Wikipedia:Deletion review
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
1. |
{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies 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".
The specific intersection no longer fails WP:BEFORE for the WP:OCEGRS guideline mentioned in the original discussion, see potential sources below all from the first page or so of search results.
- Krishner, Yonah. 10 Jewish YouTube Channels for Teaching Judaic Studies, Jewish Education Project.
- Lakritz, Talia. 5 ‘JewTubers’ To Watch, Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
- Miller, Jason. Jews in the Digital Age: The Off-the-Derech YouTuber, Detroit Jewish News. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was recreated and G4'd as Category:Jewish YouTubers, which I think would make more sense to undelete than the original. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- This also specifically came to my attention as a result of my work on Jacob Geller, an article which actually goes into some detail on the relationship between Jewish culture and the very medium of video essays, so I believe the 'specific context' of OCEGRS is met as well in addition to RS. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the CFD considered both Category:Jewish YouTubers and Category:YouTubers of Jewish descent. I still think that this is a non-defining intersection under EGRS. It requires that the combination is "itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic), as academically or culturally significant in its own right. The mere fact that such people happen to exist is not a valid criterion for determining the legitimacy of a category."
- The evidence I see here is that Jewish Youtubers happen to exist. Mason (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Restore non-defining intersection or non-encyclopedic cross-categorization means RS'es haven't commented on it. If RS'es have, it's defining enough. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I closed this discussion as "no consensus" because my reading of the delete arguments was that they were mostly on the borderline, and with a late keep argument coming in it seemed the discussion had not clearly come to a consensus to delete the article. The nominator Neocorelight disagreed with the closure, so I am asking for second opinions here. I think Liz felt the same way as she relisted the discussion twice, during which time no further comments were added. I then decided to close it as no consensus because relisting an AfD more than twice is frowned upon. That said, maybe this was an overly conservative "no consensus" relisting by Liz and closure by myself. Happy to change the closure based on a second opinion. What do you think? Malinaccier (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it was an error to give any weight to the lone "keep" at all; it was thoroughly and correctly rebutted. —Cryptic 14:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The weak keep vote came a day after the AfD started–in no way it is late–and has been rebutted by me and Maplestrip. There are one comment each after both relists, one by MetropolitanIC rebutting a list of source and favoring deletion. Overall there are four delete arguments–including mine–against one keep voter who doesn't respond further after being rebutted. I see a safe consensus to delete here. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete per my comment above. Neocorelight (Talk) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete Four deletes which include source analysis to one rebutted weak keep, that's a delete to me, even though I understand the no consensus. Non-English sources can be difficult to ascertain, but there were enough firm delete votes that it's a delete to me. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the one unqualified delete beside the nominator emphasized that the sources in Korean weren't "focused on" the topic, which isn't a requirement, weakening its rationale. Two relists clearly communicate that no consensus was on the table without additional opinions... which never materialized. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The same
editoredit said "I can't find any significant coverage". Which is a requirement. All the two relists show is that people are too eager to relist discussions that have reached a consensus. —Cryptic 00:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)- Deletion was certainly within the realm of possible closes, but it wasn't required, and closing as NC is certainly not wrong after two relists. I've certainly seen inappropriate relists challenged on the relisting admin's talk page. Did that happen here? Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's the relevance of me not challenging the relists? It was because I generally trust the process but not the result here. I think the close doesn't reflect the essence of the discussion so I challenged it. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- As soon as there's a clear consensus, a relist is wrong, because the discussion should have been closed per that consensus. For it to happen twice without challenge implies that the discussion participants were fine with waiting for more opinions or, in the absence of any more input, an NC close. Now, it sounds like that wasn't the case here, but that's how I "read" unchallenged, back-to-back relistings. Jclemens (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's the relevance of me not challenging the relists? It was because I generally trust the process but not the result here. I think the close doesn't reflect the essence of the discussion so I challenged it. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Deletion was certainly within the realm of possible closes, but it wasn't required, and closing as NC is certainly not wrong after two relists. I've certainly seen inappropriate relists challenged on the relisting admin's talk page. Did that happen here? Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The same
- Overturn (consensus to delete). I don’t think your closing explanation is substantive with respect to the discussion. Liz’s comment-free relists are meaningless. The late of the late keep is irrelevant, compared to its explicit weakness, implicit weakness, and threaded critiquing “only mentioned” and “single-sentence announcement”, which render the Keep !vote refuted. In contrast, the Delete !votes were well argued.
- If I were to have participated in the AfD, I would have !voted “delete” on the basis of no independent secondary sources, and google hits giving only unreliable (for Wikipedia) user fan sites, and due to the native language Wikipedia article being unlisted and presumable nonexistent.
- I would also criticise the AfD nominator for the weak nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- weak endorse The only real outcomes possible were delete and NC. NC was within closer discretion, especially with the weak nomination and fairly weak !votes. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to deletion – When I saw the 'no consensus' I was surprised, and strongly considered requesting a deletion review as well. I'm glad to see I someone else actually went through with it :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The category was deleted at CfD recently. It seems the users voting delete were under the belief that the category was meant for games released on the DVD format which includes thousands of games and is indeed "not a defining characteristic". But the category was actually for DVD games, interactive movie games that are playable on a DVD player. Only a fairly small number games could be included in the category (there were maybe less than 50 articles in the category when it was deleted). This category is similar to other video game platform categories like Category:Xbox 360 games, in this case the platform is a DVD player. Pinging Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs), Marcocapelle (talk · contribs), QuantumFoam66 (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika1h (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
There was a clear consensus to delete this article, not draftify it. Despite the closing statement, no one had expressed any particular willingness to work on it. The closest was the second draftify vote, however, that's just the result of LLM slop (see WP:ANI#AstridMitch for context). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete Just because someone specifies an ATD does not mean the closer has to select the ATD when consensus to delete is so clear. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Closer here) Three different participants, including the nom themselves, asked for draftification. Presenting this as
someone specifies an ATD
seems a bit disingenuous. Owen× ☎ 18:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)- With the benefit of hindsight, one of those draftifiers has been indef-blocked for paid editing concerns, and the delete !voters made clear that there's almost no chance of this ever becoming a mainspace article at its current title, and one of those supporting AtD seems to agree with that assessment. SportingFlyer T·C 05:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Closer here) Three different participants, including the nom themselves, asked for draftification. Presenting this as
- Endorse only one delete !voter opined that draftification was inappropriate. Now, it may never end up being suitable for mainspace, but that doesn't mean that the consensus of that discussion was that no one should even be allowed to try. Denying draftification is really for things that are already borderline G10-11-12, in my mind, and I suspect that's why more of the participants did not opt to speak specifically against draftification. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I count six variants of "start from scratch", and neither of the human-written draftify votes would have looked out of place with a "delete" stuck onto the front instead. Even if you were hellbent on a consensus-ignoring ATD supervote, a redirect to List of foreign military attacks on United States territory or maybe Invasion U.S.A., both of which were mentioned in the afd, would have been stronger. —Cryptic 20:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- ...and "start from scratch" is not incompatible with draftify. Sure, things can be sent to draft for a few more references, but they can also be given a complete overhaul. More to the point, if there's a redirect, the content stays indefinitely, but if it's draftified, it's gone with G13 if no one works on it, so a draftify result actually puts the content in more jeopardy than a redirection. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I count six variants of "start from scratch", and neither of the human-written draftify votes would have looked out of place with a "delete" stuck onto the front instead. Even if you were hellbent on a consensus-ignoring ATD supervote, a redirect to List of foreign military attacks on United States territory or maybe Invasion U.S.A., both of which were mentioned in the afd, would have been stronger. —Cryptic 20:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse while there was clear consensus that the article should not be kept in article space, there was certainly not
a clear consensus to delete this article, not draftify it
, as the appellant claims. Two voters explicitly support draftify as their first choice (not including a blocked sock), and only one delete voter made any case against draftifying, and it was a weak one (this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH
, something can be addressed while in draftspace). This close was not in any way, shape, or form, a supervote. Frank Anchor 12:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC) - Weak Endorse There were several participants that saw the requests to draftify and still supported the effort to delete. So, I think it would have been ok to close as delete (or redirect, which I think would have been more justified). However, as we do generally prefer ATD to deletion, so I understand the closing rationale, and do not think it was erroneous. --Enos733 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete to reflect the clear consensus.
- The delete recommendations were well reasoned and not rebutted or even engaged with.
- As Cryptic wrote above, several advocated starting over, such as one citing WP:TNT (shortcut to WP:Blow it up and start over, essay).
- There are two relevant WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion:
- 6: WP:SYNTH (shortcut to WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material, policy) was cited in three recommendations, and WP:OR (page shortcut) was mentioned in one.
- 5: WP:Content forks (guideline) was not cited specifically, but it follows from the redundancy with List of foreign military attacks on United States territory noted by two participants.
- I disagree with penalizing them for not addressing "draftifying" directly. They were clear that the article cannot be fixed ever, much less with the six-month G13 expiration.
- The draftify recommendations were reasonable, but I see no reason to give them extra weight.
- Excluding AstridMitch (blocked sockpuppet and LLM user), draftify was recommended by the first two participants, who did not return to react to the deletes. Also, as Cryptic wrote above, their rationales were not differentiated from deletes.
- In contrast with OwenX's closing statement,
if there are editors familiar with our notability guidelines willing to work on the page in draftspace
, I do not see offers or intent to develop the draft. It hasn't been edited in the two weeks since the AfD was closed.
- Is there a policy/guideline-backed justification for overruling WP:Consensus (policy)?
- WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD)
- I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions.
- Editing and discussion (shortcut WP:ATD-E):
If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
Even if this section applied to draftification, no one argued that the reasons for deletion could be resolved by any means. - Incubation (shortcut WP:ATD-I):
Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process.
No one proposed even a rough idea for this.
- WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD)
- If it is deleted and the draftify supporters or anyone else wishes to work on it, they can request draftification or userfication at WP:Requests for undeletion. That paperwork should be negligible compared to the complete rewrite. Alternatively, the page overlaps with List of foreign military attacks on United States territory and TV Tropes Invaded States of America, which can be used instead.
- Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back, along with the same arguments that misunderstand consensus. Consensus here was to draftify, and your proposed multi-step process violates WP:BURO. To wit, if an AfD'ed article was eligible for draftification and at least one participant suggested that outcome during the discussion, then there is no legitimate reason for deleting and then draftifying that article, rather than just straight draftifying it as happened here. Or am I missing some hidden value in the extra step? Jclemens (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone states their intention to work on the draft before this DRV is closed, I won't insist on deleting and undeleting it. I also replied to OwenX below. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're moderating your position somewhat, but I still see that as unnecessary bureaucracy. Why give them just a week, rather than six months? If this were a high-interest article, it would likely already have been noticed and addressed. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone states their intention to work on the draft before this DRV is closed, I won't insist on deleting and undeleting it. I also replied to OwenX below. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back, along with the same arguments that misunderstand consensus. Consensus here was to draftify, and your proposed multi-step process violates WP:BURO. To wit, if an AfD'ed article was eligible for draftification and at least one participant suggested that outcome during the discussion, then there is no legitimate reason for deleting and then draftifying that article, rather than just straight draftifying it as happened here. Or am I missing some hidden value in the extra step? Jclemens (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The delete recommendations were well reasoned and not rebutted or even engaged with.
- Overturn and delete in line with the very clear consensus at the discussion. When there is a clear consensus and a potential closer feels that the consensus is wrong, they should refrain from closing and instead !vote to try and convince others. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good advice, but I don't see the relevance to our case. I had no opinion about the article, and I still don't. I don't know if the consensus was "right" or "wrong"; I closed the AfD based on how I read the discussion, with no personal view on the article itself. Owen× ☎ 09:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're saying that with a totally straight face, aren't you. —Cryptic 13:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you believe I'm lying, I'd be happy to continue this over at AN/I. I don't take such baseless accusations lightly. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying I'm starting to think you honestly believe that the nearly 3/4 supermajority of participants in this discussion were lying when they said they wanted this page to be deleted. —Cryptic 15:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think any of them were lying. They all really wanted the page to be deleted. But I didn't see any valid argument against the draftification proposed by the minority. We routinely undelete to draft pages that were unanimously deleted at AfD. I saw no legitimate reason to deny such a request at AfD. The worst case risk of having the draft sit for six months before it gets G13'ed seemed minor. Owen× ☎ 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would endorse a closing statement like this: "The result was delete. To save [draftify supporter] from having to file at WP:Requests for undeletion, I have moved the page to [draft]." I believe that the difference in result is meaningful and that delete is more intuitive and less surprising than draftify. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's excessive formalism and against the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. What you describe is really just draftification. The "result" is not a particular verbal formula, the result is the practical outcome of the discussion (or lack thereof), and the specific words used to describe it do not matter. —Alalch E. 12:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would endorse a closing statement like this: "The result was delete. To save [draftify supporter] from having to file at WP:Requests for undeletion, I have moved the page to [draft]." I believe that the difference in result is meaningful and that delete is more intuitive and less surprising than draftify. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think any of them were lying. They all really wanted the page to be deleted. But I didn't see any valid argument against the draftification proposed by the minority. We routinely undelete to draft pages that were unanimously deleted at AfD. I saw no legitimate reason to deny such a request at AfD. The worst case risk of having the draft sit for six months before it gets G13'ed seemed minor. Owen× ☎ 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying I'm starting to think you honestly believe that the nearly 3/4 supermajority of participants in this discussion were lying when they said they wanted this page to be deleted. —Cryptic 15:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you believe I'm lying, I'd be happy to continue this over at AN/I. I don't take such baseless accusations lightly. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're saying that with a totally straight face, aren't you. —Cryptic 13:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good advice, but I don't see the relevance to our case. I had no opinion about the article, and I still don't. I don't know if the consensus was "right" or "wrong"; I closed the AfD based on how I read the discussion, with no personal view on the article itself. Owen× ☎ 09:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak endorse. This would have been more easily justified as a “Delete” with explicit permission to start a new draft on the topic, on the basis of the mentions of Draftify, three mentions of SYNTH, A “delete with TNT” which implies permission to start from scratch, and a deleted as a rambling essay which aligns with the SYNTH rationales. Where the driving reason to delete is WP:NOR, it is very common that some skeleton of the article can be used to create a new article. If someone wants to rescue the article, it doesn’t hurt if they read the deleted article, but doing so requires the authors of that article to be attributed (best practice if not black letter required), and this fits with the old article and it’s authors remaining the history of a TNT-ed new version. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that TNT is usually cited incorrectly, and this is no exception: WP:SYNTH is not referenced anywhere in WP:TNT. "Hopelessly SYNTH" is actually a great argument for stubbifying, but TNT is based on the religious belief (no empirical support) that red links generate better new articles--this assertion has gotten even more ridiculous since all the closing tools now appear to de-link to the deleted article by default. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- endorse The bar for deleting a draft wasn't met. Of those that addressed drafting, 2 gave good reasons to move it to draft space, while 1 gave a weak reason (SYNTH isn't really a reason to delete a draft AFAIK) not do so. It is unclear exactly what to do with situations like this (draft suggested, other argue for delete but don't address drafting) and I think a discussion on that topic would be helpful so we can all agree on how to handle cases like this. For now, it's unclear exactly how to handle this so I think the admin could have gone either way. Thus, I have to endorse. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. When someone has announced an intention to work with the content in draft space, the bar for draftification can be set reasonably low. This result keeps the page out of article space until the policy issues are dealt with, and the rules limit the time it can remain unworked on in draft space. There were no convincing arguments for why letting someone work with it cannot be done. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was previously speedy deleted over copyright infringement. I would like to recreate it as a redirect to Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor since the organization is often referred to as the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor in sources.[1][2][3][4] References
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This article, like a large number of Doug Coldwell's GAs, was delisted as a GA (part of WP:DCGAR) and deleted presumptively, on the basis that he had been close paraphrasing tons of stuff for a decade. Well, I was the reviewer for the GA nomination, and I suppose it is unusual to actually check all the sources during a GA review (??), but I did when I reviewed it, and I didn't see anything. If there is any actual evidence that this article was a copyvio, then fine, I have no objection to it being deleted, but otherwise, I don't think it is reasonable for it to stay in the shadow realm forever. The process of me doing a typical Doug GA nom involved the better part of a day extensively copyediting and writing, so it is fairly disheartening to have it all thrown in the trash without any actual evidence that the article is a violation. jp×g🗯️ 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers:, who should have been notified about this DRV. I believe this is the relevant CCI. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with any individually-suspected COPYVIO article being restored to sandbox for checking and updating for a reasonable period of time. CP gives 1 week initially, so I don't see why we can't undelete and dole out one week extensions as long as work is either verifying no copyright issues exist or identifying and remedying issues that are found. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Is this a request to overturn the G12, or a request to recreate the deleted article for re-review? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I do not have a detailed knowledge of the Good Article Review process, but I think that the fact that hours were spent on copyediting or rewriting an article, rather than declining the article because it needed copyediting, illustrates that something is or was wrong with the process, that facilitated its abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you're supposed to fix the problems, rubberstamping them is frowned on. Typically this would be a collaborative process with the original author, but Doug tended to be very slow about fixing stuff, so I just took to doing it myself. jp×g🗯️ 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is purely technical - it was deleted because it was at CP for more than 7 days. There is a good claim that it is NOT a copyvio, so we should handle this request carefully, but I do think it deserves a second look. I'm not sure how to suggest to do that. A sandbox seems like a good spot for it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- An administrative review under COPYVIO rules may be a better option now that I'm coming back to this, possibly by the closer of this DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- JPxG, have you reviewed the offline sources more recently than Talk:Thomas Jefferson Ramsdell/GA1 in late March 2021? WP:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 was expanded in 2022 and 2023 because the true extent of the problems was not yet known. The article's listing at WP:Copyright problems/2023 March 29 mentions "numerous offline sources that can't be checked." (diff) Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I posted notifications at WT:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 (diff), WT:Good article reassessment/February 2023 (diff), and WT:Copyright problems/2023 March 29 (diff). Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm disinclined to support the restoration of anything with significant contributions from Doug Coldwell. The copying, misrepresentation of sources, and general low quality were very pervasive. I might support restoring the article as a draft if someone is willing to go through it with a fine tooth comb and really check for copyvio, close paraphrasing, and text-source integrity. My preference would be to have someone just grab the references and put those in draftspace or userspace, and then for jpxg or any other interested editor to write the article themselves. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel it was an unjust deletion process as the article was blanked out just before deletion. Books sources and other credible references not considered. He is a billionaire and was voted most powerful business man in the middle east many times. Also he is a CEO of a global company in many countries with nearly 30000 employees 111.92.81.56 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tariq_Chauhan_%282nd_nomination%29
Books featuring him
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Marketing_Communications_and_Brand_Devel/V0hxEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA197&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.81.56 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Some references that seem to be credible
4) https://www.khaleejtimes.com/supplements/cornerstone-of-progress
7) https://www.europeanceo.com/awards/2014/tariq-chauhan/
8) https://www.khaleejtimes.com/supplements/a-celebration-of-economic-growth
11) https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/top-100-ceos-2023/tariq-chauhan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.81.56 (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The appellant failed to notify the closing admin, @Star Mississippi:, of this deletion review, as is required by the deletion review policy. Frank Anchor 14:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Each of the links in the book section and #3, 4, 6, and 11 in the references section were discussed directly in the afd. I've looked at the first three of the others and they so clearly contain no biographical information that I'd consider them within discretion for an admin to G4 a recreation of the article. And I still consider the work we (and by "we" I mean User:Alalch E.) had to go through, assessing and documenting every single source used or even suggested, in order to delete an article that was cobbled together out of press releases and linkedin posts, an unconscionable theft of labor. —Cryptic 14:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree on this. There was not even 1 linkedin post or press releases. Pls show me a LinkedIn post among 30+ sources. To say it was primarily LinkedIn posts is absurd to say the least.
- What about the continuous vandalism, bullying or aggression done on the page removing information about where he was born , what he does was, alma matter was unwarrantied to say the least(111.92.81.56 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC))
- It was the article whose text was partially pulled from linkedin, not your source dump. —Cryptic 15:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly again the statement is not true. Yes i am resigned that there is nothing i can do now as editors are unified on falsehood, vandalism, aggression and bullying 111.92.81.56 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was the article whose text was partially pulled from linkedin, not your source dump. —Cryptic 15:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cryptic for the notice. Endorse my close. Sources were found to be insufficient and there was no viable AtD to consider. IP, please don't bludgeon this as you did the AfD. Star Mississippi 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the source analysis table made it clear that the subject did not meet GNG. Likewise, Alalch E's analysis of the sources presented by the IP keep voter showed they lack the significance/reliability needed, particularly for a BLP article. While the numerical vote total is a relatively even split, the delete voters make a much stronger argument. Frank Anchor 16:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, involved, as nominator. A statement by the closer would have been helpful, but the closer, like the participants, were tired of the filibustering by IP addresses, which, like a filibuster in a senate, was intended to interfere with or delay routine business.
- The IP Keep votes consisted mostly of URL Dumps, and were negated by the source analysis by Alalch E. A closer may in particular discount IP contributions when there is evidence of conflict of interest.
- The article was not blanked before nomination. It was stubbed before nomination, because it had never been anything but a padded stub. The nominator said that the title was not being salted, and the originator could submit a draft with reliable sources. They chose to continue to filibuster from IP addresses, maybe because they don't have a plausible draft.
- Recommend that this subpage be semi-protected.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved). A correct reading of consensus among P&G-based views. Owen× ☎ 23:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved). The WP:SPA "keep" !votes did not articulate policy-based reasons for retention, and were fully rebutted by "delete" !voters. The consensus was correctly interpreted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and this and recent past events make me wonder if we should consider taking away the ability of unregistered users to contest deletion decisions here. There is a possibility a true miscarriage of a deletion discussion might be missed, but when was the last time an IP address nominator actually brought forward a meritorious argument at DRV? Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt you'd agree with me if I said July 5, so looks like June 28. —Cryptic 04:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC) Also pretty widespread agreement on July 24 that the G4 was improper, even though we're headed towards endorsing on other grounds, and it's at least debatable whether to consider that IP solely as an IP. —Cryptic 04:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reality check. I guess the bad IPs overshadow the good ones in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Although I think that restricting IP editors from filing DRV requests may be a good idea, I think that readiness to semi-protect DRV subpages should be a useful earlier step. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt you'd agree with me if I said July 5, so looks like June 28. —Cryptic 04:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC) Also pretty widespread agreement on July 24 that the G4 was improper, even though we're headed towards endorsing on other grounds, and it's at least debatable whether to consider that IP solely as an IP. —Cryptic 04:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note to OP and IPs - DRV is not a forum for conduct complaints such as allegations of bullying and vandalism. Complaints of bullying should be made at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Complaints of vandalism should be made at WP:AIV. Editors who make empty allegations of conduct such as bullying or vandalism at DRV or AFD can be assumed not to be filing those complaints in a conduct forum because they know that there has not been bullying or vandalism. They are Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute. Be aware that claims of vandalism when there is no vandalism are personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- In fairness, I haven't been able to regoogle the common text between linkedin and early versions of the article that I saw when I made my comment at AFD. There's one phrase that's still duplicated on linkedin, the "one of the most powerful businessman in UAE" (sic) one, but it's now only in a post that postdates its inclusion in the article. I didn't want to revdelete at the time, since the article was on afd anyway and I didn't want to make the pre-restubbification versions inaccessible. —Cryptic 05:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The parent (container) category and multiple subcategories for individual countries were merged with Category:Naturalized citizens by country. There are several ways to acquire citizenship of a country other than "naturalization", the precise definition of which varies by country but generally includes a requirement that the person is normally resident and working in the country, and may involve some kind of cultural knowledge test. Depending on local laws there are other ways to acquire citizenship of a country, for example by ancestry, or by investment, or even by outright bribery. Many have acquired Maltese citizenship by investment, for example, but that doesn't make them naturalized Maltese. This merge was ill thought out, had minimal participation, and has had many unforeseen consequences. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not much of a CfD follower, but it looks like this same argument was raised in the CfD and other !voters rejected it. That is, it looks like the argument here is that consensus was clear... but incorrect on the merits. Is that right? If not, what am I missing? Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The previous discussions was closed after very limited involvement and without proper consideration of the issues it would created, such as Category:Naturalised citizens of Saint Kitts and Nevis, all of whom are basically dodgy businessmen who've probably never visited the country in their life. This is a very ill thought out merge, and should be reversed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment to User:Jclemens - That is how it looks to me. I don't think DRV is CFD round 2 either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- ... ... ... Is it common at CFD to add pages to discussions after they're already closed, like this? That wouldn't be tolerated at any other deletion venue, whether it had been tagged or not. —Cryptic 03:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly not normal, but appears to have been done by the closer, rather than a nominator. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It happens quite often in bulk nominations, when many pages are tagged, that one or two of them are then overlooked when manually compiling the list in the nomination. If anyone had visited the tagged category, they would have found the CFD template there with the correct link to the nomination, so they could have commented in the discussion – probably without even noticing that the category was missing from the list. It's my regular practice to belatedly correct the gap in the nomination in such cases, if I find it when implementing the rest, so that the discussion can be found by "What links here" rather than having to go through the page history. Likewise, I would belatedly correct other errors in the list, e.g. mistyped category names, for the same reason. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly not normal, but appears to have been done by the closer, rather than a nominator. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, DRV is not XFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support reversing merge "People with acquired citizenship" is plainly more neutral and accurate. I also question whether consensus was fully established in the first place; the jus sanguinis issue was mentioned but not clearly resolved. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Endorse - DRV is not CFD round 2. The result was wrong, but that is not within the scope of DRV. The close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment as closer: I believe I correctly found the consensus of the discussion. It had been open for 3 weeks, and the principal opposer Buidhe had stopped replying. I implemented the close by redirecting the merged categories, which I hope will be helpful if a subsequent CFD discussion results in consensus to undo the merge or to merge in the reverse direction. I merged the Wikidata items in a few cases, but only where there were no other Wikipedias with both categories. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - to the people saying "DRV is not CFD round 2", is this catchphrase more important than improving the encyclopedia? Because a lot of people have now been defined as "naturalized" citizens of some country or other when they are nothing of the sort. This was a fairly obscure discussion that most people weren't even aware of and where valid objections were ridden over roughshod by the tyrrany of the majority. WP:IAR applies here, is the encyclopedia actually better as a result of the merge? Because I think it is significantly worse. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- MaxBrowne2, if that is the problem, then the correct procedure is to start a new CfD discussion, not to contest a valid close. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Received a challenge to a G4-based speedy deletion basically claiming that the new article had been created with permission. The article Operation Swift Retort (film) was deleted in 2019 following an AFD discussion. Another article on the same subject was created in 2021, and I accepted the speedy deletion request in 2024 since I found the subject matter, and sourcing too be much the much the same, even though the prose was different. Submitting for review whether my application of G4 was appropriate, and as always with reviews on my deletions, I will take a neutral stance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to offer my perspective on this matter. This film is not self-promotional or fake; it is officially associated with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The film's production was authorized by the PAF, as reported by Gulf News and other news outlets.[1]
- The film has been broadcast on several television channels:
- 92 News (2020)
- Samaa TV (2022)
- ARY News (2023)
- Channel 24 (2024)
- There are numerous mentions of the film and the filmmaker in 17 Urdu newspapers (Roznama 92 News, Dunya News, Express, etc.)[2][3] Also Urdu news outlets (Daily Pakistan, Urdu Point, etc.)https://www.roznama92news.com/efrontend/web/index.php/?station_id=1&page_id=6&is_common=&xdate=2023-10-21. The film's notability is further evidenced by coverage in English-language sources:
- Geo News[4]
- Gulf News[5]
- The News International[6]
- The News International (Newspaper and In-step magazine)[7]
- Pakistan Observer[8]
- Dunya News[9]
- These sources are not paid endorsements and do not include disclaimers. These are primary and I can provide 10 more references that are secondary.
- In 2020, three editors suggested that while the film may not warrant its own Wikipedia page, it should be mentioned on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page. Consequently, a brief, referenced description of the film was added. However, this edit was reversed by Saqib in 2024 approx after 5 years, who deemed it promotional and removed the film's name without providing a clear reason. I have brought this to the attention of an administrator, along with evidence of the film's prior inclusion on the page.
- I question how an edit made in 2020 could suddenly be considered promotional in 2024, especially when multiple editors were aware of the film's presence and raised no concerns. It appears that Saqib may have a bias against content related to the armed forces.
- I believe administrators should determine whether the film deserves its own page. If not, I urge them to revert Saqib's edit and reinstate the brief description of Operation Swift Retort on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page, as it was originally added in 2020. The film is notable, official, and the only animated film produced in Pakistan in 2019. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
--182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Requesting temp undeletion of both the (film) and (short film) titles. Public log shows creation in May 2023 and deletion in July 2024. I find it difficult, though not impossible, to believe that an article would stand and presumably be edited for over a year and still be subject to G4. Frank Anchor 13:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, the pages are restored at Operation Swift Retort (film) (for the original version deleted in 2019), and Operation Swift Retort (short film) (for the version under discussion here). Access the page history for the contents. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Frank Anchor 16:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The version deleted at afd (since there's been g4s at the (film) title too) is here. —Cryptic 18:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sjakkalle, May I ask if this undeletion request was made by email? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it was. I am not at liberty to discuss contents of emails however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sjakkalle, May I ask if this undeletion request was made by email? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Frank Anchor please add some Urdu references which are available in 2023 and not in 2020. Please also check 2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes section where this film has mentioned there as per the 3 editors who were agreed earlier on that a section should be there so it would be great if the section has been restore too.
- Geo News, Dunya News, Gulf News are enough to show the notability while in extra it has 92 News, Daily Pakistan, UK Film review, Urdu Point, The News International and others. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, the pages are restored at Operation Swift Retort (film) (for the original version deleted in 2019), and Operation Swift Retort (short film) (for the version under discussion here). Access the page history for the contents. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic discourse that is largely related to user conduct and falls below the standards expected at DRV. If there are significant user conduct issues, please take them (with evidence) to ANI. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
I am appalled that the creator of this short films DJ Kamal Mustafa made numerous physical threats off-wiki, yet the promotional/military propaganda pages are restored. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
|
- Endorse Firstly, if this SPI report confirms, the master account is Dj1kamal which was blocked in 2015, (see this) making these two creations (Operation Swift Retort (film) and Operation Swift Retort (short film)) violations under G5. However, if we disregard this aspect, this is an advertisement and PROMO article created by a blocked @Devoter and Memon KutianaWala, to boost the profile of DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film. Upon reviewing the sources cited on this article, much of the coverage either falls within the WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or consists of routine/ROTM coverage lacking independent, in-depth/significant coverage. Given that DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film, is also a journalist, he has been successful in garnering some press coverage for his short movie, however, the coverage still falls short of meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:SIGCOV. An article on same topic was created under different titles such as Operation Swift Retort (film), Operation Swift Retort (short film), Operation Swift Retort (2019 Film) and finally deleted in 2019 via AFD with a clear consensus in favor of deletion. It appears most of the references currently being cited in this article were also debated in the previous AFD and none of them could satisfy the GNG. Yet they're shamelessly promoting this and their other works on pages like this, this and this.
Fwiw, these articles has seen significant editing activity by blocked socks, suggesting it was in clear violation of WP:TOU and and there was also repeated attempts to create a BLP on DJ Kamal Mustafa which was also deleted via AfDs here, here, here as well here. And I'm unsure what's this about? Furthermore, DJ Kamal has sent me multiple off-wiki physical and legal threats, with evidence available upon request via email.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC) - Overturn G4 as the two versions are not
sufficiently identical
(There is at least one reference in the new version that postdates the version deleted at AFD). However, I would support speedy deletion as G5 as the article creator and most significant contributors are blocked socks. No objection to any good-faith attempt to recreate this page, though I am not convinced this DRV was made in good faith. Frank Anchor 18:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Adding that I oppose salting any title. Frank Anchor 10:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn G4/Keep deleted as G5 per Frank Anchor. Having the same defects isn't enough for G4, it really has to be substantially the same article--that is, without any substantive changes--for G4 to count. Anything else may well be a slam dunk at AfD, but should not properly be G4'able. G5 appears to have been discovered after the fact, but would still appear to be an applicable criterion. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
*Weak Overturn the G4, and send to AFD - I don't like the overturn, and there has been a lot of misconduct, but I don't see a valid speedy deletion.
|
- Endorse a G5 or change the speedy deletion reason. I am now satisfied that the originator was already blocked. Striking previous !vote.
- The (short film) and the (film) are just different enough that this isn't WP:G4.
- The changes in the title of the article are a clear case of the gaming of titles. See also Operation Swift Retort (2019 Film).
- Too many of the edits to the article have been by sockpuppets.
- Salt all the titles in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- G5 would have been correct and makes the rest of this largely academic, but since the deleting admin's asking for guidance, here's some.There's some minimal amount of discretion in determining what changes are substantive, but I think the last version at Operation Swift Retort (short film) barely squeaks by as substantive (I haven't examined the prior G4s). The prose changes really weren't: there's no new claims of substance there, so it comes down to the references. Of those, #2, 3, 5 and 6 were in the version deleted at AFD. #1 is trivial and #4 is a copy of our article at Operation Swift Retort about the underlying event; both are very plainly not substantive changes. #7 and #8 are both written by the film's creator, are fairly promotional, and are identical, so they don't pass the laugh tests for reliability or independence. #9 contains four very brief sentences that add no information not in the other sources; I consider it within discretion too.Ref #10, though, I don't. I'd be astounded if it made a difference at afd - I doubt the site would be considered reliable or discriminate (what with the nagging to let them "review your film" on every page view), and am very much not impressed with the tone, depth, or professionality of the review itself - but unless there's some obvious proof I'm missing that it's user-generated-content or such, I don't think it's a clear enough call for a single admin to make.Not that that should stand in the way of salting, further deletions, blacklisting, or other enforcement as appropriate; there's been enough recreation by known sockpuppets that if your AGF-o-meter isn't already exhausted, there's something wrong with you. If an established, known-legitimate user wants to recreate this, the afd won't stand in the way, but if someone tries again within their first dozen, or hundred, or even several thousand edits like the Memon KutianaWala reincarnation had, too bad. —Cryptic 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse but please change to a G5 reason. I think both versions of the article wouldn't survive an AFD even without the socking as the promotional odor is strong here and the sources are weak at best. I think the two versions are different enough that G4 probably shouldn't have been used - there's a lot of the same junk sources and given the rather small amount of material available, a lot of the same information and given the history of this, understandable why G4 would be used. Ravensfire (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted because it didn't have in depth explaination of the page. According to the editor who nominated this article for deletion, no one added sufficient information in the article. Please Allow Recreation of the page as I'm ready to recreate the article with sufficient information. Hashid 05:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC) -->
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was deleted after the individual who requested the deletion mutilated the page by removing key links and information on the notability of the subject and in the process skewing the page to look bad. The page was created around 2008 because of the notability of the individual in many respects including:- 1. Earliest Nigerian blogger since 1997 and created the website Dawodu.com. There are more than 50 Wikipedia articles that reference this website to show its significance in contributing to discussion on Nigeria’s socio-economic, political and historical issues. 2. He was one of the pioneer editors of the Knowledge Now (https://now.aapmr.org), a repository of articles in physical medicine and rehabilitation in the world hosted by the American Academy of Physical Medicine (AAPMR)and also pioneer author of articles on this platform. Inquiries can be made to AAPMR through their website AAPMR.org. 3. He was one of the pioneer authors of various articles on Emedicine that later became part of MEDSCAPE (MEDSCAPE.com) which is the number one website of medical articles in the world and that was as far back as 1998. His article on spinal cord injury and causa equina on MEDSCAPE was a reference for Emergency Room doctors in managing such conditions. Some of these were fully discussed in the past at a previous attempt to delete the site. The question that the editor that requested deletion needs to answer is why did he delete relevant references and mitigated the article before requesting the deletion of the article. One can see this as evidence of possible malice. I do hope that this will be reviewed as soon as possible and allow the discussion to continue for another week to enable more people participate. Attempts were made by me behind the scene to ensure that the person that requested deletion will consider the above and withdraw the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckanopueme (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Joe Lonsdale (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was deleted in 2021 with only two non-sockfarm !votes — one from an editor who wanted to avoid rewarding apparent UPE, and one from an editor who felt the coverage was trivial. I don't think the deletion was unreasonable given the !votes, nor do I think the trivial coverage concern was unwarranted given that some editors had stuffed the page full of ~60 references that were largely trivial. However, I think some of the old sources combined with substantial available new sourcing justify undeletion, and I'm happy to do the cleanup necessary after the page is restored. Lonsdale is notable as a founder of Palantir and later OpenGov and University of Austin. He is also among a group of politically active tech financiers who are pretty regularly covered in the news (most recently in a spate of coverage about a new super PAC for which he is evidently helping to fundraise — see NYT, etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I've created an undeletion request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/OldHeader.
Graeme Bartlett recommended (Special:Diff/1235028837) getting consensus here first. —andrybak (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged 121.242.91.74 (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group was deleted last week as G11; I believe that is what this is referring to. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- ... and this has been before us twice before and endorsed on similar grounds: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 9, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 8. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Close and semi-salt all relevant draftspace titles so that only registered users can create drafts in the future. Enough is enough. Given the history, I'm not even wanting to ask to see the deleted material before assuming that G11 is once again valid. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't mention the company's "economic journey", but it has most of the other hallmarks. In particular, most of the external links in the absurd refbombing are showing up as already-visited to me (though I don't remember taking more than a cursory look in previous visits to DRV); this is typical of the new ones.The sad thing is, the claims in the draft are such that I'd expect there to be usable sources on it somewhere, but you'd have to be daft to try looking for it among all the shallow promotion they've paid for.I'll try to work out a regex less gameable than the one I tested in November, but something's changed such that these queries, which used to complete in minutes, have been running for more than an hour now and show no signs of stopping. For just an autoconfirmed+ blacklisting, it seems like wasted effort. —Cryptic 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- (And, as usual, it completed almost immediately after I complained that it wasn't going to complete. The public version at quarry:query/84908 should eventually get populated, maybe quickly if it cached well, maybe not. There were a couple new deletions since the November try, no new false positives, and nothing that would be caught by the wider regex that wouldn't have been by the old.) —Cryptic 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't mention the company's "economic journey", but it has most of the other hallmarks. In particular, most of the external links in the absurd refbombing are showing up as already-visited to me (though I don't remember taking more than a cursory look in previous visits to DRV); this is typical of the new ones.The sad thing is, the claims in the draft are such that I'd expect there to be usable sources on it somewhere, but you'd have to be daft to try looking for it among all the shallow promotion they've paid for.I'll try to work out a regex less gameable than the one I tested in November, but something's changed such that these queries, which used to complete in minutes, have been running for more than an hour now and show no signs of stopping. For just an autoconfirmed+ blacklisting, it seems like wasted effort. —Cryptic 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy close, endorse and salt all relevant titles per Jclemens above. I would do this myself but I closed the last DRV so, with no pressing need to intervene, would rather another administrator do it. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Do not SALT. SALTing in draftspace encourages the game of cat and mouse with using variations on the title. Draftspace exists to attract and contain unworthy content, let it serve its purpose. It’s easier to keep deleting the same title than variations on the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, speedy close, and title-blacklist for non-autoconfirmed users. Enough now. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yeah... title blacklist is probably the better solution. Never used it myself, so I keep forgetting it exists. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER (a recommendation from the previous DRV). I feel like blacklisting is going to be robust enough of a solution to figure as a net postive.—Alalch E. 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Off-topic: Tariq Chauhan slipped through. —Alalch E. 16:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Alalch E. - Not entirely off-topic. The one sentence that is left about Tariq Chauhan is not enough to pass general notability, and has been nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse all previous deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Title Blacklist and list at WP:DEEPER (as recommended in previous DRV). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do Not Salt in draft space. Useless drafts that cannot be accepted are harmless in draft space. Salting in draft space encourages the gaming of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- ECP Salt in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)