Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
- Category:People with developmental coordination disorder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (|XfD|restore)
This page was deleted as per consensus involving six people per WP:NONDEFINING. This was because 1) the articles listed did not spend too much time on dyspraxia and 2) because dyspraxia is so common that the person who suggested it be deleted doubted that it could be defining except in severe cases (they went into greater detail in the category talk page but it has since been deleted, here is a link to a screenshot in case it's relevant). While I do not know what articles were originally in the category, I attempted to make a category myself without knowing that the category would later be deleted because of a decision made 4 years ago. As for the first point, in my category there were multiple celebrities who had another disability that did not receive any more focus than dyspraxia and yet they were listed in categories related to the other disability. This includes Tom Hunt (politician), who is listed in the category for politicians with dyslexia despite his article mentioning his dyspraxia more than his dyslexia and Olive Gray, who is listed in the categories for actors with dyslexia and people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]], despite dyspraxia being mentioned the same number of times as either dyslexia or ADHD. There is also Gage Golightly, whose early life section focuses mostly on her dyspraxia, and I would say at the very least, dyspraxia is clearly defining for her. What is even stranger is that some of these people are in categories for people with disabilities, despite dyspraxia being the only disability mentioned in their article. This includes Daniel Radcliffe, who is listed in the category for English actors with disabilities, despite having no other disability mentioned. As for the second argument, that 1 in 20 is too common, first off, how defining a disability is has no relation to how common it is. Second off, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, as dyslexia also affects about 1 in 20 people and there are many people listed in multiple categories for people with dyslexia, and most of them do not seem to have severe dyslexia. This is clear double standards and I would like this category to get undeleted. I do not believe that this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability and I believe that the fact that dyslexia is well-known and dyspraxia is not is the main reason why there are many categories related to people with dyslexia, but you are not able to create a single category of people with dyspraxia. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
This non-admin closure is not appropriate for a contentious topic (all India-related articles); especially as this was a 2nd nomination; I left a message on the closer's page, which [had] remained unanswered [before I initiated this DRV]. Requesting a relist to let a clearer consensus emerge and a close by an administrator. -Mushy Yank. 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I was tempted to just reopen the AfD per WP:REOPEN, and immediately re-close it as Draftify - again. The appellant is right that this probably should have been handled by an admin. But beyond that, the close correctly reflected consensus, especially when you consider that the previous AfD for it, with similar source strength, was closed only three weeks earlier. But in respect for Mushy Yank, whose tireless work in AfDs likely saved dozens of articles from untimely deletion, I chose to see what others here think. Pinging @CNMall41, Nathannah, RangersRus, BD2412, and Krimuk2.0, who participated in the AfD. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Adding @Sribrahma. -Mushy Yank. 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- While I have no problem with Sribrahma chiming in on this, if you believe the article falls under the Contentious Topics sanctions, please note that Sribrahma is not EC. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand. What does Sribrahma's user status have to do with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? -Mushy Yank. 16:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Once a topic has been assigned by Arbcom to be contentious, any uninvolved admin may impose the standard set of restrictions, the most common of which is limiting participation to only editors who are EC. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. OK, sure, but that's not the case yet. -Mushy Yank. 21:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Once a topic has been assigned by Arbcom to be contentious, any uninvolved admin may impose the standard set of restrictions, the most common of which is limiting participation to only editors who are EC. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand. What does Sribrahma's user status have to do with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? -Mushy Yank. 16:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- While I have no problem with Sribrahma chiming in on this, if you believe the article falls under the Contentious Topics sanctions, please note that Sribrahma is not EC. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Adding @Sribrahma. -Mushy Yank. 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse - As nominator of the both the first and second AfDs. The page could have been speedied due to the fact it was only 20 days since the page was moved to draft upon completion of a discussion. There were only two keep votes, one of which mentioned a redirect or draftification as something to consider. Even the page creator (who should have never moved it out of draft space in the first place), recommended draftification as an WP:ATD.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse clear consensus to draftify on both AFDs (noting that a large number of users participated in both of them). While this close probably should have been left to an administrator as a contentious subject, the closer got this one right and opening it for an admin to close the same way is just process for the sake of process. I strongly disagree with CNMall41's claim that the page could have been speedied as significant changes were made between the versions art the first and second AFDs such that the draftify equivilent to WP:G4 would not apply. Frank Anchor 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorseish; this wasn't a BADNAC but I think non-admin closers should agree to any good-faith request to revert a close, since that signals it's sufficiently contentious to require an admin. But with OwenX above noting that he would make the same close decision, overturning this particular close would just be an exercise in bureaucracy. FWIW, Mushy appears to have miscounted the "keeps" and I do think the consensus is for draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as the close that reflects consensus, and as the close that is consistent with policies and guidelines. The non-admin closer made a good-faith error in closing the AFD, but it is a mistake where Deletion Review can endorse the close rather than either reopening or relisting. There is no need for a relist, because this AFD was essentially a relist of the first AFD. User:RangersRus had a good idea in the first AFD and in the second AFD that the draft should be move-locked. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse I feel like there was plenty of time to comment and though the closure should've been from an admin, they'd make the same decision. Nathannah • 📮 23:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn. The nominator did not give a valid deletion rationale, and User:BD2412 didn’t address the question, and User:RangersRus was a mere “per nom” which is worthless when the nom statement didn’t give a deletion reason. Nate argued “churnalism” but didn’t get specific. With User:Mushy Yank listing a small number of specific sources, this discussion was not reasonable closed.
- It is WP:Reference bombed, but the references include reliable sources, and principle photography has begun, the main threshold of WP:NFF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: What question did I not address, and why would that have anything to do with the outcome? If unaddressed questions are allowed as a reason to overturn an XfD, we will juts be inviting proponents to pepper opposing votes with questions in the hopes that they will go unaddressed, to use that as a gotcha. In any case, my !vote was for draftification, not deletion, which allows for restoration to mainspace when the draft meets the requisite quality in the opinion of an AfC reviewer, usually an experienced one. BD2412 T 01:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- The question not addressed is whether the topic qualifies for inclusion mainspace.
- And if the answer is WP:TOOSOON/Draftify, until what?
- The AfDs fail on both counts, and when User:Mushy Yank goes to details, he has procedural points thrown at him. This is disrespectful, and a failure of the deletion process justifying a DRV “Overturn”.
- The topic passes the relevant guideline. The page is Reference bombed. The answer is Stubify SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then let a seasoned AfC reviewer make that call, rather than allowing a virtual SPA with fewer than 150 edits to unilaterally promote a recently-deleted subject back to mainspace. The move could have been speedily reverted. The second AfD was an over-extension of grace. BD2412 T 22:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: What question did I not address, and why would that have anything to do with the outcome? If unaddressed questions are allowed as a reason to overturn an XfD, we will juts be inviting proponents to pepper opposing votes with questions in the hopes that they will go unaddressed, to use that as a gotcha. In any case, my !vote was for draftification, not deletion, which allows for restoration to mainspace when the draft meets the requisite quality in the opinion of an AfC reviewer, usually an experienced one. BD2412 T 01:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse per all (or nearly all) above. This was a reasonable and correct close, particularly given the very recent previous AfD coming to the same conclusion, which was closed by a much more experienced admin. BD2412 T 01:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The AFD was closed in a very rational manner. Move to draftify is the right decision. As I said in the AFD, filming did not complete for Ramayana 1, showing source where as of Feb 21, 2025, an actor Yash, who is also a producer began filming his scenes. Sources about pics going viral, phone policy on set, non-independent sources that include members of the production, and director of the film does not help to make the page notable. Indepth coverage is needed in secondary independent sources. It is better to keep in draft as it was done before till the film reaches post-production or close to release date to get more significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NFF has used the phrase “commenced principal photography” for a long time.
- You would change this to “reaches post-production or close to release date”?
- Is that for all films, or just Indian films? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- How about just for films from regions where we have had metric tons of COI and UPE editors pushing films because they see Wikipedia as an advertising platform rather than as an encyclopedia? BD2412 T 22:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- The quality of sourcing here is the same as the quality of sourcing for a released Indian film. The only problem with upcoming films and events is worthless information prior to the release or prior to the event happening, which may not be verified when the thing takes place, meaning speculation, partial information lacking context, totally bogus claims, etc. none of which has any educational value, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. If the facts are stable and the statements we can verifiably include have a lasting bearing on the topic, then the topic is just like any other topic. Here we have multiple stable facts. Did in May 2017, producers Allu Aravind, Namit Malhotra, and Madhu Mantena not announce their collaboration to adapt the epic Ramayana into a live-action feature film trilogy? Did in July 2019, Madhu Mantena not bring Dangal director Nitesh Tiwari and Mom director Ravi Udyawar on board to direct the trilogy? Etc. This is not WP:CRYSTAL content, it is already an account of history, with some events happening nearly 8 years back, and it qualifies for a general judgement on notability. —Alalch E. 23:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- How about just for films from regions where we have had metric tons of COI and UPE editors pushing films because they see Wikipedia as an advertising platform rather than as an encyclopedia? BD2412 T 22:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn classic BADNAC. The outcome was a close call, there were several valid outcomes, and was therefore likely to be controversial. Going further, beyond BADNAC... "Fails NFF" means "not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography", which has the consequence of the topic not qualifying for notability considerations under NFILM. NFF is a disqualifying criterion. This topic does not fail NFF because the topic is confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced prinicpal photography, and that's not my opinion, it's just reading the guideline and what's in the AfD. This topic is objectively not disqualified from potential eligibility for stand-alone coverage. What is needed is for editors to determine whether it's a notable topic. This AfD did not do that. The discussion tends toward an agreement that the topic is notable. "Still no improvement from before and I will recommend to put a move lock" has zero weight in showing that it isn't. When the nomination is this bad, that generally has a bad effect on the rest of the discussion, and this discussion wasn't good. An administrator can decide whether to overturn to no consensus or relist. If relisting, please say the right things in the relisting comment: The editors should decide if the topic is a notable topic based on the available sourcing.—Alalch E. 22:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
The actor has done 4 lead roles now after the deletion. Please review the deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.203.73.23 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Allow new draft. The 2022 deletion was correct. I see little point in restoring the 58 words of prose in the deleted stub, but have no objection either. As for the sources originally cited there, one is now a 404, another was a brief mentionin the TOI, and the third was this one. It looks like there are more sources now, of varying quality. Owen× ☎ 14:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a !vote and I am certain the original deletion closure was correct. But I don't think that 103.203.73.23 is thinking about the 2022 AfD, rather about the 2025 A3-CSD. Not the right venue, but restoring the speedy-deleted page (even stubbish as it seems it was) or the original article (if it is better; or provide that user with the texts of both) into a Draft could be seen as helpful/friendly/a clear token of good will and might be perceived as such by 103.203.73.23, if they are a new user. (This actress seems now notable and I suppose an article about her could be expanded into a decent page with a little help.)-Mushy Yank. 15:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- The 2025 version isn't getting restored. You can see its entire content in the creation log. —Cryptic 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the deletion. The title has not been salted. The requester can create a draft and submit it for review at AFC. Restoring the deleted article that does not show the recent roles would be a mistake and would encourage a lazy approach to creating a new article. Perhaps DRV Purpose 3 should be clarified that it is not the approach to be used for persons who have recently become notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Significantly outdated BLP drafts and articles from the period when the subject was found to be non-notable should usually not be undeleted, because such content is generally substandard BLP content which doesn't even make for a reasonable start of an article.—Alalch E. 23:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - See the negative statements at DRV Purpose, including point 10:
We (DRV) often don't cite this point, although we do follow it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
- Archive of the first source, which OwenX omitted. I'd hope those in a recreated draft would be substantially better than any of the three. —Cryptic 10:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi I was the one who filed this complaint. I can't understand what most of you are saying. I just want to know can the contents of the 2022 deleted version be put back since the actress has done enough lead roles? I will work on it, improve it and make it a suitable article Countoninnerbeauty (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. Editors, including myself, have been responding to your request to review the deletion. Everyone agrees that the deletion was carried out correctly. You did not state that it was done incorrectly; you suggested that the reason for the deletion, which existed at that time, may no longer exist. Normally, that, in itself, is not a reason to review a deletion. You did not need to initiate this discussion and could have simply created a new article on the topic. (Alternatively, you could have created a draft and asked a reviewer of drafts to decide whether it should be accepted as an article.) While this discussion is unnecessary, one related outcome could precisely, as you desire, be putting the contents of the 2022 deleted version somewhere for you to work on them. This type of action is always optional, i.e., not required to create an article on a topic when a previous article was deleted. And that is what editors have been specifically considering in this case. No one responding up to this point thinks that this should be done. It appears that this will not be done, meaning that your request will be declined. You will need to write an entirely new article (or draft). When you do so, please use significantly better sources than those cited in the deleted content. If you do not use better sources, what could happen is that you will have put in effort into creating a new article, but it will be deleted again, even though it has more text, lists the new roles, and cites more sources; that is not something that anyone wants to happen. —Alalch E. 13:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I do not consider myself to be "no one" and if that was unclear, I'll clarify: can a willing system operator please provide Countoninnerbeauty with the text of the 2022 deleted version? Thank you very much, -Mushy Yank. 11:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Experienced users have to understand that all this is very unclear to newcomers and they should help them. -Mushy Yank. 11:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I think Alalch E. did a great job explaining things in the simplest possible language. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe they did. But what is clear to you may not be clear to newcomers and if Countoninnerbeauty came here to ask the text of the article why not just simply provide them with it, instead? Let them know this is the wrong venue, sure, and the wrong request, sure but help them. Because I don't think that clarity was my only point. "You will need to write an entirely new article (or draft)." may be clear but how is it helpful when the text can be provided? And why refuse to do it? Maybe it's the "simplest possible language" but I confess I don't understand. If it is refused here to Countoninnerbeauty, I will, personally, ask a willing system operator to provide me with it, to rework the page with Countoninnerbeauty and anyone who wishes. Hope that is OK. -Mushy Yank. 18:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a better lesson for Countoninnerbeauty to slowly get into reading and comprehending discussions then to get used to having their wishes fulfilled. —Alalch E. 18:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe they did. But what is clear to you may not be clear to newcomers and if Countoninnerbeauty came here to ask the text of the article why not just simply provide them with it, instead? Let them know this is the wrong venue, sure, and the wrong request, sure but help them. Because I don't think that clarity was my only point. "You will need to write an entirely new article (or draft)." may be clear but how is it helpful when the text can be provided? And why refuse to do it? Maybe it's the "simplest possible language" but I confess I don't understand. If it is refused here to Countoninnerbeauty, I will, personally, ask a willing system operator to provide me with it, to rework the page with Countoninnerbeauty and anyone who wishes. Hope that is OK. -Mushy Yank. 18:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I think Alalch E. did a great job explaining things in the simplest possible language. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to disregard or undercut your recommendation. I often skim very quickly and look at where the signatures are to identify each comment and almost read upward basically to see where it begins. Your signature is a little less distinct because it's the same color as surrounding text. Probably sounds like a stupid excuse, but I think that's it. —Alalch E. 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Really no problem! I was not really offended and only replied (not !voted) and I was certain you had missed my reply (I should have made that clear). Thank you all the same. -Mushy Yank. 19:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Experienced users have to understand that all this is very unclear to newcomers and they should help them. -Mushy Yank. 11:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I do not consider myself to be "no one" and if that was unclear, I'll clarify: can a willing system operator please provide Countoninnerbeauty with the text of the 2022 deleted version? Thank you very much, -Mushy Yank. 11:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. Editors, including myself, have been responding to your request to review the deletion. Everyone agrees that the deletion was carried out correctly. You did not state that it was done incorrectly; you suggested that the reason for the deletion, which existed at that time, may no longer exist. Normally, that, in itself, is not a reason to review a deletion. You did not need to initiate this discussion and could have simply created a new article on the topic. (Alternatively, you could have created a draft and asked a reviewer of drafts to decide whether it should be accepted as an article.) While this discussion is unnecessary, one related outcome could precisely, as you desire, be putting the contents of the 2022 deleted version somewhere for you to work on them. This type of action is always optional, i.e., not required to create an article on a topic when a previous article was deleted. And that is what editors have been specifically considering in this case. No one responding up to this point thinks that this should be done. It appears that this will not be done, meaning that your request will be declined. You will need to write an entirely new article (or draft). When you do so, please use significantly better sources than those cited in the deleted content. If you do not use better sources, what could happen is that you will have put in effort into creating a new article, but it will be deleted again, even though it has more text, lists the new roles, and cites more sources; that is not something that anyone wants to happen. —Alalch E. 13:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page was speedy deleted by speedy deleted by Primefac per G2 for unambiguous copyright infringemen, I believe we need to follow the guidelines: For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio/url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Spokeoino (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article draft was rejected on the grounds of G11, which seems to boil down to whether the article was written from a neutral point-of-view. Neither the moderator who initially deleted it, nor the deleting administrator gave even the slightest substantiation for why they thought that the article failed this, or any other, criteria. Likewise, my pleas - as a newcomer - for guidance on how to fix/improve the draft article, or find some other suitable compromise, were completely ignored. Can someone please assist me with this? Nickchomey (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request a review of the interactions with editor MrOllie and the subsequent ban from editing a page. The interactions can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#c-Tewdar-20250218134200-Tdkelley1-20250218013300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdkelley1 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Full discussion can be found here as this isn’t a discussion of its deletion per se, rather the most recent G4 CSD, but the tl;dr is, would the Wikipedians that poop category be eligible for a restore as it’s a humorous category that redirects to the category Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, or should it stay deleted; and if so, would the other subcategories linked there need to be deleted as well? Booyahhayoob (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Radhika has got several lead roles in notable tv shows like Do Chutki Sindoor and Main Dil Tum Dhadkan after second AFD. So can the deletion be reviewed and article be restored to draft space 103.203.73.164 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Ayesha is presently the lead in Mannat – Har Khushi Paane Ki so that makes her WP:NOTABLE now, so can the deletion be reviewed and the article restored to draft space 103.203.73.164 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |