Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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

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. (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.)
  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);
  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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. 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

Shortcut

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

 
1.

Click here 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=
}} ~~~~
2.

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

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 April 17}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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=2025 April 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 April 17|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

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".

Active discussions

17 April 2025

16 April 2025

Adolf Uunona (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adolf Uunona (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this page could be restored as either a navigation page that links to both Ompundja Constituency and Oshipumbu, or simply a redirect to Ompundja Constituency, which appears to contain the most information about Uunona at the moment. If the salted page Adolf Hitler Uunona is also restored (as a redirect to either Ompundja Constituency or to Adolf Uunona if it's a navpage), it could be tagged with {{R with possibilities}} as there is a draft with that title. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation as a redirect, both Adolf Uunona and the SALTed Adolf Hitler Uunona. The 2021 close was correct, and the appellant doesn't need our permission to recreate the non-salted page as a redirect. If there are no objections, I can do the same with the SALTed Adolf Hitler Uunona while leaving it fully protected. I see two current drafts for this: Draft:Adolf Hitler Uunona, and a rejected Draft:Adolf Hitler uunona, by different authors, yet miraculously with almost identical content, even in their initial version. There's definitely something funny going on here, but that doesn't concern us at DRV when turning these pages into redirs. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - The instructions for DRV include:

    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.

    Is this a request to unsalt Adolf Hitler Uunona? Adolf Uunona is not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Amelia Hamer

Amelia Hamer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion decision was taken despite an obvious lack of consensus for a deletion and against wikipedia guidelines on notability. The article clearly passes GNG with multiple sources of sigcov, but this was ignored as per the closers talk page because the closer didn't want to deal with a deletion review from pro-delete users by keeping the article. This isn't a legitimate reason for a delete decision. It also gives false legitimacy to the views of a group of pro-Delete users who aggressively misinterpreted essays regarding "presumed notability" as if they were a requirement for passing GNG, instead of supplementary information that aren't consensus in the first place. Articles need to be deleted or kept based on consensus and guidelines not because a closer thinks one side of an argument might be more annoying to deal with afterward.Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (involved) I am not sure what the formal appeal of a close is either, but I agree that in this case the best verdict would have been a "no consensus" close. Which in this case, would mean a restoration of the article to what it was during the AfD. The weight of the arguments in my view was tilted even towards the Keep side, but even if that is not the case, "No consensus" would have been and still should be the correct close decision. The closer, respectfully, even mentioned that this was a bit of a tortured decision. When it is that painfully close, and again, I do not think it really was, but in this case a "No consensus" is warranted and a restoration implemented. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some serious WP:ASPERSIONS being cast at @Ritchie333 here, you’re accusing them of deleting the article to avoid personal annoyance or something? GraziePrego (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of bad faith. This is his quote on his talk page "NC close would have probably resulted in those wanting to delete the article raising a deletion review anyway", and indication that he chose to delete instead of Keep/NC not on guidelines but personally wanting to avoid a review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. I have summarised the reason for the close both below and at the AfD. In fact, the reverse is true, if I wanted a quiet life I would close as "keep" to avoid bludgeoning here. (See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Unrealistic assumptions) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) I understand the perspective of those who !voted to keep. The guidelines at WP:NPOL create a bit of confusion and there is currently a discussion that will hopefully provide a bit more clarity. Amelia Hamer does not have any sources that establish notability outside of the 2025 Australian federal election and there is nothing extraordinary about her candidacy unlike that of Teresa van Lieshout or Katherine Deves, therefore I think the arguments of deleting were stronger. There is also a draft which can be improved, and if she wins the election the draft will be moved to main-space. If she loses then the draft can still be submitted to AfC if consensus changes. Also note I have nominated Roshena Campbell for deletion who's article is a very similar situation to Amelia Hamer.
GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is only "confusing" when it is incorrectly assumed to be a requirement that must be passed in addition to GNG or a reason to discount GNG passing sigcov. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (nominator) Fwiw, the point of determining a consensus isn't to get a majority vote, it's to decide whether the page meets the community's rules and norms. I feel that the stronger policy-based arguments were in favor of deletion, and I think that's consistent with the outcome for other unelected political candidate pages who aren't notable outside of campaigning. She might become notable, but she just isn't now (she isn't the first candidate to be accused of hypocrisy). But I'm the nominator, so I'm biased :^) BuySomeApples (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved), Ritchie is an experienced AFD closer whose closes are high quality. I think he would have correctly assessed that there were a number of keep !votes, which were casting aspersions about delete !voters being engaged in a partisan push and that such arguments were subpar and should be appropriately down-weighted. In general the keep !votes were of lower quality that the delete !votes. As per the argument above that the subject clearly passes GNG, that was the view of the keep !voters and no one else. TarnishedPathtalk 08:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The so called "aspersions" only started in the discussion in the first place because of this line from a delete commenter "The Aussies might not be aware that the richest man in the world is trying to cripple our charitable foundation by using political articles against us". Is it an "aspersion" to defend yourself from being accused of being on the side of Elon Musk and that wanting to keep an article means you are participating in a "springboard for crippling the foundation"? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That truly was a ludicrous comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved), the closing was premature. Spurred by this article, there's a very lively discussion over Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#Unelected_political_candidates_with_notable_coverage over how WP:GNG and WP:NPOL fit together. I think even the most ardent delete voters people would agree that the current wording of WP:NPOL does not square up with the (alleged) "consensus" that unelected candidates are not notable, even if their candidacy has have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (read: meets WP:GNG). Until this is resolved one way or another, we should not be deleting articles of political candidates that match this description. Jpatokal (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Overturn. An election campaign doesn't count as a "one thing" that can collapse all the independent coverage that would otherwise establish general notability. Newystats (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newystats register your thought then with a clear bolded !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see a clear consensus to delete the mainspace version - even clearer once you weigh the arguments based on their P&G merit. The appellant's argument here seems to be directed at the participants of the AfD. We're not here to discuss the article and its sourcing. We're here to review the process followed in that AfD. I think you have to be pretty biased to see an obvious lack of consensus for a deletion. I know exactly what Ritchie meant when he said, It's a hard life being an admin closing difficult AfDs!. As Liz often says, some AfDs are bound to reach DRV no matter how you close them. My read of the exchange on Ritchie's Talk page does not support the appellant's claim that he didn't want to deal with a deletion review from pro-delete users. Ritchie made the difficult, correct decision here despite knowing it would likely be challenged. Although frankly, I don't see this particular appeal as much of a challenge. Owen× ☎ 11:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even remotely true. There absolutely was a complete lack of clear consensus for a deletion. "No consensus" was the only "obvious" close. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn, do you intend of commenting against everyone who !votes endorse? TarnishedPathtalk 12:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off. I did not do so, and what is the purpose of this comment? Iljhgtn (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and restore article history to draft. When weighing the !votes based on P&G merit, there was rough consensus not to keep the article in mainspace such that a delete/draftify close was reasonable. However, there was no reason to delete the history of the article, particularly when parts of it were significantly more developed than the current draft version (specifically the election campaign). When an ATD is identified that would normally preserve the history of an article and there is no specific reason to delete it (e.g. copyvio or personal attacks), then it is best to find a way to maintain the history to assist in the development of the draft. Frank Anchor 13:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason that hasn't been done (yet) is because it's technically difficult to history merge the two independently-created and written pages together. However, if an admin experienced in history merges wants to give it a go, I don't think there'll be any objections. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, but please not while this DRV is open. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, understood and thanks for your response. Frank Anchor 14:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close (involved). There is a continued failure to assume good faith in disagreements on this article. The appellant is claiming that the AfD only went in favor of a deletion because the closer was lazy and the people who disagree with the appellant(?) are bad contributors who seek to be disruptive out of malice by doing some version of this appeal. There is a Wiki-etiquette against this exact thing laid out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I also want to note my disagreement with the idea that "no consensus" was a better way to close. AfDs are not a vote at a town meeting where closers are just expected to count the number of hands raised. They consider the substance of arguments which involves contributors explaining their viewpoint on the merits of the AfD using policies and yes, even essays. In that regard, I believe the sides were weighed appropriately. I also think keeping this in DraftSpace while deleting the article (which does not happen for most candidate articles) was not a compromise to placate those voting delete, but to preserve work that COULD be useful should this person get elected (personally, rooting for Labour from afar). I have never been asked to contribute to this kind of discussion. Am I expected to need to reiterate my views in favor of deleting the article or is my reply that I believe the closer acted reasonably a sufficient endorsement to close? --Mpen320 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mpen320, what you wrote here is sufficient. As an aside, even if we do go by nose-count in that AfD, those arguing against retention still have a clear, 2-to-1 majority there. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The decision to send the article to draft space is well within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as long as the article history can be recovered, I have no problem with the closure. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved). AfD discussions are decided by the arguments made for keeping or deleting an article. The closer has failed to explain why they came to conclusion that the delete side made the better case, and did so three times (on the AfD page, their talk page, and here). Omitting an actual explanation can't be excused by an AfD supposedly being "difficult". Cortador (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I see two issues. The first is whether an article should be in article space. The closing admin found that the deletion arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, and that was a valid conclusion (which also was consistent with a vote count). The second issue, if the article is deleted, is whether to draftify the existing article, or whether to delete the existing article and leave the draft standing. I am not sure that is being challenged, and I see no reason to question that closer's judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This argument is different from many deletion discussions and deletion reviews concerning political candidates in that it appears that opponents of the candidate want to keep her article. Usually it is supporters of a candidate who want to keep the article. Either way, being a political candidate is not ipso facto notability, and general notability must be established. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Usually it is supporters of a candidate who want to keep the article." 100% unsupported speculative assertion. I am not from Australia and do not even know of this woman prior to seeing the AfD. That said, the subject has clear notability as well established by the many cited reliable sources and deep and not routine or passing coverage of the subject. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis do you claim that those supporting the article be kept are political opponents of the subject of the article? Cortador (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon, I !voted delete and I am by no means of supporter of the candidate. I'm merely an editor who thinks we reduce our creditability by allowing the hosting of pages dedicated to nobodies. TarnishedPathtalk 22:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I based my comment on [1] rather than anything in this DRV, and I concede that it was not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't live in her state and I'm not a member of any political party. My comment was to provide important context of why her coverage was significant and not the "routine" coverage any generic candidate would receive in an election (such as being included on lists of nominations, minor biographies from party sites or the AEC). I stand by my original call that this was a Type 3 Speed Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep due to the scope, volume, and duration of coverage. While she is a political candidate, she is not covered solely in that context. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, point 5 under "Deletion review should not be used" "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". Deletion reviews are not for repeating the same arguments already discussed in the original AfD, this is to discuss whether the admin was procedurally correct in interpreting consensus and closing the discussion in the way that they did. GraziePrego (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Involved) As per WP:DRVPURPOSE, the point of a deletion review is not to relitigate the arguments made during the AfD, as many of the “Overturn” votes here are doing. The only argument to consider is “did the closer interpret consensus correctly”, and I believe they did. I certainly don’t believe the argument that the appellant and others have made that’s essentially accusing the closer of being lazy or scared of confrontation. GraziePrego (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I see no issue with the closing, it was entirely appropriate to be merged with an existing draft space article on the same where it can be developed appropriately and assessed before becoming an article. Gnangarra 10:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Bearcat's and ITBF's delete comments are particularly well thought out, and go into detail on why the article should be deleted. There aren't really any equivalently well thought out keep comments. Most just assert that the article meets GNG without a good explanation, if any. It seems many of the people who voted keep just want an axe to grind rather than wanting to improve Wikipedia. Steelkamp (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14 April 2025

Sikh–Wahhabi War

Sikh–Wahhabi War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletionist participants in the discussion cited reasons such as "pseudohistorical," "neologism," or "close paraphrasing" — issues that should have been addressed on the article’s talk page or referred to WP:CCI. There was a lack of focus on actual the topic and instead the discussion veered into discussing unimportant and irrelevant issues. Had the arguments been based solely on the sources provided, there would not have been a need for this DRV, even if the article had been deleted. However, the arguments presented clearly contradicted the sources, which offer extensive coverage and support 'Sikh-Barelvi War' as the most appropriate title." AlvaKedak (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close - The OP hasn't notified the AfD[2] of this discussion. CharlesWain (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The appellant notified the closer, and I've just added DRV notice on the AfD. Neither is a valid reason for a procedural close. Feel free to amend your !vote to address the merits of the case. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see a rough consensus to delete among the P&G-based arguments in that AfD. Some of the Keep votes carry no P&G weight at all, including the appellant's own "Speedy keep". An accusation of bad-faith AfD nomination is not a valid criterion for a SK close per WP:SK, especially without evidence supporting this accusation. Similarly, "No WP:BEFORE" is not a reason to keep an article after valid Delete arguments have already been entered. Having been a potential FA candidate is neither here nor there. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Good closure, the article failed WP:GNG and was created under a neologism invented by the author and therefore pseudohistorical. It was entirely plagiarised from the sources. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I also see a rough consensus to delete. With the exception of Rangers Rus, the "keep" advocates did not have a strong P&G basis for their !votes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971: Vague wave is not a rough consensus, and shouldn't be seen like it. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close with the the ability to recreate an article (possibly under Sikh Barelvi War or Syed Barelvi holy war against Sikhs per RangersRus and through the AFC process). Copyright violations are a sufficient reason to remove a page. --Enos733 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (closing admin) I have reread the discussion and don't see any other way I could have closed it but have no issue with this being opened. AlvaKedak, I don't think you meant anything by your use of "deletionist participants" and English may not be your first language, but that can be a loaded phrase here. In future discussions I'd suggest: "those who vote to delete" or similar language. Star Mississippi 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion review is for cases where deletion process has not been properly followed, not for where you merely disagree with the outcome reached. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) - I would differ from the closer, we have dozens of pages for the coverage, which have been provided in the AfD. For the sake of verification ease, here are the sources:
  • www.DiscoverSikhism.com. History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore (Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839). pp. 159–167.
  • Khān, Mu'Īn-Ud-Dīn Aḥmad (1968). "Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd's Campaign Against the Sikhs". Islamic Studies. 7 (4): 317–338. ISSN 0578-8072.
  • Adeem (2019-12-18). Sayyid Ahmad Barailvi His Movement And Lagacy From The Pukhtun Perspective By Dr. Altaf Qadir. pp. 54–191.

Given the sizable ammount of coverage, arguments indeed looked puny. The sources could have easily satisfied a non-partisan !voter. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alex O'Connor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedily deleted under WP:G4 because the page was deleted in 2024 for a lack of coverage in reliable sources. This page should not have been speedily deleted because the current version of it is much different than the page from 2024, containing more references covering the article's subject, such this article in The Atlantic. I contested the speedy deletion on the talk page but it was speedily deleted without addressing what I mentioned. Cyrobyte (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jason King (journalist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I can't really imagine how it was decided the the founder of The Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at New York University, now (several years after the deletion) Dean of the University of Southern California Thornton School of Music is not notable. ("Journalist" is long-outdated as a description, though he was one once.) Article may have been under-cited, or something like that, but he's a pretty heavy hitter. I would think that just founding the Clive Davis Institute (literally a unique institution within American academia) would be enough to make him unquestionably notable, and he is now dean of a department with roughly 1000 students and over 150 faculty members.

Here's the page about him on USC's site: https://music.usc.edu/jason-king/

I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, so if someone wants my specific attention, please ping me. Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but this was six years ago. If the situation has truly changed you can just remake the article - that doesn't mean the original ruling was wrong. I am also not sure it has changed because per WP:NACADEMIC "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone". If he is notable it's surely not for being a journalist so another disamb should probably be used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and encourage re-creation, using the old text as a starting point if desired since there were no allegations of G10-11-12-type content. I don't like the old discussions that much, but they were reasonable for their time and life moves on. I'd actually recommend a new article be written from scratch using current bio principles, inoboxen, etc. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but feel free to recreate if you believe sufficient sourcing exists now. Lots of things change in seven years. Star Mississippi 11:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct reading of consensus. Recreation is allowed and does not require DRV approval since the title is not salted. I have no objection to restoring the deleted version to draft for Jmabel to build upon it with sourced content from the past seven years. Frank Anchor 14:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no other way to read consensus in that discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if the appellant is asking us to overturn the previous AFD. But see: 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. Restoring the deleted article to draft space is probably a waste of time. Write a new draft or new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore it to draftspace pending an update since it's now more than seven years out of date, and, yes, the referencing was always subpar. Contra the statements in the AFD, it was at worst mildly promotional, so no harm using it as a base to work on. (Not nearly so bad as what Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music used to redirect to.) —Cryptic 16:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete to draft. I'm able to see the page via the Wayback Machine and there is some okayish prose in it that could be supported by citations and reused. The content is stale but not in any problematic way.—Alalch E. 17:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the consensus is clear. I'll get to it some time (my home wiki is Commons, and I'm busy there and on Wikidata for the next few weeks). FWIW, I ran across the absence of an article when adding a recent photo of him, from a conference I attended for which he was one of the principle organizers. I'm an admin, so I can undelete it myself as a draft to start from, just didn't want to do that if it was against consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Jmabel - In that case, why didn't you, being an admin, explain that you wanted permission to refund the draft, which we almost always routinely provide, rather than apparently challenging the old deletion? Or were you challenging the old deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

9 April 2025

Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre

Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with this merger. There was sustained, specific and detailed coverage, as documented by Raskolnikov.Rev(link) Huldra (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This isn't AfD round 2. We're not here to reassess sources presented at the AfD. Consensus among those relying on P&G was to merge the page. As an aside, the three "Snow keep" seem odd. All three were entered when there were barely any other !votes, so I don't see how they could claim WP:SNOW. I don't know if Asilvering counted them as "Keep", but I know I'd have trouble taking a "Snow keep" vote seriously when the only other !votes at that point are Merge, as was the case with the first of the three. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No policy-based keeps were present, as OwenX notes, and the article relies heavily on non-RS or sources such as Al Jazeera which have specifically been found to be unreliable in the I-P area. In a WP:CTOP area like this, scrupulous sourcing scrutiny should be strongly supported. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (reopen for consensus): As noted by various editors, we have sufficient sustained and detailed RS warranting a page, and there are, imo, a couple of serious procedural issues with the closure: (1) if we're assessing the outcome purely by the numbers, there were 8 !votes for merge and 7 for keep (I intended to change mine back to keep based on the argument presented by Mushy Yank.). That's far too close to claim "merge" as a consensus outcome. (2) The discussion was still actively ongoing, with the last !vote coming in just about an hour before the AfD was closed. For these reasons I believe the closure was premature, and we should have waited for a consensus to emerge. I'd also like to point out that some of the merge arguments strayed from policy-based reasoning (i.e. The most cogent criticisms of Wikipedia are that we're biased against Jews and women. We don't need this article at a time of existential crisis). Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - The review request has no policy rationale, and neither was any discussion raised on the closer's page. We don't overturn closes just because we don't like them. Smallangryplanet, above, suggests that preocedurally there was vote counting, but that appears speculative, as the closer never claimed that was behind their decision. Much more likely that they evaluated the arguments and found P&G favoured merge. Had there been discussion on the closer's talk page, that could have been teased out, but certainly we cannot suppose unevidenced (mis)reasoning. Also, Smallangryplanet says that discussion remained active, with a late !vote. However, since the relist, which ran for a further 8 days, the consensus was pretty solidly merge, and the late !vote only confirmed that. I don't think a further relist will help. I would note that Smallangryplanet made a point about how the merged material should be presented on the target page, and I'd support that. But that is an editorial decision for that page. Let's take it to there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Smallangryplanet did actually raise this topic on the closing admin's talk page. And he got an answer there:
    ...following the relist, 4/5 !votes were for a merge - I'm afraid the consensus did arise, and you simply disagree with it. [3]
    The discussion there also speaks about notability (or lack thereof). Bob drobbs (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Late !votes don't somehow carry more weight. I see 1 !vote (the nom) for deletion, 8 for merge, 6 for keeping. Some of the arguments for merger are just wrong (we generally treat news coverage as a secondary source). I don't see how either numeric or strength-of-argument consensus can be seen here. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobit, see WP:RSBREAKING: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources. It's not a subjective "we generally treat" thing, news coverage simply doesn't meet the definition of a secondary source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two issues: #1 the claim was that sources which work with eyewitnesses are primary sources in this context--that's just mistaken. Per our own article: "A secondary source is one that gives information about a primary source. In a secondary source, the original information is selected, modified and arranged in a suitable format. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." In this context, the eyewitness is the primary source and the journalist a secondary source. #2 Per WP:RSBREAKING "It is better to wait a day or two after an event." Many of the sources were written more than a day or two after. The guideline you link to applies to things that are "breaking" news and uses terms like "real time". We are well past that and thus it doesn't apply. As I said, the arguments discarding the sources in the keep !votes were just mistaken and so from a strength-of-argument viewpoint should be significantly reduced in weight by the closer. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is a common problem, I've also written my own essay to explain the issue and why it matters. I'll link it rather than posting several paragraphs here. User:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV is not for rehashing the arguments. The question is whether consensus was correctly interpreted. If you want to argue that eye witness news reports suddenly become secondary sources after two days have expired, you might want to take that up at WP:PRIMARY or WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the place for arguing consensus was wrongly interpreted. And yes, that is exactly what our guidelines say. If you disagree, go chase after Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. I don't think you'll find anyone will agree that needs to be deleted or merged, but it's all based on news sources in the last month. Are you really claiming that we shouldn't be covering topics like that? Hobit (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Some of the arguments for merging were poor ("it's a stub", a fundamental misunderstanding of what a secondary source is in this context by a lot of people). That we can write an article on the topic is not debated by anyone. WP:DEPTH is met. The only debate wrt coverage is WP:PERSISTENCE, but that isn't required Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.. Further, this is an event that almost anywhere else would have sustained new coverage and WP:BIAS should be a concern here. So A) I don't see a consensus to merge by the numbers or the arguments and B) per WP:BIAS we should be concerned about not having an article in a case if it happened in the "Western" world. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hobit What is the "fundamental misunderstanding of what a secondary source is in this context"?
    And no, bias is not a concern. If a country is particularly plagued by incidents such as bombings (Pakistan, which regularly has 10+ casualty incidents that are mentioned in the news for a day and then are never mentioned again) or mass shootings (South Africa or the United States) they are far less likely to receive secondary coverage than something happening in a country where that thing is unusual. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comments above. If you really feel that news sources cannot be used as secondary sources for purpose of notability, we'd lose a fair number of our article. I have an example of one. If you really believe that about news sources, send it to AfD.
    • I'm unaware of a mass shooting in the US with 10 casualties that we don't have an article on. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I posted the Afd. I endorse the close as merge. But I do agree with Hobit on this one point, and if nothing else it's important to get right for future Afds.
      Per wikipedia policy, news sources outside of "breaking news" (within hours of an event) are considered to be secondary sources.
      There's literally an "In The News" section at the top of the hompeage. Bob drobbs (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, you aren’t aware of it, because they are unknown ones that were not covered for long. There are many, many mass homicides in America that killed 20+ people that are not notable. Mostly arsons. With shootings there are a lot of cases that killed maybe less than 10, but close to it, that aren’t notable. Notability is not death toll, it is the coverage.
      I’m not saying all news sources, I’m saying news sources close to an event. Longer term ones (generally years later) tend to being secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) – too many editors are treating this like AFD round 2. Huldra's nom and Smallangryplanet and PARAKANYAA's votes both read much more like AFD !votes than like issues with the close itself, and it seems like a lot more IDONTLIKEIT than looking for actual issues with the closure. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t make any vote in this DRV, I was attempting to rebut one person’s argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry I meant Hobit. Saw your comment above mine and thought it was a !vote. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A close of merge was well within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (involved) There was no consensus for the closure and there is no reason that it should not be reopened until consensus emerges. Also I agree entirely with Hobit about the merits of the merge request itself. The topic received extensive, detailed and continued coverage in RS, establishing its notability.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - A reasonable conclusion by the closer. DRV is still not AFD round 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion review is for cases where deletion process is not properly followed. It is not for cases where you merely disagree with the outcome the deletion process reached. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 April 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Chen Haiyan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The draft was a product of an edit-a-thon where there should be ongoing improvement. Participants are recommended at the event to submit their drafts for review directly. However, most of them should be further developed. --1233 ( T / C） 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 April 2025

Category:8th-century establishments in Switzerland

Category:8th-century establishments in Switzerland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was alerted on my own talk page that I closed this one prematurely, having received only 1 !vote and not being a clear-cut WP:OCYEAR; the concern was that it is anachronistic because Switzerland did not exist at the time. In any case, it will need judgment from someone with knowledge of medieval history, other than the nominator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one who contacted Laundrypizza03. I don't think they necessarily closed it prematurely, I have no complaints about their closure per se, but as a kind of "soft delete", a CfD with minimal participation, I would like to see a relist or new discussion, as I think the arguments were flawed, and many similar discussions with the same people based around historical and "anachronistic" categories have recently closed as "keep" or "no consensus" when there was more participation. Unlike an AfD, I can't recreate the category differently, so any attempt to recreate the cat gets deleted pointing to this CfD. See e.g Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days#Establishments by continent, where it was even argued to delete old categories for Europe, Africa, Asia because they were anachronistic. For the ones at DRV here, e.g. the (IIRC) 20 entries in Category:12th-century establishments in Switzerland are now no longer accessible from the Category:Establishments in Switzerland by century tree and similar Swiss categories, even though these establishments existed for centuries in Switzerland and are an integral part of the history of that country, just like we have Category:Establishments in Italy by century spanning 30 centuries, even though Italy as a formal country only was established in the 19th century. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 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=1271841323"