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
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.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
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.
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 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".
Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award
- Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
WP:JUSTAPOLICY WP:JUSTA Nayyn (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Well attended discussion (for a CfD), policy-based reasoning, only the appellant disagreed with the outcome. I don't see how that could have been closed any other way, and specifically endorse this as a valid NAC. I'm sorry the outcome wasn't the way you would have liked Nayyn. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - This was a valid close, and the most appropriate close. The argument that the appellant sort of gives is more applicable to this appeal than to the CFD. WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA mean that an editor made a vague wave at a policy, but this is a vague wave at an essay on arguments to avoid. Also, this is not CFD round 2, but being one of the highest honors is not the same as being a defining characteristic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - In the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions essay, it says:
. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.
The AFD I initiated was closed with a "keep" decision, but I've concerns. Some IPs (WP:LOUTSOCK) voted "keep" based on some WP:ROTM coverage, which I countered. And just before closure, @Libraa2019 voted "keep" without adequate time for source assessment., @Libraa has a history of throwing 'keep' votes based on ROTM coverage. If possible, reopening the AFD would allow me to assess the sources provided by @Libraa. I've always understood AFD closures to be based on policy, not vote counts alone, and this closure is demotivating. Fwiw, the page was also created and heavily edited by UPE sock farms. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse:
reopening the AFD would allow me to assess these sources properly
- how so? What prevents the appellant from doing this source assessment now? If the sources provide only ROTM coverage, what difference does it make whether they were provided by anon IPs or established editors? I don't understand the basis for this appeal.
- After being open for three weeks, the nomination failed to receive a single supporting !vote to delete. I don't see how relisting it for a fourth week will achieve anything beyond giving the appellant the opportunity to bludgeon that final Keep view. Even if all the Keep views are proven to have come from a single sock farm, this would still be closed as N/C. I'm okay with an early renomination. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX, OK, I'll do a source assessment here related to coverage provided by @Libraa. This also raises a question. If, due to a lack of participation, an AFD receives a few "keep" votes, who cite some coverage that doesn't easily satisfy GNG, should the decision be based on the vote counts and not on the source assessment and/or counter arguments? (talk I contribs) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed source assessment. But again, what would you have us do with it? Even if none of those sources provides SIGCOV, what are we to do - relitigate the AfD? Overturn to N/C? I've closed several AfDs where you were the nom or a participant. It's clear that you have the best interests of the project in mind, but your style often comes across as unnecessarily confrontational. Your request to reopen this AfD, after it was relisted three times, strikes me as an attempt to have the last word in it, without any reasonable expectation of changing the practical outcome. I know being right is important to you, but using your time constructively is often more important. Maybe start a merger discussion (to 7th Sky Entertainment?), get other editors involved, and if no consensus is reached there, at least the next AfD for it might be better attended. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX, In the past, I used to nominate AFD and then disengage, only to find them kept due to non-policy-based reasons that I didn't challenge at the time. So after returning from a wikibreak, I decided to engage in AFDs more actively, particularly when I feel that non-policy-based arguments or keep votes based on ROTM coverage would influence outcomes unfairly. My intention is to simply to ensure that decisions align closely with WP:N. And I want to clarify that I've been lately working to avoid being confrontational in my AFD interactions. Regarding the DRV, my main concern is highlighting the issue of how low participation can allow some IPs to rescue some pages so easily. That being said, if you feel this DRV was unnecessary, I'll leave it at that. (talk I contribs) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can acknowledge that you recently have, indeed, been more amenable to walking away from an AfD debate if it turns too acrimonious, and I commend you for that. But I can't recall cases where you were able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with you. Suggesting a viable ATD is often a good way to sway things away from keeping a page that isn't independently notable. Very few pages actually violate policy to the point where they need to be deleted. I know you only strive to ensure decisions comply with WP:N, but I'm not sure you're always going about it the best way. I don't think it was wrong of you to bring this to DRV. The topic of anon IP participation in AfD is worth discussing. But I still think a merger discussion, or failing that, renomination in two months, per Frank Anchor, would be more fruitful in this case. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX, Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion) where I was able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with me. But I think this might be an instance where an editor withdrew their keep vote after I countered it. Anyways, your comments were encouraging, and I appreciate that you acknowledged the topic of anonymous IP participation in AfD as worth discussing. I have no hard feelings about this page being kept, so this DRV can be closed now. No offense to @Doczilla: even though this comment was discouraging. I wasn't arguing with them; I was just providing counterarguments. P.S. I'm observing an AfD (where my !vote is neutral) where some editors are debating as if it's the end of the world. Cheers! (talk I contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- re: "Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion)"
- That might suggest one reason among many to not nominate so many pages. (Yeah, I split an infinitive.) AfDs need quality over quantity. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- But Doczilla, I don't nominate every page I dislike—only those that apparently fail to meet WP:N and there's nothing wrong with that. Right? By the way, since Liz advised me, I've definitely slowed down; you can see it in my AFD logs. (talk I contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've kept thinking about this because I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I do want to help you be effective, so it occurs to me that this might be worth pointing out: Fewer editors have participated in AfD lately. We're having some discussions trying to figure out what might be done to help with that. In the meantime, though, the fact that fewer are participating means AfDs are getting relisted more often and more are closing as no consensus. It's about both the sheer number of noms (which you've addressed above) and the quality of those noms. Concentrating efforts on making a smaller number of stronger AfD nominations might (1) give editors clearer AfDs to discuss in the first place and (2) be less daunting to people who feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of AfDs listed. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- But Doczilla, I don't nominate every page I dislike—only those that apparently fail to meet WP:N and there's nothing wrong with that. Right? By the way, since Liz advised me, I've definitely slowed down; you can see it in my AFD logs. (talk I contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX, Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion) where I was able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with me. But I think this might be an instance where an editor withdrew their keep vote after I countered it. Anyways, your comments were encouraging, and I appreciate that you acknowledged the topic of anonymous IP participation in AfD as worth discussing. I have no hard feelings about this page being kept, so this DRV can be closed now. No offense to @Doczilla: even though this comment was discouraging. I wasn't arguing with them; I was just providing counterarguments. P.S. I'm observing an AfD (where my !vote is neutral) where some editors are debating as if it's the end of the world. Cheers! (talk I contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can acknowledge that you recently have, indeed, been more amenable to walking away from an AfD debate if it turns too acrimonious, and I commend you for that. But I can't recall cases where you were able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with you. Suggesting a viable ATD is often a good way to sway things away from keeping a page that isn't independently notable. Very few pages actually violate policy to the point where they need to be deleted. I know you only strive to ensure decisions comply with WP:N, but I'm not sure you're always going about it the best way. I don't think it was wrong of you to bring this to DRV. The topic of anon IP participation in AfD is worth discussing. But I still think a merger discussion, or failing that, renomination in two months, per Frank Anchor, would be more fruitful in this case. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX, In the past, I used to nominate AFD and then disengage, only to find them kept due to non-policy-based reasons that I didn't challenge at the time. So after returning from a wikibreak, I decided to engage in AFDs more actively, particularly when I feel that non-policy-based arguments or keep votes based on ROTM coverage would influence outcomes unfairly. My intention is to simply to ensure that decisions align closely with WP:N. And I want to clarify that I've been lately working to avoid being confrontational in my AFD interactions. Regarding the DRV, my main concern is highlighting the issue of how low participation can allow some IPs to rescue some pages so easily. That being said, if you feel this DRV was unnecessary, I'll leave it at that. (talk I contribs) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed source assessment. But again, what would you have us do with it? Even if none of those sources provides SIGCOV, what are we to do - relitigate the AfD? Overturn to N/C? I've closed several AfDs where you were the nom or a participant. It's clear that you have the best interests of the project in mind, but your style often comes across as unnecessarily confrontational. Your request to reopen this AfD, after it was relisted three times, strikes me as an attempt to have the last word in it, without any reasonable expectation of changing the practical outcome. I know being right is important to you, but using your time constructively is often more important. Maybe start a merger discussion (to 7th Sky Entertainment?), get other editors involved, and if no consensus is reached there, at least the next AfD for it might be better attended. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX, OK, I'll do a source assessment here related to coverage provided by @Libraa. This also raises a question. If, due to a lack of participation, an AFD receives a few "keep" votes, who cite some coverage that doesn't easily satisfy GNG, should the decision be based on the vote counts and not on the source assessment and/or counter arguments? (talk I contribs) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: | ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.24newshd.tv/3-May-2023/nadia-khan-gets-crazy-as-mad-over-drama-serial-heer-da-hero | ~ 24News is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview | This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established - clearly falls under WP:RSNOI | The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail | ✘ No |
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2407480/ramazan-binge-list-five-shows-to-keep-you-entertained-post-iftar | ~ Express Tribune is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI | This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established | WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG | ✘ No |
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1079637/amar-thanks-the-audience-for-loving-the-alpha-hero-she-has-penned-in-her-serial-heer-da-hero/ | ~ Daily Times is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI | This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established | WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG | ✘ No |
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/30-Mar-2023/amar-khan-s-punglish-skills-in-heer-da-hero-impresses-fans | Daily Pakistan is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line | ~ CHURNALISM style coverage and falls under WP:RSNOI - Fwiw Daily Pakistan itself is not a RS | WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG | ✘ No |
https://www.independenturdu.com/node/133401 | Independent Urdu is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line | The coverage was published in the blog section (بلاگ) of Independent Urdu and was done by a blogger (بلاگر) so the expertise of its author has not been established. | The coverage discuss the subject in detail | ✘ No |
https://jang.com.pk/news/1211032 | ~ Jang is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line but this particular coverage is based on an interview | ~ How coverage based on interview can be reliable? | WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG | ✘ No |
https://www.aaj.tv/news/30323593 | ~ Aaj is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI | This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established | WP:TRIVIALMENTION | ✘ No |
https://lahorenews.tv/index.php/news/61302/ | ~ Lahore News is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI | This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established | WP:TRIVIALMENTION | ✘ No |
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199328 | ~ Dawn is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI | This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established | WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG | ✘ No |
https://www.easterneye.biz/amar-khan-being-her-own-hero/ | ~ Eastern Eye is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview | How coverage based on interview can be reliable? | Amar Khan - the actor of TV series themselves talked about the subject | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
- Endorse this AFD was listed for three weeks and received no additional support for deletion and a single redirect vote. The keep votes are weak, but there is no WP:QUORUM to delete. No consensus would have probably been a reasonable close as well. Echoing OwenX, I do not object to an early re-nomination (including the above source assessment) no less than two months after the closure of the AFD (as if it were closed as NC) or a merge discussion that can take place at any time after this DRV closes. Frank Anchor 13:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - A case can be made that the closer should have discounted the IP !votes, and the close should have been No Consensus. That would still leave the article in article space. Keep is also a valid closure, either before or after throwing out the IP votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, Right. "NC" would had been a better outcome. (talk I contribs) 15:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus which will allow for an earlier re-nomination - I know it is not a hard and fast rule there, but there really was no consensus to delete here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, correct assessment of consensus, the consensus leaned toward keeping the page, and a NC close would not have really changed anything in practical terms. Side note, random IPs are often active in Pakistan-related AfDs and they often agree with nominator's arguments (recent examples [1], [2]), claiming in this case they are socks is a strong claim which would had needed strong evidence. Cavarrone 08:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- When they can't justify keeping a page, they typically vote for deletion/redirection/merge etc. Otherwise, they simply vote to keep. Now, for example, there's this UK-based IP range calling for a t/ban on me (also see this and this), yet they're also casting delete votes in my AFD nomination. Strange, isn't it? @OwenX, fyi! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Junaid Khan (actor) brought me here, @OwenX, i would like to clarify, i am voting keep in only AFD's which are initiated by Saqib & that too with proper source presentation as i feel he may be dislike articles and nominate them without proper WP:Before. He has a strict policy regarding Pakistani articles which i respect but has a soft corner regarding his creations [3] [4] he contineously drafting new Pakistani articles despite of them meeting notability criteria. A current example is [5], that article had 29 sources but he draftified with a reason "No Source". Other examples are Draft:Na Baligh Afraad & Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning, both are feature films which received significant coverage on google and i respect his decision therefore did'nt touched that articles neither am i interested in such articles but using them as an example. You can check my history, he nominated all of my creations too. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Libraa2019, Your Wikihounding won't cease, will it? (talk I contribs) 16:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Saqib, Neither yours. May i ask how you reached here [6], and thankfully it was not my creation neither related to Pakistan otherwise it would have faced AFD as of now. You could have request deletion review without mentioning me but accused me of bogus votes & i am here to prove my point nothing else. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Libraa2019, Your Wikihounding won't cease, will it? (talk I contribs) 16:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Feature Films for Families (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article on a Utah-based kidvid company, deleted back in early November 2017 for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH thanks to this AFD; an early July 2022 re-creation attempt was also shot down. After some 5–7 years, looks like WP:Library may be coming to the rescue. (What follows below may be enough for now to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA—lest we look a bit harder beyond lots of natter on their telemarketing practices?)
XPosted from WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 383#Feature Films for Families and User talk:Liz/Archive 47#Undeletion request: Feature Films for Families (both from February 2023). As an added bonus since our last appeal attempt, here's what AVID Logos has to say on their recent fate (with relevant WP links added):
From here, perhaps the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs) may give us an extra hand this time around? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:16, 23 June 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. |
https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324637 https://health.clevelandclinic.org/anal-sex-safety 202.134.11.238 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The page was deleted under the G11 and A7 criteria. There was no communication before the deletion. The subject is the CEO of a top Bank in Nigeria (Wema Bank) and so qualifies to have a Wiki page. He is notable enough. I would like to be able to edit the article in a draft space to fix the G11 issue before seeking approval to move to mainspace Michael Ugbodu (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see that this has been through a deletion discussion, but it certainly looks like multiple users and admins have been booting an article under this name back to Draftspace for months now. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- List of cognitive biases#Conformity at play? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- List. The sources are mostly routine or lists of executives. I don't think this would hold up to an AFD, but I probably would not have speedily deleted it. I'd support allowing recreation and listing it for a discussion at AFD. Then if it is deleted again, salt the page and be done with it. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- List on the general principle that speedy deletions should be uncontentious, and this has become contentious. If there are multiple efforts to restore something that was deleted, it is better to have a Delete consensus before create-protecting the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- While there is no requirement to consult or communicate before speedy-deleting an article, given the extensive history it seems sensible to send to AFD to come to a consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Go to WP:REFUND and request draftification. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - WP:REFUND does not restore pages that have been deleted as A7 or WP:G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- It does if the request is for REFUND to draftspace, especially with the stated intent to contest the speedy. For A7, especially easily. Note that User:Michael Ugbodu is explicitly asking for draftification to improve it, and is not asking to go to AfD immediately. Those !voting “List” appear to have not read his statement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The instructions at REFUND say:
Do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7, F9, F11, U5, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12 be undeleted here.
If it is the practice of REFUND to store A7 and G11 pages, then the instructions should be changed. - It may be pointless to draftify pages deleted under G11, because drafts can be tagged for deletion as G11 and sometimes are deleted as G11.
- It would be a good idea for editors, including promotional editors, to keep a copy of the page that they publish to Wikipedia, so that they don't have to request that we give them back their spam (or their non-spam). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The instructions at REFUND say:
- It does if the request is for REFUND to draftspace, especially with the stated intent to contest the speedy. For A7, especially easily. Note that User:Michael Ugbodu is explicitly asking for draftification to improve it, and is not asking to go to AfD immediately. Those !voting “List” appear to have not read his statement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Temporary Undelete so that non-admins can see whether there is non-promotional content. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn very clear misapplication of A7, as a claim to significance is made (CEO of a bank). Some of the content is G11 but there is enough non-promotional content in the article that it should not have been speedy deleted. It can be sent to AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. A7 clearly wrong. The "achievements" section is quite bad, but the rest of the article isn't G11-worthy. Mach61 23:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. An understandable, humanly excusable partiality towards making this article go away is what I feel led to this fundamentally wrong speedy deletion. The article is not subject to speedy deletion under the cited criteria, and there is no evidence that any other criteria apply.—Alalch E. 23:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn Clearly not A7, not promotional enough to be unambiguous/unfixable and so G11. Any editor can take it to AfD to hash out. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and send to draftspace A7 was wrong, G11 was probably correct, I can't see this getting kept at AfD and the petitioner has specifically requested draftification. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn both A7 and G11. The Achievements section is spam, but G11 is for articles that are "exclusively promotional", not for articles that contain promotional sections. If the appellant wants it restored to draft space, that is even better than restoring it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- List so that we can finally SALT this page. Do not draftify, as it will be bounced right back to mainspace as soon as turn our head away. Owen× ☎ 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd not normally have G11'd this - that was prompted by the move out of draftspace by a now-undisclosed paid editor (since the only disclosure was on Talk:Moruf Oseni), which is something they are explicitly forbidden to do.On the other hand, calling this a "top bank" lies somewhere between wishful thinking and an outright lie; it's not in the world's top thousand largest, or the continent's top hundred, or even Nigeria's top thirteen (which is all I can readily find stats for, but it's well below the size of the thirteenth listed there). This is roughly the size of a branch office in a typical US city, so no, just being its CEO is not a statement that one would expect to turn up evidence for notability if searched for. So I dispute that the A7 was clearly wrong, but I see which way this is going, so there's no need to wait out the week. —Cryptic 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- ”Explicitly forbidden to do”? But that’s just a “behavioural guideline”, and the community refuses to include PAID or UPE or COI at WP:Deletion policy as a reason for deletion, see the talk page archives. These pages NEED to go to AfD to get “the community” involved in this contradiction as an important step to solving it. Pseudo-deletion of UPE product via admins misuse of CSD AND SALTing policy perpetuates the problem of the contradiction between documented policy and practice on UPE generated promotional content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have a proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine of content created by undisclosed paid editors.
- The authors declaration should be posted at the top of their Userpage, not on a transient talk page. Personally I found favour the declaration needing to be in the username, eg User:Editor name (PAID). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like to rake anyone over the coals on disagreements regarding what constitutes a WP:CCS as there some room for interpretation, and indeed is entirely the reason why A7 can be one of the more difficult CSDs to apply in practice. However, in general being the CEO of blue-linked company will preclude A7 WP:CCSI#BIZBIO. That is not ironclad, a common exception is when a user creates an organization article and related bios at the same time with no other CCS for any of them in which case they will usually be A7 deleted together, but it is a solid rule of thumb when applied with common sense.
- From the perspective of discouraging and dealing with COI/UPE editing, AFD is better in every way but volume management in that it creates a clearer consensus against the existence of the article, and even facilitates the speedy process because rather than dealing with a borderline A7 when reposted you now have an unambiguous G4.
- The quarantine of content proposal strikes me as trying to do too much, especially in its introduction of a new associated process. I think it would be easier to use an existing process and simply mandate AFC review of all UPE creations not in the mainspace longer than some specified cutoff with no substantive edits by others, and I would probably support something like that if proposed at an RFC, but that is off-topic for the present discussion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:B492:F81A:745E:8E8D (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- ”Explicitly forbidden to do”? But that’s just a “behavioural guideline”, and the community refuses to include PAID or UPE or COI at WP:Deletion policy as a reason for deletion, see the talk page archives. These pages NEED to go to AfD to get “the community” involved in this contradiction as an important step to solving it. Pseudo-deletion of UPE product via admins misuse of CSD AND SALTing policy perpetuates the problem of the contradiction between documented policy and practice on UPE generated promotional content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Miskin Abdal (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I noticed that deletion of this article was closed with no consensus. This is very surprising to me. I have spent three days to investigate it and came to conclusion that it was a hoax. Moreover, the statement in its first paragraph is completely wrong. Please reconsider your decision or provide reason(s) for keeping that article which is full of false statements. HeritageGuardian (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
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. |
Read this as 2024, didn't realise this was a ten year old XfD! Qcne (talk) 15:38, 17 June 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. |
Hi there - for full disclosure, I'm a current PAR employee. I noticed that there currently isn't a page for PAR on Wikipedia and that it was deleted in Jan 2018. I would have tried to go on the talk page for those who discussed its deletion but those users don't seem to be active on Wikipedia anymore. I would like to share that PAR Technology hired a new CEO, Savneet Singh, in Dec 2018, eleven months after the page was deleted. Since Savneet joined PAR, he raised capital and acquired several different business in the restaurant technology and hospitality space, including Restaurant Magic, Punchh, MENU Technologies, Stuzo, and TASK. Today PAR trades on the New York Stock Exchange with a Market Capitalization of $1.6 billion dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue. I noticed that many of the comments in the deletion discussion were centered around PAR being a government contractor business; however, PAR has sold off its government businesses and is now a pure-play food service technology company. Among PAR's clients are Tier-1 restaurants like Burger King and Wendy's. Many of PAR's competitors in this restaurant & hospitality technology space, such as Olo and Toast, have pages on Wikipedia. PAR's acquisitions have made news on notable outlets like TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and CNBC. To summarize: although PAR Technology as a company still carries the same name, under new leadership (hired after the page was initially deleted), it has been transformed from a USA government contractor into a food service technology business. I'd kindly like to request for review to see if opinions may have changed on if PAR Technology should have a page on Wikipedia. Thank you! LeLiPAR (talk) 22:03, 13 June 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 am requesting a review of my closure following an inquiry on my talk page by Dclemens1971. I closed this as "keep" after determining that there was a consensus that coverage in the Otago Daily Times was sufficient to establish notability. I would appreciate feedback as to whether this was a reasonable decision. If it was not, would it have been better to close the discussion as "no consensus," or to relist it? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent
- Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- (as participant to the discussion) It does not look like a misunderstanding. I noted in the discussion that articles are already in e.g. Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent when it is about someone with French (i.e. European) ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a
relevant comment supporting deletion
in the absence of an intelligible rationale coming from you and in the context of the erroneous nomination.—Alalch E. 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you
did not get the facts right
. It doesn't mean that this was a good category, but it means that it wasn't a good CfD. —Alalch E. 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you
- There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a
- Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. The nomination was clearly and objectively erroneous and the comments followed this erroneous reasoning, with the exception of Marcocapelle's comment, but that is only one !vote."European American descent" part in the category name clearly refers to European Americans, citizens of the United States of European descent, to this is a category for articles about Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. for whom their American ancestors are of European descent, i.e. European Americans. So when the nominator said
it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S.
this was absolutely incorrect.In spite of this, Marcocapelle reasons that we should not have such a category and that the two layers of descent should be compressed into one, so if someone is Dominican with French American descent, the category should be Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent. This is a fine opinion to have, but consensus did not form around this view, as all of the remaining participation revolved around the erroneous rationale. So there was no consensus to delete. My suggestion would be to renominate with a valid rationale.—Alalch E. 09:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- I'm fine with relisting too, but starting a new discussion with a new nomination would be better. —Alalch E. 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- These were the articles in the category at the time of deletion. I think Alalch is right that
Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S.
simply wasn't correct: the people in question did have white ancestors in the U.S., which is why they were added to the category. The real question is whether 1) residents of the Dominican Republic 2) whose ancestors are of European descent and 3) whose ancestors resided in the U.S. is one intersection too far, as Marcocapelle suggested. I suspect the answer is yes, but the CfD didn't really get into that, and since we have a good-faith request I'd probably just relist for further discussion. (Whatever arguments apply to this category probably also apply to the African-American category mentioned above.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) - I'm in the same space as Extraordinary Writ. Relist to get a proper consensus, which I would hope will give weight to the overcategorization argument. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Get rid of it and all similar categories Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". Polygnotus (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)