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
23 March 2016
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)
- 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)
20 March 2016
Dartmouth Winter Carnival
- Dartmouth Winter Carnival (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Please restore former article Winter Carnival as Dartmouth Winter Carnival, to subsequently merge in Dartmouth College traditions#Winter Carnival.
One of the main arguments in the 2004 AfD discussion was that the article on the Dartmouth carnival tradition was mistitled under an all too generic title Winter Carnival. The other main argument was its supposed non-notability. While the current text isn't sufficiently sourced either, it contains a number of notability claims. Furthermore Google books lists quite a number of relevant hits, even including a few of books specifically covering the tradition of the Dartmouth Winter Carnival. --PanchoS (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I am being dumb, but a have a couple of questions:
- Given this was deleted some 11 years ago, before you apparently started editing, what makes you believe there is useful information above and beyond what is already in the merge target?
- How is this request different to what was already done a couple of weeks ago? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The outcome of the 2004 deletion discussion was a merge to Dartmouth College and my reading of the histories is that this was done on 21 August 2004. In June 2006, the Dartmouth College traditions page was created with, it seems, a copy&paste from the Dartmouth College page. Things have been complicated by a couple of moves of the merged from page and a recent split of the history with oldest edits moved to Dartmouth Winter Carnival, which I really don't think was necessary. Better to leave those edits with the original page, which is now at Winter festival, and make sure attribution is in place, and to make sure attribution is in place between Dartmouth College and Dartmouth College traditions--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Allow recreation it's been a long time and there does appear to be coverage that at least approaches the GNG. This of course provides no protection from future AfDs. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
17 March 2016
Um Vichet (closed)
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. |
Gernot Wagner
- Gernot Wagner (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
<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 afd - especially since it was weak, with only one participant other than the nominator - is no barrier to a re-creation that explicitly overcomes its reasoning, which new sources would do. The ones at de:Gernot Wagner, though, don't: that article cites the publisher's page for one of his books, his personal homepage, http://www.universum.co.at/ (which doesn't mention him), and searches for his name at ft.com and nytimes.com (which either have zero results, or they're both paywalling even search results now; I'm not certain which). These are actually worse than the sources that were in the English Wikipedia article when it was deleted, so it shouldn't be restored on that basis. —Cryptic 01:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason for deletion given is incorrect: it was never deleted based on an earlier discussion. If this is to be recreated--which is fine with me--please cite SECONDARY sources, and rewrite the article in a more objective form. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The article was deleted first by proposed deletion and then following a deletion discussion, both in 2012. As this was over three years ago, there is nothing stopping a new page being created now except for the matter of sourcing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Allow recreation, provided that secondary sources are available. Primary sources are irreleveant in determining notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
Recent discussions
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. |
12 March 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
My page was deleted for the reason that it was a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The discussion for deletion was 5 months ago and I believed that there are so much new information that came since then so I recreated the said page. I cited proper sources and I followed the notability for entertainers but the page was once again deleted. I left a message to the administrator who deleted the page but I received no response. MBdemigod (talk) 13:38, 12 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 |
|