Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result 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 was a substantive procedural error(s) 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;
- when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
- 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); or
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
- please 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.
Commenting in a deletion review
In the deletion review discussion, please:
- 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.
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 non-admins. 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. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin 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 admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
2. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~ |
3. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
5. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use |
Active discussions
16 June 2015
Shekhar Chatterjee
- Shekhar Chatterjee (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The article was previously deleted on marginal lines that it wasn't meeting WP:GNG (although there were many, they weren't national or international. Now there are handsome amount of national and international article on the subject which is enough to qualify WP:GNG as of now. 123.201.79.2 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
14 June 2015
Victor Romfors
- Victor Romfors (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Contesting G4 Speedy Delete. Bio article was properly re-created with new information after the hockey player had played professionally in a 2014-15 2013-14 regular season game (not an exhibition game) of the Swedish Hockey League, which is a “Top Level League” as defined by WP:NHOCKEY/LA, and is therefore presumed notable by the standards established by the Ice Hockey Project. Deleting Admin User:Djsasso has been notified here. Dolovis (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- I would point out the game was played in the 2013-14 season not the 2014-15 season as mentioned. The game was both played before the Afd and was mentioned by User:Ravenswing in the Afd nomination statement. As such there was no new information in the page that wasn't already mentioned in the Afd. The page was almost identical to the one that was deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like textbook G4. If the reasons for deletion noted in the AfD have not been addressed, and the content is substantially the same, G4 applies. What's unusual is that the nominator, dolovis (talk · contribs), is a prolific editor, albeit recently unblocked. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dolovis&oldid=665145739. It is probably no surprise that the editor on returning is reacting to a large number of deletions of his previous contributions. I suggest, if it is seriously to be argued that more work can make Victor Romfors suitable, that the deleted versions be history merged and userfied for Dolovis to work on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- The unblock notice indicates an agreement to an interaction ban, and this nomination is skirting that ban. I'd ask User:Thryduulf (for the Ban appeals sub-committee), to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe and Dolovis: That unblock notice explicitly states "This restriction may be enforced at the Arbitration enforcement page." and so that is where you should post if you think there has been a violation. The rest of this comment is me speaking strictly personally (not for BASC) and explicitly without prejudice to any discussion at AE, my view is that the nomination of this page did not breach the letter of the ban as the deletion was more than 30 days ago. Edits to this page by Dolovis after Djasso commented are violations of the letter though, but I would recommend against any punishment for this without a consensus at AE if anyone wants to take it there (I am not going to). I have no opinion about this article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I should note I agree with Thryduulf. He should be perfectly able to comment here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- It would be extremely unreasonable to forbid Dolovis from commenting here, really. Ravenswing 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe and Dolovis: That unblock notice explicitly states "This restriction may be enforced at the Arbitration enforcement page." and so that is where you should post if you think there has been a violation. The rest of this comment is me speaking strictly personally (not for BASC) and explicitly without prejudice to any discussion at AE, my view is that the nomination of this page did not breach the letter of the ban as the deletion was more than 30 days ago. Edits to this page by Dolovis after Djasso commented are violations of the letter though, but I would recommend against any punishment for this without a consensus at AE if anyone wants to take it there (I am not going to). I have no opinion about this article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- The unblock notice indicates an agreement to an interaction ban, and this nomination is skirting that ban. I'd ask User:Thryduulf (for the Ban appeals sub-committee), to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- The reason for the AfD HAS been addressed with the newly created article. The old article was deleted based on the argument that Victor Romfors had not yet played a regular season game (only a European Trophy game). But the newly created article is based on the new and verified information that Romfors has since played in a 2013-14 Swedish Hockey League regular season game. See [1] & [2]. He made his SHL debut on February 8, 2014, [3] (the same day the AfD was opened). This new information was not in the original article, and was not brought to anyone's attention during the AfD. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- merge/undelete and list as desired per SmokeyJoe. Further, I'd object to someone not being able to comment at a discussion they started because someone they have an interaction (or something slightly different in this case) ban with edited the discussion. But, that's up to AE. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Given Dolovis has a history of misrepresenting the lone source used in this article (a bare stats list; of which the first iteration of this page was an example) to try and justify these sub-stub creations despite obviously making no attempt to verify that the subjects meet WP:GNG - something that has resulted in literally hundreds of his page creations being deleted in the past - I trust that he will bring evidence that this person has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works from reliable sources in any relist/AFD. Given Dolovis could not even be bothered to update his recreation to reflect the player's actual current team, I must say that I am not optimistic. Resolute 14:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, my comment in the original AFD very specifically addressed this. I can't say how unsurprised I am to find my prediction came true. Resolute 14:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - Actually, re-reading the original AFD, I see that Dolovis is misrepresenting the arguments made in that discussion, as well as its outcome. Dolovis is pinning his argument on a pass of WP:NHOCKEY, but he is (as is usual) completely ignoring that the majority of the commenters in the discussion explicitly pointed to GNG as well. And as the NHOCKEY SNG is a subsection of WP:NSPORTS, which explicitly states that an athlete must meet GNG, he can't even claim the player meets NHOCKEY at this point. Given Dolovis only changed about three words from original version to new, and given he has failed to produce evidence that the player meets GNG, I see no reason to overturn the G4 deletion. Resolute 14:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- The relationship between this SNG and the GNG is a bit less clear than you claim. "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." implies that one can meet the SNG and not the GNG. It feels like a SNG written by committee (like everything else here) as it jumps back and forth on SNG vs. GNG. Ignoring issues with this editor, this is (IMO) a reasonable situation for a relist as there is now a reasonable claim of meeting the SNG in question. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, it says "another subject notability guideline" - i.e.: something other than NSPORTS, of which NHOCKEY is just a sub-section. i.e.: if an athlete doesn't meet the sports guidelines, but does for military personnel or politicians, etc. Resolute 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The GNG is also there. I see what you are saying, but it allows for meeting the SNG but not the GNG. Could you point out the part that the SNG indicates that it must meet the GNG also? Hobit (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll grant you that I was ultimately misremembering the wording when I said "explicitly", but at some point logic must prevail when it comes to sourcing. The purpose of these SNGs is denote the point where we presume a subject meets GNG, based on our experience with the topic. But a presumption of notability is not a guarantee, and a majority in the AFD pointed to the lack of GNG. Also, to be perfectly honest, when drafting these SNGs, we did not anticipate the possibility of an ego-driven editor creating two-sentence junk pages on players with no coverage whatsoever simply so he could get the first edit. This is only one example out of easily a thousand similar pages created by Dolovis despite his obviously never once checking for sources beyond a stats sheet. And in this case, he didn't even read the stat sheet properly given he listed the player with the wrong team. Since the page stated only two things in total, the fact that he got a BLP 50% wrong is a little troubling. But that, of course, is an argument for a separate discussion. Resolute 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The GNG is also there. I see what you are saying, but it allows for meeting the SNG but not the GNG. Could you point out the part that the SNG indicates that it must meet the GNG also? Hobit (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, it says "another subject notability guideline" - i.e.: something other than NSPORTS, of which NHOCKEY is just a sub-section. i.e.: if an athlete doesn't meet the sports guidelines, but does for military personnel or politicians, etc. Resolute 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- The relationship between this SNG and the GNG is a bit less clear than you claim. "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." implies that one can meet the SNG and not the GNG. It feels like a SNG written by committee (like everything else here) as it jumps back and forth on SNG vs. GNG. Ignoring issues with this editor, this is (IMO) a reasonable situation for a relist as there is now a reasonable claim of meeting the SNG in question. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Permit recreation. The primary issue in the original discussion is that Romfors didn't satisfy WP:NHOCKEY. That's no longer the case apparently and that's a material change. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Endorse - I have a hard time justifying an encyclopedia biography for a guy whose career line is 1 0 0 0 0 0, WP:NHOCKEY's "played in one game" be damned. FAQ #2 at WP:NSPORTS seems to indicate that a person is still subject to the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Allow recreation - meeting any bastard stepchild of WP:N is generally taken as a standard for inclusion, which is met. Furthermote, two of the "delete" positions explicitly noted their position was based on zero games played in SHL, given that's no longer true, it's obvious a new discussion would be merited. WilyD 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly ruled and closed; there was no failure of process. Recreating it absent any evidence that this ephemeral player meets the GNG (which evidence Dolovis, matching his historic form in such matters, has declined to proffer), just so it can be AfDed all over again, strikes me as tendentious process-worship. I also question Dolovis' motive: what exactly is his game in digging up an 18-month-past AfD of a sub-stub article? Ravenswing 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
11 June 2015
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I tried to create a page for Brian Peppers. It was protected and I was unable. This is a popular and important deceased person who has significant coverage in various publications. I tried to nominate it for deletion review in 2007 and my request was denied. It has been a long time so I am hoping bias here has decreased. Please allow creation of this important article. Thank you for consideration of this matter. Pilotbob (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Recent discussions
8 June 2015
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The discussion was closed as "redirect", but I do not believe that was representative of the discussion - there was a clear consensus in favor of "deletion". The discussion had 7 !votes in favor of deletion, all based off of relevant policy/guidelines/essays regarding lists. Its an unsourced list, not likely to be documented as a primary topic of discussion by third party sources, and not especially a likely search term. There were only 2 !votes for redirect, and neither gave any rationale for their stance. (One just said it should happen, and one was the article creator, merely saying he'd rather not have his work deleted.) The closer, MelanieN proceeded to close it as a redirect anyways, and when I asked her about it, she stated that she personally "always leans toward redirect if there is a plausible target". While that is a fine stance for a participant in a discussion, it is not an appropriate action as a close for a discussion that did not contain a consensus for such an action. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 9 June 2015 (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. |
You can see here http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Deepcentral article at the moment of it's deletion in February 2014. Quote: ″The band spent 7 weeks at the top of the Romanian Top 100 in the period March to May that year,[2][3] with a total of 17 weeks in the Top 10. As a result, Deepcentral was nominated to MTV Europe Music Award for Best Romanian Act″ IMHO this page can be deleted only via discussion, not PROD and not speedy. XXN, 12:02, 8 June 2015 (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. |
Significance was credibly provided. Speedy deletion criterion not fulfilled. Perform a proper deletion discussion, if needed. Person is the lyricist of Lady Divine from The Divine Lady and several others. Authority control identifiers (ISNI, VIAF) were present. Eldizzino (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 June 2015
Dairese Gary (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was closed as delete in February with all of 3 delete votes. Gary is a notable basketball player that played at New Mexico and is now playing professionally. I brought the issue up with User:Joe Decker and he gave me the standard "sorry I'm not going to recreate this consensus was reached blah blah." I then provided several sources, and he hasn't responded in several days. If I recall the article was fairly well written and well sourced, though it may have been light on sources to prove his notability. In any case I believe there are plenty of sources out there to establish that Gary is notable. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Eric Sullivan (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Please see the discussion on my talk page here. I closed the deletion discussion on this individual on 30 May as delete based on the fact that although there was a technical joint/partial Grammy award as a producer on an album that won Grammy Award for Best New Age Album the subject undoubtedly failed the GNG. As this is a BLP and since WP:ANYBIO was in tension with WP:N and the WP:GNG I closed in favour of delete based on the view that (especially in the case of a BLP) a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion (which there wasn't) to give favour to the SNG over N. Given the challenge to this interpretation, I agreed to list this here for a view on whether or not it was in my discretion as closing admin to close that way. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 June 2015
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Black Kite gave a G10 justification for the list article after it came up at BLPN. The subject matter is easily sourced across both journalism and academia. I think this is a willful misread of G10, especially in light of the deleting admin asserting that their most important justification for deletion was that they don't want Wikipedia "hosting unpleasant misogyny". While better sources need to be found for the article I see nothing about the subject matter that is inherently G10. This is a substantive subject, easily sourced, that is not itself a copyvio. This should go to AfD, not be, to borrow the deleting admin's term, "nuked" because they don't like it. GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC) GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 June 2015
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is an article about the armed conflicts “behind” the war zone in the 3nd Army and 4rd Army operational areas in Anatolia between the Ottoman military and special units against the Armenian militia – historically the Armenian fedayi – of the Armenian national movement. Ottoman army at this period was five main campaigns: the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, the Mesopotamian Campaign, the Caucasus Campaign, the Persian Campaign, and the final stages of Gallipoli Campaign and two minor campaigns, wikipedia do not have an article for armed conflicts behind these Campaigns. There are many historians that study Ottoman history, and all of them recognize the armed struggle Armenians against Ottomans including 1915 conflicts behind the war zone. However there a small group of historians that specialize the year “1915.” The article is based on their published research. Admin presented deletion summary on 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire as (a) the neutral point of view policy, the (b) content forking guideline and (b) undue weight. (a) the neutral point of view policy. I believe the article currently deleted had a strict “intellectual standard.” Removal of a published content from these authors bring interesting positions on application of verifiability on wikipedia. The main idea behind this position in the deletion process was represented by [|this remark]. In the discussions, credibility of [Erikson] [| Reynolds] and [| McMeekin] questioned and these authors were libeled as Genocide deniers. The deletion of this article is a removal of the content contributed through these publications. The Scientific misconduct is very important issue and there are very clear rules for ethical behavior and performing historical research. There is no judicial decisions or retractions on these publications. Deletion of the content represented by these historians based on alleged “Genocide-deniers” argument is very polemic in the absence of these evidence. Enforcing a decision to delete a content of these authors based on the label Category:Armenian Genocide deniers by wiki participants rather than the source is problematic. The existence of such a category in the absence of judicial decision is also problematic. The article also includes information from Taner Akçam and Donald Bloxham to every fact presented. (b) content forking guideline During discussions participants stated: The content being part of a military campaign Caucasian Campaign. The position is clarified with the re-write including a summary table showing the insurgency locations beyond the Caucasian campaign. The second position was article should be merged with Genocide Article. Academic study of this period includes both “Genocide” and “insurgency of 1915.” They do not negate each other. Insurgency of 1915 is not antithesis of Genocide in the literature. Insurgency of 1915, which is armed conflicts behind the war zone inside the Ottoman empire is no original research or synthesis, or part of other conflicts occurred during the period. The editors which hold the position “delete” rejected the merging based on the idea that armed conflict waged was not part of Genocide by building the link to Jewish fighters. The decision that insurgency in 1915 is a Point of view (POV) forks is controversial. It is obvious that 1915 is very special year. But hardly unique article. First point. Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920 (1915 is included) represented in Wikipedia. Armed activities, insurgency, of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during 1914-1918 (1915 is included) also exists. The leaders of insurgent activities have their own pages which their activities in 1915 exists. These articles are not perceived as POV fork of Armenian Genocide. The article 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is unique because collects all information distributed among many articles for the year 1915. It is 35 pages. It also included information missing from the wikipedia. Second point: Armenian Genocide is a complex issue and not limited to “insurgency in 1915.” Template:Armenian Genocide Armenian Genocide have sections mentioning the “insurgency in 1915,” but Article is not limited with this concept, such as all the articles in the Template Armenian Genocide. Equating 1915 insurgency to Armenian Genocide is problematic. Caucuses Campaign (limited with the war zone) already includes all the major elements (April 24, Tehcir Law, deportations, Civilian casualties, etc) in this armed conflict. Are we to delete the Caucuses Campaign (war zone) like 1915 insurgency (behind the war zone)? I believe such a decision is arbitrary. Point three: There was no single objection voiced in the deletion discussions for the facts presented in the article. Article contains all the positions, which one user pledged to remove the positions which makes the article NPOV (this). (c) undue weight: viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. procedurally wrong decision: I believe this “deletion” process does require a strict “intellectual standards,” because a) the content falls into a long lasting controversial topic between Armenian and Turkish editors. b) the voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, rather than the arguments related with the content (the issues regarding Stealth canvassing, sock puppets and other issues reported to Admin [this]) c) there is a clear Wikipedia policy that these [deletion] processes is not decided on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Controversial topics, if substantiated (verifiability), should not be deleted by voting. Failing to enforce WP:Verifiability created a POV sensitization process across many articles. In fact, the removal of 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is created an extremest position (| this link] on the armed conflicts at Middle Eastern theatre of World War I) which same authors also | pledged to remove Armenian national movement and removal of conflicts in [1916, 1917, 1918 from history of ottoman empire during WWI], [| Removal of Armenian national movement from defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire], initiate removal of Resistance during 14-18 (this [8]). If Wikipedia enforces the idea that there is "No" Armenian-Ottoman conflicts behind the war-zone in 1915, the removal of armed conflicts involved Armenian national movement (many articles, many years) would be expected. I ask the reversal of the deletion, based on “intellectual standards.” Thank you. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Archive
2015 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2014 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2013 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2012 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2011 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2010 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2009 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2008 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2007 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2006 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
|