Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

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

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.

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.

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.)

• 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 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:JUSTAPOLICY WP:JUSTA Nayyn (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Comment - In the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions essay, it says:

  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.

  . Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heer Da Hero (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Robert McClenon, Right. "NC" would had been a better outcome. (talk I contribs) 15:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Libraa2019, Your Wikihounding won't cease, will it? (talk I contribs) 16:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]