (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Userfy no harm in seeing if an article can be made. If it is a Hoax or cannot be improved it will be deleted. WP:NORUSH Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Under what scenario do you envision this might turn into an article? I can see an argument that this didn't strictly meet any WP:CSD and should thus be reversed for being out of process. I don't agree with that, but I could at least understand why somebody would make that argument. But, thinking this might actually turn into an article? Sorry, that's just nonsense. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

2 March 2020[edit]

Sandeep Maheshwari[edit]

Sandeep Maheshwari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Earlier in 2017 this topic was deleted under G11 and administration put on it. But I want to make article on it as for the new creation in 2020.Kashish pall (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Over the past eight years, this has been deleted seven times; twice for WP:A7, four WP:G11s, and most recently, WP:G5. It was after the last one that this was protected. My recommendation is to write a draft and get that reviewed at WP:AfC. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral to allowing a draft to be reviewed. In other words, I am not even sure that it is worth allowing a draft to be reviewed, but go ahead and waste the reviewer's time. It is my understanding that partial block has been implemented, and partial block sounds like a good way to deal with tendentious resubmissions of crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Endorse deletion, speedies and salting. Endorse requirement to produce a draft via WP:AfC before seeking a review. Advise following advise at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

* Undelete Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari as CSD#A7 doesn’t apply to draftspace. Maybe it will be re-deleted per G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd have G11 speedied the most recent revision of Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari too. And revisions from 24 May 2015 and earlier must not be restored, since they're copyvios (and also speediable as G11, including the ones I deleted as G13 without further comment at the time). I haven't looked at all the revisions in between; maybe there's a tolerable one in there somewhere. —Cryptic 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe RHaworth used the wrong CSD button. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
      • He pushed the right button when deleting it. I'm not concerned that he cited A7 when salting; it's one of the few standard options in the dropdown, and gets the message across. —Cryptic 04:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I misread the log. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and salting of the mainspace page, but I believe that the user has made an error in their request. The page that provoked this request was my deletion of Draft:Youtuber Sandeep Maheshwari. After the deletion the user posted a long list of mostly unusable sources on my talk page. But after I explained the requirements for notability they came up with this Hindi language newspaper article. Although the draft is very poor quality and needs a lot of work, I now think that the subject might actually be notable. I was considering unilaterally restoring the draft, but as the user has opened this discussion, I'll wait for it to come to a conclusion and just recommend overturn my own deletion and move to Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari. SpinningSpark 12:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Are saying this user's got to write a draft, get it reviewed via AFC (which is backlogged), then submit a request for page unprotection before it can be moved to mainspace even though the deleting sysop thinks there are good grounds to consider this person notable? In the circumstances I would question whether it's appropriate to require that much procedure.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think that drafts need to pass AfC before being moved to mainspace, it's just that passing AfC will protect the new article from a future AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    User:Chalst, AfC doesn’t protect an article from AfD. AfC is where we send COI and other troublesome editors who are more likely to waste peoples time than contribute. For all others, see WP:DUD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    What I meant is that when it comes to judging articles, XfD !voters bear the history of the article in mind. An article with this past history would very likely attract a swift AfD and ill-disposed !voters if it had not gone through the AfC process and so be a waste of everyone's time. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    The issue is really moot and not worth discussing. The draft is so awful that there should be no question of allowing it into mainspace without serious improvement first, and AFC is the place to get that done. SpinningSpark 11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    What's worth discussing is how DRV should interact with AFC and salting. There's a conversation on WT:DRV that might benefit from your input?—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • allow restoration of draft. Given it's salted, the draft is going to have to be pretty solid to get someone to unsalt. So it may not be the AFC process, but perhaps reaching to the deleting admin (SS) would be the right move once the draft is actually in good shape. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and unsalt article to permit restoration of draft per User:Spinningspark. The author should be aware that the road to getting this article in namespace is not completely straightforward: passively waiting for an AfC takes ages, and given the deletion history of the article, an AfD is likely to happen if an AfC is not passed and likely to be rigorous in looking for conflicts of interest in sourcing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and change create protection to ECP. That way any experienced reviewer can move an acceptable draft to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think unsalting mainspace is a good idea. That will most likely result in more poorly sourced, promotional-sounding attempts being deleted. It is unlikely that any admin would refuse to remove protection once a draft had been accepted at AFC. SpinningSpark 20:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sajad Raad[edit]

Sajad Raad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not long before it was closed as delete, I added what I believe to be a GNG source to the article, which no editor had a chance to see. Earlier I had added a link to many news article to the AFD discussion, which no one had commented on, and I had expanded most of the references in the article to include translations of the titles. I believe that given the active work on the article, that this should have been relisted, not closed. Nfitz (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Endorse - as closing admin. Nfitz is correct, there had been some ongoing work on the article. However, regardless it was 4 votes to one, with all the delete votes of the view that this player did not satisfy GNG and that the sources added were merely routine match reporting, transfer talk or stat sites, an opinion I felt carried great weight when I considered the close. An additional source was added 10 hours or so before the close which Nfitz claims satisfies GNG. Aside from the fact that the addition of one source that might satisfy GNG would be insufficient on its own when the existing sources were already rejected as routuine, the source added was simply the player himself denying rumours that a transfer was imminent. This source is clearly not only routine, but also, essentially WP:PRIMARY given the article is the player himself issuing denials. This AfD had already been relisted once and there was no indication that there was going to be any progress in identifying genuine GNG-satisfying sources. Fenix down (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist. I've tempundeleted this for review. I believe you're talking about this edit, which was added about 14 hours before the AfD was closed. I have no opinion on the source itself, but my general philosophy is if somebody provides one or more sources very close to the end of a discussion, I'll relist it to allow time for the source(s) to be evaluated. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Primarily that edit - but now I can see the edit history, it appears there were no comments at AFD since I'd tried to improve the existing references a few days earlier - the sum total of changes since the previous AFD comments is here. Also note that there is a well referenced article in the Arabic Wikipedia at ar:سجاد رعد حاتم. Nfitz (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse as somebody who !voted delete - this edit would not make me change my mind re:GNG/notability. GiantSnowman 19:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse – there was already consensus that the sourcing thus far was routine; with the late-added sources also being routine, there is no reason to think it would have affected the outcome. (It would be different if someone had found a full length biography at the last minute.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse - the most recent edit didn't establish compliance with the GNG (the added Arabic-language source is routine coverage). Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse - There doesn't appear to have been an error by the closer; and the delete was correct because the league in which the subject played is not on the list of fully professional leagues anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • How is it routine coverage? Routine is transfers reported locally. This is very different. When foreign sources are speculating about a player, it's because they are notable. If this were simply the local Iraqi media reporting this, I can see the point. There's also a LOT of supposedly 'routine' coverage. The sheer quantity of coverage suggests notability. This is really a point for the AFD discussion - however I thought the existing 10 references were more than sufficient. But here's some more, from just the last 2 months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10! Nfitz (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • So what do they say? The AfD was quite clear that the coverage received so far was thought to be routine. As you know, there is long standing consensus that transfer articles and match reporting are not suitable for GNG as they are often speculation and almost never involve significant coverage of the player himself. Looking at the sources you have presented, I am not seeing anything that indicates the decision to delete was wrong:
1 - no significant coverage, brief denial of a transfer rumour then wider discussion of his current club.
2 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief five sentence article.
3 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.
4 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.
5 - four sentence article reporting the denial of the same transfer rumour reported in source 1
6 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief six sentence article.
7 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief six sentence article.
8 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.
9 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.
10 - four sentence article reporting the denial of the same transfer rumour reported in source 1
The problem with all of these is that there is nothing you could use to write an encyclopedic article, bar possibly the use of one of these sources for a brief mention of the transfer rumour, but that would be nowhere near GNG. Mentions do not equal significant coverage. Can you please explain how the presence of google hits indicates that the closure of this AfD was wrong? Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Most seem routine - though the report in the article from a different country speculating about a transfer isn't. The point is, that is 10 articles in variety of publications, some national, in only 60 days - and more than just match reports. There are literally hundreds of articles, if you you extend the search back beyond 60 days, to the last 2-3 years - and I certainly haven't reviewed them all. While the coverage is routine, it's more than a trivial mention in many of these reports. There is significant (though often routine) coverage. The sources are reliable. The sources are secondary (many of them at least) and independent of the subject. WP:GNG is easily met. There is no exclusion in GNG criteria for "routine" coverage. If a king were to die, it would be routine to have national coverage. Routine doesn't mean trivial. Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse After a little review, I also feel this was correct to delete, It's harder to establish GNG in other languages than English at times, although it seems the correct decision to me. Govvy (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist per Nfitz and RoySmith. WP:ROUTINE was shown last year not to apply to people, so WP:GNG matters the most, especially if the sources are cumulative with respect to WP:SIGCOV, and it is indeed met to a degree that allows a non-stub article to be created. ミラP 20:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, can you provide a link to consensus saying articles on people could meet GNG simply through routine rather than significant coverage. I'm not aware of that and it would seem to go against the principle of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That AfD closed as no consensus, so it's not the evidence for your opinion that you think it is. Reyk YO! 08:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • relist I hate GNG arguments for SPORTs people because the rules are so unclear. My sense is that if the SNG isn't met, the GNG requirements are generally much higher than for most people/topics and it isn't clear that the player meets the heightened expectations of the GNG here. But sure, it's a reasonable request for a relist per Roy. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist Given the late addition of sources which potentially satisfy GNG, a relist to generate additional discussion would have been appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse- I agree with Govvy here. And I'm also wary of chucking out !votes at AfD because someone drip-feeds a marginal source into the discussion at the last minute. Reyk YO! 07:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
How would !votes be chucked by relisting - no one is suggesting that the vote be overturned. I'm not sure what User:Reyk implies by "drip-feed", but it has a lack of AGF feel to it. Nfitz (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Talking in general and not about this AFD, Wikipedia does have an issue with COI, promotional and paid editors, and others who don't share our goal. We wouldn't want to establish a principle that adding another marginal source very late in an AFD means a relist when the consensus is otherwise clear, because we want processes that are robust against attempts to game them. I'm sure this is what Reyk meant and I agree with him.—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Correct. I have seen quite a few instances of dropping in a dubious source at the last minute, both in good faith and as a strategy for nullifying a clear consensus. Usually, like here, there's nothing deliberately sketchy about it but, as you say, we want processes that are robust against attempts to game them. Yes, I realise this creates a tension with WP:HEY article improvements but I would not want to see an inflexible rule either way. This is why we pay closing admins the big bucks. Reyk YO! 15:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Did the "thank" thing, but thought I should make it more obvious to others. Reyk (and S Marshall) have it exactly right. I'd err more than probably either of them on relisting here, but we also do want to watch for abuses, especially from COI editors. I think here relist is the better call, but that's a matter of degree and situation. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn I think despite the fact all of the sources are in Arabic, that Raad pretty clearly meets WP:GNG. Going full overturn because in my experience we do a terrible job of analysing GNG for non-English language sources generally. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close is unquestionably correct in judging the consensus of the discussion. While a relist is fine in general, there was already one relist with no additional keep votes. --Enos733 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Good God (musician) (closed)[edit]

27 February 2020[edit]

26 February 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
  1. ^ "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.
  2. ^ "Bapu to set fire to digital Raavan in Vastrapur today". Ahmedabad Mirror. 30 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  3. ^ "Will Bapu join Jan Vikalp today?". Ahmedabad Mirror. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  4. ^ "Months ahead of Gujarat elections, Vaghela announces third front". ABP Live. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  5. ^ "Strategically positioned". ABP Live. 22 April 2017. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  6. ^ "Trending Modi". The Hindu. 17 May 2013. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  7. ^ "BJP dismisses row over Narendra Modi following abusive trolls on Twitter, calls it 'farcical'". First Post. 8 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  8. ^ "BJP IT Cell Chief Justifies PM Modi Following Abusive Trolls, Gets Slammed". Scoopwhoop. 8 September 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  9. ^ "Vaghela leads 3rd front in Gujarat". The Hindu Businessline. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
  10. ^ "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.
  11. ^ "Quick Reads: And the credit goes to…". Ahmedabad Mirror. 24 November 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  12. ^ "Gujarat elections: Why Vaghela has no candidate in seat that elected him". The Hindu Businessline. 5 December 2017. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
  13. ^ "Vaghela, Modi's brother keep Congress, BJP on tenterhooks in Gujarat". The Hindu. 15 May 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  14. ^ "Mahendrasinh Vaghela chooses Dussehra to do Ram-Ram to BJP". Ahmedabad Mirror. 18 October 2018. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  15. ^ "In Gujarat, the embarassments continue for Congress, BJP". The Hindu Businessline. 11 January 2018. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=938471331"