 |
| 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
[edit]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, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
[edit]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
[edit] | 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. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{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
[edit]Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
[edit]Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
[edit]A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, 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
[edit]- 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".
Following deletion discussion on notability and sources, requesting undeletion for further improvements to be made to sources and processing through AfC CommandAShepard (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The appellant has already made the same argument at the AfD, had a week to find sources (and three more weeks since it was closed), yet wasn't able to present any such sources. The appellant doesn't need a copy in draftspace to find the promised sources. If and when they are found, a new draft can be submitted to AfC. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Template nominated for deletion by sock (or possibly original) of user blocked for socking. User also, according to the sock puppet investigation has modus operandi of mass deletion of content, by various means. In this case he redirected the albums to the artist (something he did to many albums, e.g. Barclay James Harvest (album)), then claimed the navigation template was no longer needed. His incorrect redirects were later reverted but because there was no careful consideration of the deletion request, just one yes vote, the template was deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough: I see you've notified Plastikspork about the DRV, but have you made any attempt to discuss this with him before bringing it here? While not a procedural requirement, I'm sure that between two editors with such extensive admin experience as you two, this rather straightforward technical issue could be settled in minutes, without resorting to DRV. Same goes for the other template nominated here. @Plastikspork: feel free to restore the two templates and procedurally close these DRVs as moot. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Template nominated for deletion by sock (or possibly original) of user blocked for socking. User also, according to the sock puppet investigation has modus operandi of mass deletion of content, by various means. In this case he redirected most of the albums to the artist (something he did to many albums, e.g. Barclay James Harvest (album)), then claimed the navigation template was no longer needed. His incorrect redirects were later reverted but because there was no careful consideration of the deletion request, just one yes vote, the template was deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC).
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This wasn't the best AfD in the world, but the only reason brought forward for deletion was that it failed WP:LASTING. Unlike most arguments at AfD which are GNG-based, all that is needed when LASTING is the argument for deletion is to show that the event received significant coverage over time, and this one did in a variety of press outlets over the course of months, which I demonstrated in the discussion (I am also happy to add additional sources here if needed, but I know that's not the point of DRV). In retrospect I could have made this point more clearly, but it was still made. However the close does not acknowledge any of the arguments made in the discussion at all and instead splits the difference between the !votes, which was inappropriate given the initial argument of the deletion discussion. I'm asking this to be overturned to a keep or no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Despite the deletion discussion being inconclusive and having been relisted, the AfD closer proceeded to close it without establishing a clear consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klighnight (talk • contribs) 09:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I see a very clear consensus to delete. In fact, Oaktree b's "weak keep" is the only P&G-based dissent. Owen× ☎ 12:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The OP should put down the spade and understand that even if a film is considered notable, that doesn't mean the director is notable as there is no WP:INHERITED notability. Also one also needs to understand that AfD discussions are asking for WP:RS to be offered so they can be discussed. We don't make decisions based on social media posts, even if the facts seem obvious to you. The correct thing to do is find better sources. JMWt (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Five additional sources were cited during the deletion discussion, and you can also verify them on the article itself. The question of notability has been repeatedly addressed, as the subject is both a singer and an actor. For each category, one or two specific criteria were cited as those he meets.
- Klighnight (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
you can also verify them on the article itself
- that is not what DRV is for. This isn't AfD round 2. We are here primarily to determine whether the closing admin read consensus correctly, not to reassess sources already presented at the AfD. I would also advise you against bludgeoning this discussion the way you did at the AfD. Such tactics rarely have the desired effect. Owen× ☎ 14:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)- I don't know what to tell you other than to repeat that you need to offer Reliable Sources, not just social media pages. JMWt (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Klighnight, you've already written nearly 2000 words on that AfD. I'm sorry, but it's time to let this one go. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse:
- The appellant mistakenly writes:
Despite the deletion discussion being inconclusive and having been relisted, the AfD closer proceeded to close it without establishing a clear consensus
- The deletion discussion was conclusive and reached a clear consensus to delete.
- It is common to relist a deletion discussion once even if there is a consensus.
- Consensus is based on strength of arguments. Some editors do not understand the difference between strength of arguments and length of arguments.
- The title has not been salted, and the appellant can submit a new draft for review with better sources. However, it is likely to be declined, and repeated resubmission will result in a rejection.
- Was the appellant really using artificial intelligence in the response to the AFD? That very seldom works, and is a proven way to annoy the reviewers and to persuade them that you don't have a case.
- You don't always get what you want.
- The appellant mistakenly writes:
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse would also have closed it as delete, there was really no argument to keep made, the best argument was that there are three sources which are weak at best. SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy endorse and close A closer does not establish consensus, the community does and it did here. No fault has been raised with the closer or the close. If nom proceeds down this path, recommend a p-block. Star Mississippi 01:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Thomasfan1916 made a non-admin closure of this twice-relisted AfD on 15JUN2025. The same day, CoconutOctopus opened an ANI thread noting that most of Thomasfan1916's closures were erroneous, resulting in an indefinite block. As the erroneous closure happened before my extended travel, I was only able to leave a comment at that ANI thread asking for reversal and am back now to request proper deletion review. Article creator JoseyWales019's intervening edits have not qualified the subject under WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG, I have explained why the sources raised by Let'srun do not satisfy the notability threshold, and Geschichte left a useful reply calling Wynwick55gl's comment to "Keep but only once WP:RS are found" pointless. While further relisting is unusual, this is an unusual circumstance. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:03, 7 July 2025 (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. |
|
Summary: the article was recreated and speedy deleted without meeting speedy deletion criteria. In more details: The article was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Functional_Decision_Theory in January, with the main reason being insufficient proof of notability. A few weeks ago, I came up on a recent news article talking about "Functional Decision Theory" from Wired, so I searched for the concept on Wikipedia and realized the page was deleted. I created a new one from scratch, with additional sources to establish notability. It was immediately draftified by User:David Gerard as he claimed it is substantially similar to the previous one. I brought up that it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion as per WP:G4, since it "applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". He responded that "has the same bad referencing: the sources about the topic are primary sources, and the reliable sources aren't actually about FDT". While I disagree (some of the new non-primary sources are about FDT), I added 4 new non-primary references talking about FDT, including a published book, and moved the article back to mainspace. He then speedy deleted it again. I contest this speedy deletion, as I think the article is now substantially different to at least merit a new AfD debate AND some of the added sources were published after the last AfD was closed. 7804j (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2025 (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. |
|
This page had many good articles but still it got removed. Why it was deleted? Just because before it was not notable? That don’t seem fair. Please don’t do like this. I saw in AfD many top level sources were there but still some editos didn’t cared about them. This is not right. How can so many good articles about the company not matter? Please check properly and do fair thing. 2409:40D0:BE:E670:C57E:19E6:F357:9A87 (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2025 (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. |
|
Closed by a non admin as redirect, discussed here. I believe the consensus here is delete not redirect. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Pinging AfD participants: @Let'srun, @UtherSRG , @Gjb0zWxOb , @Kingsif LibStar (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2025 (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. |
|
This was closed as a clearly inappropriate supervote. The closure claims that the UCoC clause
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The RfD closure failed to account for the fact that Template:Transl, unlike the other redirects bundled in that nomination, was the long-standing name of Template:Transliteration since 2007, which was moved away from that title only in 2022. Although replacement by bot was mandated, deletion still broke a lot of historical references. While there may have been consensus to delete the three other redirects, several participants !voted specifically to keep Template:Transl, and I do not believe consensus was in support of deleting it. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Issue raised with closer DMacks here. Note that the closure was also challenged by jlwoodwa here and by jacobolus here. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, this was a serious mistake of discussion closure which substituted the closer's personal preference for community consensus, and caused (and will continue to cause) harm to Wikipedia, especially since our software has never properly handled transclusions when viewing historical versions of pages, so now almost 2 decades of historical permalinks are going to have broken transliterations on them. –jacobolus (t) 11:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- I stand by my closure (I think I responded to each concern raised on my talkpage there, with specificity...can find the links later if needed). While it's definitely true that not all four involved templates had equally strong support, I saw the general concern did apply to all of them and was more supported than not by the guidelines and their weighting of pros/cons/etc mentioned. I have not been involved in this template-area and do not feel I raised new concerns or other judgement of my own on the issues beyond evaluating what others stated. As I have said, I made no prejudice against non-ambiguous forms. I'm having trouble finding where preserving the original/complete viewability of historial revisions is mentioned (and prefereably pointing to a policy or guideline) by a comment in the DRV. DMacks (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- The harm in deleting such redirects is, I believe, described by the second main consideration under WP:R#HARMFUL. Such deletions aren't prohibited, but should only be considered when the concerns are demonstrably outweighed by the harm caused by the existence of the redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the talk page responses, I already linked the archived discussions above. Apologies on my part for not responding further before starting the DRV, but the discussion had already been archived and given our conflicting opinions I don't think further discussion could have preempted the need for DRV. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a train wreck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Might tagging it {{deleted template}} be an acceptable compromise? —Cryptic 02:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- If preserving historical revisions is a concern, this may be a valid solution that could've been implemented without a deletion review. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unbundle - Put the four trains on four tracks by splitting this into four RFDs.
- Relist Template:Transl, which is the one that is being contested. The closure does not seem to have reflected consensus.
- Leave the three uncontested template redirects in an open state so that they can be closed or relisted by any admin.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not familiar with the usual standards for deleting template redirects, but it seems like the "it's been in use since 2007" argument should have been accorded more weight here. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn transl only We don't need a specific guideline that says "don't break historical stuff without a really good reason" for that to be considered a valid reason to not delete a redirect and it appears that such was the case here. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn transl to either keep or no consensus. I don't see consensus to delete that template. The editors who weighed in on it separately from the rest generally favored keeping this template, while several who !voted to delete all seemed not to understand the purpose of the discussion. I don't think a relist would be helpful – better to close as no-consensus and have a completely fresh discussion on this one template. Toadspike [Talk] 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Those who did favour keeping the template mostly argued on the basis of length of "transliteration" compared to "transl". This, however, is not a policy-based ground to keep ambiguous redirects, and there have been shorter redirects created for this exact purpose ({{tlit}}, {{xlit}}), which mooted the length argument anyway. Some other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy, and TfDs have previously deleted hundreds, if not thousands, of redundant/replaced/renamed/substituted templates as well. Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>> links in the articles, some of which were rescinded, the others weren't until closure. This last line of argument stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process is for, and should be discarded altogether. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>>" – These arguments were made on both sides, cf. Duyneuzaenasagae's comment. I agree with you that they should be discounted, though.
- I don't see any arguments to keep on the basis of length. I'm also not seeing any evidence that keep !voters were unaware of the shorter redirects or that they were opposed to their use. In fact, jacobolus's argument, which is close to a keep, even suggests mass-replacing the ambiguous terms with the shorter redirects.
- "other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy" – well, unless this argument explicitly runs counter to policy, editors are allowed to make it and the closer shouldn't discount it. Toadspike [Talk] 08:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Those who did favour keeping the template mostly argued on the basis of length of "transliteration" compared to "transl". This, however, is not a policy-based ground to keep ambiguous redirects, and there have been shorter redirects created for this exact purpose ({{tlit}}, {{xlit}}), which mooted the length argument anyway. Some other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy, and TfDs have previously deleted hundreds, if not thousands, of redundant/replaced/renamed/substituted templates as well. Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>> links in the articles, some of which were rescinded, the others weren't until closure. This last line of argument stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process is for, and should be discarded altogether. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn “transl” to no consensus and leave the others as is. There was not consensus to delete that template as there was for the others. No objection to an immediate renomination focused on just the one template. Frank Anchor 02:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved) per my above comment. Despite being numerous in number, the arguments made are not a part of any standard policy or guideline. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn "transl" to no consensus and relist. I think this was ambiguous enough that I wouldn't want to say good/bad close without getting out a fine-toothed comb and doing the work of closing it myself. But it does look to me like this topic needs more discussion, so we should let that happen. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)