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 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;
- 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); or
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
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.
- 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
29 March 2016
25 March 2016
Joseph Atwill
- Joseph Atwill (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
New references available to support notability JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Since the 2007 decision, Atwill has continued to accumulate references in reputable sources as well as individual blogs, and his book was translated into German and published by Ullstein Buchverlage. Contrary to the original decision, Ulysses Press is also a reputable publisher in the field of spirituality. Atwill's book, Caesar's Messiah, continues to be a best-seller in its category, and it is covered in an article in German Wikipedia. While many reviews are negative, the importance of his work is in some ways vindicated by the vehemence of the opposition.
Here are links to secondary sources on Atwill's work.
'Reputable Sources'
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/caesars-messiah-rome-invented-jesus-new-doc-claims-6436318
http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/146983.das-kreuz-mit-dem-heiland.html
http://www.ullsteinbuchverlage.de/nc/buch/details/das-messias-raetsel-9783793420910.html
'Notable Critics' (That is, these critics have their own Wikipedia bio articles)
http://ehrmanblog.org/conspiracy-nonsense/
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm
http://freethoughtnation.com/a-conversation-on-the-caesars-messiah-thesis/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664
Atwill citations already on Wikipedia --
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Messias-Rätsel (nice article in German)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_conspiracy_theory (link in 'other reading' section)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Lanier (link in footnotes)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory (bullet point, but no link, in 'Documentaries' section)
The original delete decision was entered by BorgQueen. I posted a deletion review request to her user talk page six days ago, and there has been no response, although BorgQueen has been active on Wikipedia editing other articles since then.
Thank you for your attention, JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Still no comments? My understanding was that this article was put on the list of items protected against creation, but now I have also read here that the pre-2008 protection system may be deprecated, and I don't know if it's still in effect. Wikipedia editorial policy as discussed here would permit the article to be re-created without administrative action. I suppose if I don't hear from anyone, I'll try to create the page and see if the system will permit it. JerryRussell (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Allow recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirect Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah.
Author Joseph Atwill's book Caesar's Messiah was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar's Messiah in 2008.
This article from The Independent, this article from the Discovery Channel, this article from the International Business Times, this article from The Christian Post, and this article from The Huffington Post are primarily about the subject's book. Since most of the sources discuss the book and its ideas, I recommend allowing recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirecting Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah until there is significant biographical information about Atwill.
- Remove protection. It's been long enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment after 8 years this should pretty much automatically be unprotected, I can't really understand why it was protected in the first place, one recreation and instant long term protection I would certainly hope wouldn't happen today. That said I'd note Cunard's comments above on what the appropriate article should be, and of course any created article is still subject to further deletion scrutiny. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unrprotect, Hullaballoo makes the case more directly than I might have. It's my guess that Cunard's suggestion will be the final outcome, but that would best be left to a discussion at the article after recreation. --joe deckertalk 21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Archaeological Society of Slovenia
- Archaeological Society of Slovenia (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The AfD was closed as no consensus, but the article still has the notability tag. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, AfD showed that the article topic meets the GNG but the article itself is in a bad shape and should be improved. Still, this is not a reason for deletion. --Tone 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. Constant relisting is a bad idea, and the participants were unsure about whether there were more sources in Slovenian, so no consensus was the appropriate decision, as it allows time for editors to find sources. Esquivalience t 20:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can the nominator clarify what precisely he/she wants done here? Stifle (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
24 March 2016
Power Rangers Ninja Steel (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted by someone who believes the person who wrote the article was banned. I think the article should be reviewed and not deleted until it's proven that they're indeed banned. 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth
- User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
We didn't discuss it for 12 hours. Heavily debated deletion on policy grounds,no support for a U5 claim. 166.176.57.187 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The deletion review process requires you to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before lodging a request here. Can you please advise why you chose not to do this? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest this is speedily closed as the obvious trolling it is. This is an unsourced promotional biography which was the sole contribution of the editor who created it over five years ago, and who has not been seen since. WP:CSD#U5. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. Misuse of WP:CSD#U5. Leaving that aside, this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. Good call. Drafts should not remain in userspace indefinitely even if they are not BLP/overly promotional/unsourced. This should have been deleted years ago. Opposition during AfD has no solid basis in policy, speedy deletion has. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse, U5 seems to fit the case here. I find the idea that BLP provisions should not apply in the draft space to be disturbing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
- I can't see the article. But if it's been around for years it's not clear why a speedy for U5 was appropriate or needed. BLP issues were raised at the MfD but not settled. overturn and (re)list at MfD unless someone has a claim that there is a true BLP violation (attack page, etc.) here. Draft articles are not U5 targets, they are for MfD. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The fact that it was not noticed for years is not really relevant. Remember, we're building an encyclopaedia. This article would be instantly deleted as WP:CSD#A7 in mainspace, creation of the user page is the sole contribution of the editor (whose only two edits, ever, were to this page) and that user has not been back in over five years. There is no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose to this page. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- What a wreck. Between its age (the only non-minor edits were over a two-day period in January 2010), the quality of its content (it would have been an A7 in articlespace, and barely skirts G11 outside it), and the quality of its MFD (where I can't find even one edit that was both accurate and primarily about this draft), I don't object to its deletion. On the other hand, there's no way this was a U5 - U5 does not apply to drafts of articles, or anything that even looks like a draft of an article. Gripping hand, the nominator here is a banned user, and should have just been reverted instead of indulged. Take no action. —Cryptic 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, or rather relist at MfD. This was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article. U5 is for "writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", and producing encyclopedia articles is one of Wikipedia's goals. Admittedly the resulting article is unsuitable for mainspace for a variety of reasons, but WP:NOT isn't one of them. Hut 8.5 07:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp was deleted by the same administrator under the same speedy deletion criteria even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp resulted in userification prior that day. It had previously survived Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. This is the proper place to challenge the result of a close; improper unilateral action should not be taken. Furthermore, and more on point to this discussion, WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to raise a DRV on this other article then you are free to do so, adding it here as a different case seems to be little more than muddying the water. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Relist. Even though it's unlikely to survive MfD, a contentious debate shouldn't be short-circuited with fallacious reasoning as appears to have happened here. Rebbing 06:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- The DRV regulars had a very recent policy discussion about this exact subject here. I have nothing to add to what I said in that venue.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment If this page is too abusive to be temporarily undeleted can there be clarification on some relevant matters. Which user created it? When was it last edited? Was deletion urgent? Did it have an AFC header? Did it say it was a draft? Was it a BLP? If so did it have any references at all or contentious claims or was it entirely contentious or exclusively promotional? Thincat (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not too abusive; it's just that nobody asked. I've tempundeleted it. —Cryptic 15:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. as obvious misuse of WP:CSD#U5. It may be a lousy article draft. but lousy article drafts on plausible article subjects simply don't qualify for speedy deletion, especially since there was a good faith, guideline-based XFD debate in progress. Completely unjustified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse deletionU5 says "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, (#1 goal is writing articles-this was hopeless) where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages (check), with the exception of plausible drafts (it was not a plausable draft of an article for mainspace) and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. (does not meet anything on that list)" Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It looks like a plausible draft to me. By that I mean, it looks like the early stages of a good-faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article about a topic that is not obviously inappropriate. Can you please explain the thought process that leads you to conclude it is not a plausible draft? Thparkth (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. This was a clear attempt at a draft; it does not qualify for WP:U5. Whether intentional or not, the speedy deletion during an MfD amounted to a supervote. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Then move it to mainspace (where it will be deleted as WP:CSD#A7) or leave it deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles abandoned years ago in user space by users who basically never edited at all, form no obvious part of that endeavour. We currently have a very stupid circular argument where people say you can't delete no-hope "drafts" in user space because they are drafts, you can't move them to main space where they will inevitably be nuked because that is "disruptive", so basically all crap must be preserved in perpetuity in order to save the feelings of editors-in-name-only. It's bonkers. Crap should be tidied up. Requiring people to bring A SHRUBBERY! in order to do so, and then saying it's is the wrong kind of shrubbery, is really not a good use of anybody's time here. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think were that article in mainspace today, it would not be a good candidate for an A7. Photographers are sometimes notable, so being a photographer whose work has been published in several well-known magazines is a WP:CCS. It probably would not meet GNG and would be deleted after discussion, though. Are you saying that this was an IAR delete, not a U5? If we want to decide as a community that user space is to be cleaned up, then we should do so by documenting the new consensus at WP:UP and WP:CSD - not by applying CSD criteria in ways we personally believe they should be applied. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify JzG, the reason we are at DRV is because using your bit to supervote is not the intended purpose of the mop. You clearly feel that MfD should be used to keep user space tidy, but opinions on the subject are running both ways and enforcing your opinion via deletion while the subject is under discussion seems inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then move it to mainspace (where it will be deleted as WP:CSD#A7) or leave it deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles abandoned years ago in user space by users who basically never edited at all, form no obvious part of that endeavour. We currently have a very stupid circular argument where people say you can't delete no-hope "drafts" in user space because they are drafts, you can't move them to main space where they will inevitably be nuked because that is "disruptive", so basically all crap must be preserved in perpetuity in order to save the feelings of editors-in-name-only. It's bonkers. Crap should be tidied up. Requiring people to bring A SHRUBBERY! in order to do so, and then saying it's is the wrong kind of shrubbery, is really not a good use of anybody's time here. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. U5 does not apply to a draft article, no matter how unsourced it is. It is best to let the discussion run its course. Esquivalience t 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn It was a draft and so not U5 and since deletion wasn't urgent it shouldn't have been speedied during an MFD anyway. Poor behaviour by the closer. If the MFD had been allowed to continue I would have been sympathetic to it being deleted because it a "no-hope draft" (no indication of importance) which hasn't been edited for a long time. I don't at all agree with the suggestion above that MFD can't delete on such grounds if there is consensus for that. Such a deletion would in my view be very different from deleting a seemingly abandoned draft of worthwhile quality or deleting a recent poor draft. If there are a lot of such drafts and if there is a consistency of decision then a new speedy criterion could be proposed. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment WOW the amount of words here compared to the actual draft is incredible. We have what reads like a vanity piece, the apparent sole contribution of an editor 5 years ago, nominated by a banned user as part of a campaign against a specific editor. Good to see we all have our priorities straight. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see two reasons why this is actually important:
- CSD is easily open to abuse where the only meaningful check-and-balance is DRV. As such, it's important we get this right.
- IMO, deleting "stale" drafts and stuff is yet another way to drive away potential contributors. Sure, 95% of these folks are never going to contribute usefully. But when doing this for 1000 users, that might be a significant number of contributors we've driven away. And, again IMO, all for no significant benefit.
- I see two reasons why this is actually important:
-
-
- You are right it's important that we have checks and balances such that those wishing to troll other editors can get a fair hearing, and that contributor (who isn't present here or indeed anywhere it appears) with these two edits five years ago we might be driving off. It's that significant that these few words get such coverage and so many words from so many wikipedians, whilst real articles etc. with real editors at DRV/MFD/XFD can barely raise a comment, whilst those articles/drafts get no improvements. Yep you've convinced me that this is all totally in perspective.
-
-
-
- You know if this troll hadn't bothered listing this here for their alternative motive, this likely would never have even been considered, so declaring this as something significant overall to wikipedia is somewhat hollow. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides of this have a loss of perspective, those going and spending times even listing this sort of stuff for deletion (and those pressing the button), this should be of so little real significance. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The point I'm trying to make isn't that this page is particularly special. It's all the other pages that will and/or are seeing the same outcome that I'm worried about. In the same way, some court cases are pretty minor for the specific case, but important overall. e.g., Roe vs. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- You know if this troll hadn't bothered listing this here for their alternative motive, this likely would never have even been considered, so declaring this as something significant overall to wikipedia is somewhat hollow. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides of this have a loss of perspective, those going and spending times even listing this sort of stuff for deletion (and those pressing the button), this should be of so little real significance. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Clay J. Cockerell
- Clay J. Cockerell (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I created this article last year and it was deleted for what the administrator says was too promotional. I requested that the article be undeleted and I was told that it was definiately promotional and that it would not be restored and that I would have to come here. According to the reason the administrator says it was deleted, the page would have to be "fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The criteria also says "if a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." The subject is a scholar and doctor and is notable (please see his references in Google Scholar). I would request that the article be undeleted as it is not promotional in my opinion. If it is considered promotional by others, I am not sure that it is such that it would need to be completely rewritten. Thank you for your consideration. Studenttopics (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can we get a temp. undelete here or could someone otherwise provide a copy of the article? Hobit (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse I was the editor who nominated it for deletion. It is possible that the individual is notable, and that a new article can be written. But this one is an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles don;'t continually referto the subject as Dr., don't emphasise the person's hobbies, don't contain text like "He is married to his high school sweetheart, ..., also a native Texan and they wed in..." , don't advertise the person's products that they sell to their patient, don't list things like "being named as an honoree for Who's Who in Health Care by the Dallas Business Journal" as notable awards. What does show these features is a person's web page, and that's where this sort of content belongs. The puffery here extends to giving local newspaper references for ""Abilenian enters medical school" and "Exam Lets Abilenian Skip Sophomore Year". That;s the kind of thing a fond parent puts in the family Christmas card--or that a promotional WP editor puts in when trying to add every scrap possible Yes, I could conceivably have rewritten it & tried to show notability, but it would have meant rewriting from scratch, for I consider not a single one of the paragraphs usable as they stand. But I've done too much helping promotional editors earn their pay at my expense, by substituting my proper work for their bad work. I'll still do it for an article someone really famous, for that serves the interests of the `encyclopedia and its readers. (In case it applies, I also would like to remind the editor of our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. We at this time have no rule calling for the deletion of articles on the basis that they might violate the terms of use, but only do so on the article oontent. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. This was a good speedy deletion. Maybe an article can be written about this person in an appropriate tone, but it would indeed require a fundamental rewrite. Thparkth (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse, this was a terrible article. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
not endorseI understand why it was deleted, but I think creating a stub based on the article would have been just as easy as deletion (the first paragraph would be a reasonable, if not ideal, stub). At the same time, I don't think we want this article as-it-is around, so I can't !vote to overturn. So... Once the DRV is done I'll try to create a new article based on the old one and then I'll ask for a history undelete to keep attribution. It will be a lot shorter, but meet our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)- Endorse, the article in question was intensely promotional and there is no way it could be "fixed", you'd have to start from scratch. However, permit creation of a stub or other article on the topic if it can be well sourced and non-promotional. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
- With respect to Hobit, even the first paragraph is so full of puffery that it would need a fundamental rewrite. The last sentence is ok, but a single sentence does not an article make. This solidly meets both the letter and intent of G11; endorse. —Cryptic 03:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes, Wikipedians decide that an article on a topic would be acceptable but we don't want this article. The relevant essay is WP:TNT. This is slightly at odds with our deletion policy at WP:ATD, which says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Historically this used to be a contradiction which we resolved by refusing to delete fixable content, demanding that the content was fixed instead. However, nowadays this has been considerably simplified by the addition of a paragraph to WP:ATD lower down on the same page, which reads: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. A neutral, encyclopaedic article about Mr Cockerell would be acceptable. The deleted content was a vanity advertisement of the kind that does not belong on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. – the article never was taken to AfD. It was speedy deleted, so the "completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD" clause does not apply here. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Cunard, I stand corrected. My position is that I have no objection to an article with this title existing if a user in good standing takes responsibility for it, and Hullaballoo appears to have done so.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. The article is ghastly, but cleanup would require extensive pruning/stubbing rather than a fundamental rewrite. Whacking about two-thirds of the text and light copyediting would be sufficient. That wouldn't be a fundamental rewrite, just about two minutes' editing at most. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Userfy to Hullaballoo so he can edit it for a couple of minutes and then restore when he feels it's ready. Don't mind it being restored if an editor in good standing takes responsibility for it.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- 97 seconds work with my machete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- The old version of the article was WP:ADMASQ but not to a horrible degree so it should've been cleaned up instead of G11ed, saving time. Nonetheless, the article is fine now, and the subject is most likely notable (h = 40) so no concerns. Esquivalience t 21:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. WP:CSD#G11 says:
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
22 March 2016
Whirling
Many reasons against deletion, and the merger. Please review the AfD discussion page first and foremost to get a flavor of what went down. In summary form: Whirling is a dance genre and a dance technique. A well-sourced page was created, in contrast to existing pages for Sufi spinning and Tanoura, a separate style of dance originating in Egypt. The discussion seemed to be leading to consensus that improvement to all three was necessary, and compelling arguments were made against merger of the three (one of the editors' suggestions). The merger resulted in incoherence. This is a request for a neutral review and thorough/impartial discussion. A related discussion regarding NPOV is afoot at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Strange controversy over Whirling. This is an important topic in the contemporary dance and visual arts community. Thank you for your help ahead of time. Viapastrengo (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was the nominator in this AfD. I nominated the article over a lack of sources per WP:GNG, not the content of the topic itself. Viapastrengo's defense of the article was based on the latter. For what it's worth, I was surprised that the discussion was closed without being relisted, given that it had re-scoped to include the merge of a third article, which had only had a few days' notice. Also, for full disclosure, I should mention that I reported Viapastrengo for sockpuppetry during the AfD, for apparently contributing to the discussion from multiple IPs. Ibadibam (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the candor, and the good faith that was evident in the original set of exchanges between all of us on the AfD page. For what it's worth, I was perhaps quite surprised by the vigorous nature of the AfD arguments on a topic that in earlier times would have been very uncontroversial and a perfect candidate for incubation. Hence, when I was asking everyone to give time and was making a sincere request to entertain this in good faith, because sourcing continued throughout. If the tone came across as brusque, that's one thing, but I trust it would have been clear to anyone who was reading the sources being provided that the typology of whirling was not merely some academic shell game, but had real life/death implications. I don't know how to get this across any more plainly, but characterizing Sufi whirling as giving rise to (and still subsuming wholly) a modern dance tradition with stage performances by women, in dress costumes, just paints with a huuuuuge and grossly inaccurate brush. The images that emerge from these brushstrokes include a larger target on the backs of Sufi practitioners in modern-day Turkey; incomprehensible and unnecessary associational links between an apolitical dance and/or dance technique and particular spiritual traditions; general confusion. What was meant to be captured by the original whirling article was a dance style/genre/technique -- with no particular predicate connections to a Western or Oriental or Fusion or other dance tradition. It captured a dance that is performed on many stages all over the world, and in popular media (Dr. Oz) and in fictionalized accounts (Katniss Everdeen's Girl on Fire scene). In the course of the discussion, it was made clear that substantiating a particular genre of dance would be slightly more different than substantiating the notability of, say, a political figure, because it'd be significantly easier to flesh out the textual authorities for the latter. With respect to the former, as was made clear with reference to dances like Dub (dance), sourcing would necessarily include non-textual authorities, in addition to traditional sources. In the tradition of describing a musical genre, and any other non-textual artistic genre. This required nurturing, support, incubation. Instead, there emerged a strange, classically Western, textual fetish in the AfD discussion. This resulted in merge suggestions that then had to be counteracted, which raised all sorts of new issues. Long story short, the merger was very sudden and grossly ill-conceived. This should have been incubated, relisted, developed ... wikified ... as a set of disparate concepts/traditions. This much was obvious from the discussion.Viapastrengo (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I read all the sources, and stated the problems with them during the AfD. Most of them were exclusively about Sufi whirling and did not support the topic previously covered at whirling. Others were primary-source examples of particular performers and performances that did not include information about a broader movement, genre or school of dance. To infer from these isolated examples a broader trend is original research, something that's outside the scope of this encyclopedia. I can appreciate and respect that, as an academic, original research is your line of work, but there are already other venues and platforms for that. Wikipedia does not draw conclusions; it restates the conclusions of secondary sources. Were you, or a colleague, to author a paper on this topic and get it peer-reviewed and published, I would be happy—proud—to cite it here. In the meantime, if you would like to "incubate" the topic, I invite you to continue working on the article as a draft. And please, please do make sourced contributions to Sufi whirling, as your contributions are still needed to improve Wikipedia. Ibadibam (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely not original research. Take a look at the original article. Take a look at the sources that were offered. Original research and sui generis arguments were raised in the XfD discussion, not in the article, and it is wrong to mischaracterize the stem article as original research. Take a look at the Dr. Oz clip. Whirling as dancing is discussed as a stress relief technique for, say, menopausal women. Then the globally-syndicated show pans to women whirling in choreographed dances. How this belongs in Sufi spinning is beyond me; how the noms can continue to maintain this as a non-notable dance or dance technique is beyond me, when the sources pointed to the contrary ... beyond me; how anyone following this discussion fails to see the epistemic danger of lumping these disparate practices together ... beyond me. So, Ibadibam, I appreciate you imploring others to continue contributing, but if a genuine good faith contribution is going to be met with this level of hostility, intellectual insensitivity, and outright DP violations (no-notice merges, discussion closures, three-way mergers because someone feels they got the gist on what is and isn't a particular dance, then frankly, this form of WP is ... beyond me. I hope everyone gets a chance to revisit their own implicit biases and to shift some paradigms as a result of this. Because nobody on the nom side should feel comfortable with the way this discussion went down. I realize that our coding fingers are typically used to cursory arguments. But the level of discourse here should have alerted everyone to the stakes in the discussion. I'm just disappointed so few of the editors took time to connect the dots on the real-world implications of this.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I read all the sources, and stated the problems with them during the AfD. Most of them were exclusively about Sufi whirling and did not support the topic previously covered at whirling. Others were primary-source examples of particular performers and performances that did not include information about a broader movement, genre or school of dance. To infer from these isolated examples a broader trend is original research, something that's outside the scope of this encyclopedia. I can appreciate and respect that, as an academic, original research is your line of work, but there are already other venues and platforms for that. Wikipedia does not draw conclusions; it restates the conclusions of secondary sources. Were you, or a colleague, to author a paper on this topic and get it peer-reviewed and published, I would be happy—proud—to cite it here. In the meantime, if you would like to "incubate" the topic, I invite you to continue working on the article as a draft. And please, please do make sourced contributions to Sufi whirling, as your contributions are still needed to improve Wikipedia. Ibadibam (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the candor, and the good faith that was evident in the original set of exchanges between all of us on the AfD page. For what it's worth, I was perhaps quite surprised by the vigorous nature of the AfD arguments on a topic that in earlier times would have been very uncontroversial and a perfect candidate for incubation. Hence, when I was asking everyone to give time and was making a sincere request to entertain this in good faith, because sourcing continued throughout. If the tone came across as brusque, that's one thing, but I trust it would have been clear to anyone who was reading the sources being provided that the typology of whirling was not merely some academic shell game, but had real life/death implications. I don't know how to get this across any more plainly, but characterizing Sufi whirling as giving rise to (and still subsuming wholly) a modern dance tradition with stage performances by women, in dress costumes, just paints with a huuuuuge and grossly inaccurate brush. The images that emerge from these brushstrokes include a larger target on the backs of Sufi practitioners in modern-day Turkey; incomprehensible and unnecessary associational links between an apolitical dance and/or dance technique and particular spiritual traditions; general confusion. What was meant to be captured by the original whirling article was a dance style/genre/technique -- with no particular predicate connections to a Western or Oriental or Fusion or other dance tradition. It captured a dance that is performed on many stages all over the world, and in popular media (Dr. Oz) and in fictionalized accounts (Katniss Everdeen's Girl on Fire scene). In the course of the discussion, it was made clear that substantiating a particular genre of dance would be slightly more different than substantiating the notability of, say, a political figure, because it'd be significantly easier to flesh out the textual authorities for the latter. With respect to the former, as was made clear with reference to dances like Dub (dance), sourcing would necessarily include non-textual authorities, in addition to traditional sources. In the tradition of describing a musical genre, and any other non-textual artistic genre. This required nurturing, support, incubation. Instead, there emerged a strange, classically Western, textual fetish in the AfD discussion. This resulted in merge suggestions that then had to be counteracted, which raised all sorts of new issues. Long story short, the merger was very sudden and grossly ill-conceived. This should have been incubated, relisted, developed ... wikified ... as a set of disparate concepts/traditions. This much was obvious from the discussion.Viapastrengo (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. Not an obvious close, but it feels correct. The Keep !votes failed to argue notability of the topic. Reverse the redirect only if there is clear repudiation of the merge at Talk:Sufi_whirling, or if there is demonstrated consensus for a spinout. Whirling looks to be definitely a variation based on Sufi_whirling, and should be mentioned in that article first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Closer's comment: Apart from the "keep" opinions not making a serious notability-based (i.e., sources-based) argument, another factor that led me to largely discount them was the fact that the "keep" opinions were made by one registered editor and a bunch of IPs, which is often a sign of canvassing, meat- or sockpuppetry. Sandstein 10:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse Closure was correct given the discussion. As SmokyJoe says, it may well be that the merge target folks find the merge to be untenable, in which case we'll have to figure out what to do. But we need sources to keep this as a stand alone article. I don't think we have them. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse without sourcing strong enough to support a standalone article there are really two options - No article or proportionate coverage in another article. The argument that we should somehow apply a different standard for substantiating notability because a topic is somehow a special case is not an uncommon argument in DRV and usually read to meant the standard can't be met. I'd also note a common mistake is conflating volume of argument with quality of argument --82.14.37.32 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. I do not know whether ofr not there was the making of an article here, but I can tell that there was no consensus in the discussion. the reason given by the closer should have been given in the discussion, for it represents , not the view of the consensus, but their own view of what should be done, which is sometimes called a "supervote". DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. This doesn't feel "supervotey" to me. Although there was considerable strength of feeling on the "keep" side, it wasn't backed up by either evidence of notability, or by an argument that an exception to the regular guidelines should apply. The closer is entitled (and in fact, required) to consider the weight of the arguments advanced by each side. In this case I think the close was well-considered and reasonable. Thparkth (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since when did feelings become a legitimate basis for voting? Moments earlier, and on a different topic, Thparkth felt that "[...] this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote." Thparkth then goes on to note the considerable strength of feeling on the keep side. Not really. There was considerable strength of argumentation for why the two, then THREE, articles should not be merged. The result wasn't just a supervote, but a super-duper-vote, with a resulting article that is super-duper confusing and dangerous in light of all of the arguments that were raised. The discussion was not true to the original ethos of WP, and if there's a lesson here, it is that super-feelings can apparently pass for serious argument. More importantly, I urge everyone to take a look at the related NPOV discussion because the deletion noms made clear what their real beef with the original article was, and it seems that notability was pretextual. The real motivation was Ibadibam frank admission that Western whirling didn't deserve to be at the same level as centuries-old Sufi spinning. I thanked Ibadibam for the honesty there, and everyone should have clued in to the good faith nature of the discussion that was developing. But that was not a notability critique. It was a deeply dangerous exercise of editorial discretion against strong arguments to the contrary. The attempt to then develop post-hoc rationalizations for a merge of THREE (3) articles, one of which had practically nothing to do with the discussion, and was merged with little to no notice nonetheless, shows not just supervoting, but the exercise of superpower, which is unfaithful to the credo of WP. Original research, sockpuppetry, quantity ≠ quality, and other afterthought rationales are disingenuous and completely misrepresent the essence, and consequences, of the XfD discussion.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Recent discussions
20 March 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Please restore former article Winter Carnival as Dartmouth Winter Carnival, to subsequently merge in Dartmouth College traditions#Winter Carnival.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 March 2016
Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group
- Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Notabilty rules disregarded. The article only gives:
- a link to a link page of B'Tselem
- a link to a hasbara organization with one sentence about the stated goals, a reference to a report of PHRMG itself, and one sentence about the funding, without references
- a link to an article of an outspoken pro-Israel advocate on a Jewish opinion platform, with barely info about PHRMG
- a link to the Washington Post, 1997, with merely the announcement of the foundation of PHRMG and a few citations from a PHRMG report.
While Bassam Eid is still sometimes mentioned as the founder of PHRMG, the organization itself has long ago ended its activities. See also: User talk:Sandstein#Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. Qualitatis (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. This is the litmus test for hypocrisy and double standards, because Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor was deleted. A comparable organization that is far more notable than the completely irrelevant PHRMG. I know that every article is reviewed independently, but there is a real problem if different criteria are applied to similar articles. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. I agree that the sources presented are not the best, but it's up to the participants in the AfD to evaluate the quality of the sources. A majority of them felt the sources were sufficient, and the close accurately reflects that. As for the organization itself has long ago ended its activities., that doesn't mean anything. We've got a whole set of categories about defunct organizations. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. The AfD close reflected the consensus of the discussion. The argument made by Qualitatis here, even if completely correct, does not show any grounds for overturning the AfD. Thparkth (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. The outcome was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where errors in the deletion process can be called out. An admin closing a deletion discussion in line with the consensus is not an error of the deletion process, even if you don't like the fact that it wasn't closed the way you wanted. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Errors in the deletion process include the considering of manipulative editing of the review page to create double voting, considering that only 4 voted to keep and 2 (including the nominator) to delete, and most importantly, considering the not upholding of Wikipedia rules. Nothing surprising. This puppet-show is only a confirmation of my already assumed policy of hypocrisy and double standards. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Qualitatis, deletion discussions are not closed by counting votes, but even if they were, four "keeps" versus two "deletes" would probably result in a "keep" outcome. There aren't really any "Wikipedia rules" on notability - only guidelines. A clear consensus at a well-attended AfD can absolutely override any notability guideline if the participants feel it is appropriate. That didn't even happen in this case though - the consensus seems to have been that the topic was sufficiently covered in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, which is the "normal" way notability is demonstrated according to the guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulative editing of the review page" (assuming you mean the AfD page) - all I see is thoughtful commenting by experienced editors, some of whom specialize in the deletion process and very definitely have no personal agenda regarding the notability of a defunct Palestinian NGO. Thparkth (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that it was not a well-attended AfD, just as with the previous deletion discussions. I referred to this edit from E.M.Gregory, where he turned a notice of Sir Joseph into a vote (Far too notable to delete). --Qualitatis (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong and evidently presented in good faith? He put another's name under his opinion, although he had already voted. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Qualitatis, deletion discussions are not closed by counting votes, but even if they were, four "keeps" versus two "deletes" would probably result in a "keep" outcome. There aren't really any "Wikipedia rules" on notability - only guidelines. A clear consensus at a well-attended AfD can absolutely override any notability guideline if the participants feel it is appropriate. That didn't even happen in this case though - the consensus seems to have been that the topic was sufficiently covered in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, which is the "normal" way notability is demonstrated according to the guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulative editing of the review page" (assuming you mean the AfD page) - all I see is thoughtful commenting by experienced editors, some of whom specialize in the deletion process and very definitely have no personal agenda regarding the notability of a defunct Palestinian NGO. Thparkth (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Errors in the deletion process include the considering of manipulative editing of the review page to create double voting, considering that only 4 voted to keep and 2 (including the nominator) to delete, and most importantly, considering the not upholding of Wikipedia rules. Nothing surprising. This puppet-show is only a confirmation of my already assumed policy of hypocrisy and double standards. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse Anything notable remains notable; WP is a permanent record, and additional material was found and added during the discussion. No other close would have been possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. Closer's evaluation of consensus was plainly accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
17 March 2016
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
According to this, Vichet has since played for the Cambodian national football team, meaning he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I've taken the issue up with the deleting administrator, but they've been inactive since November. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2016 (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. |
<REASON> was deleted in 2012 for the reason that it was a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, as well as lack of primary sources. Many more primary sources exist now (or could be cited). German page by now exists as well. Restore prior page and provide better sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.133.162 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 March 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted in 2009 for failing WP:N. He now hosts a Comedy Central TV show, This Is Not Happening (TV series), and has a Comedy Central special X538 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Archive
2016 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
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 |
|