Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV/CR)
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
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

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. (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.)
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. 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.)
  10. 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.

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

 
1.

Click here 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 page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. 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=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 November 22}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 22}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 22|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

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".



Active discussions

22 November 2024

21 November 2024

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I think this should not have been deleted as large non-free, but was actually a mislabeled PD-text file. I brought this up on the copyright discussion noticeboard and received little notice besides one concurrence from Aafi. I would like the original file (dated 04:12, 13 October 2024) restored at full resolution so it can be moved to Commons as {{PD-text}}. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19 November 2024

  • Mission Swaraj – Speedy IAR endorse since nom/creator has been blocked. While we have established editors arguing that the G11 wasn't correct, no one is arguing that they'd argue to keep this at AfD, nor that they see a case for notability. We don't need to spend a further five days here, nor seven days of the community's time to arrive at the same outcome. If an established editor believes this should be retained, happy to provide in draft for post election and related improvement. Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mission Swaraj (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I would like to say that the deletion of this was unjustifible that it happned WITH OUT AN PROPER DEBATE and even the talk page was deleted I only have 1 question? why? I request for the talk page to be renstated and the flow debate to continue (it is to note no proper consisnes was reached) before the deletion of the article and again request the talk page to be renstated with also the article for the time being ( out of context - I swear if there is a loophole allowing this I don't even know what I will do to myself anyone likes cats here?) Sarim Wani (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected a spelling mistake in the article title given in this DRV submission. Thincat (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a G11 deletion, which does not require debate if it was unambiguous. Non-admins can't see the text, so an undeletion for review purposes would be welcome... but I'd say that about 75% of G11 deletions are sustained by the peanut gallery here, so an undeletion for review purposes doesn't mean you have a basis for complaint. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. This isn't as bad as this user's version of Jairam Kumar Mahato (also at DRV) was, and I think I'd have neither deleted nor declined this, but I'll endorse it now that someone with a thicker skin pushed the button. —Cryptic 23:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse G11. Even if described somewhat neutrally a particular party's initiative is per se promotional, and so even without wanton puffery, I see it as being sufficiently promotional that a deletion discussion was not needed. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens given that In this context, "unambiguous" means that the deletion was clear and straightforward, without any room for doubt or confusion. Essentially, it indicates that the content in question was obviously promotional or inappropriate, making the decision to delete it a clear-cut one.
    if this the meaning of "unambiguous" here then:
    this point should be clear that the deletion was not "unambiguous" and certainly had rooms of doubt. The following deletion was not justified without a proper debate Sarim Wani (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 and Send to AFD. If I had seen this at AFC, I would have declined it for failure to show notability, and probably for tone, but I would not have rejected it or taggedit for G11. If I had seen this at AFD, I would have written a source analysis if I had time or found time. If this is sent to AFD, I will write a source analysis. In my opinion, it reads like a draft on a non-notable organization, rather than an advertisement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will restate that speedy deletions should be non-contentious, and contentious nominations for speedy deletion should be sent to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11, send to AfD. Definitely promotional in tone (and non-encyclopedic) but I don’t think it could be described as unambiguous advertising. If the topic were notable (I doubt it is) I think a neutral article could be written on it, so it’s not a case for G11. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarify I would like to clarify this that the subject is notable (I had provided proof in the talk page) :)
    • Comment I have edited the article please let me know if there is still some promotional tone in it :)
Clarify You all are open to edit it :)
Sarim Wani (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment obviously I'm not going to take part otherwise, given that I requested the G11, but just to point out that the subject of this article relates to an ongoing election campaign, which IMO makes it particularly promotional, in the WP:SOAPBOX sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have G11'd that as well: exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten if it were notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    please tell me where the "promotional" material is I am edting it (open to edit for anyone)
    User:Sarim Wani/Mission Swaraj - Wikipedia will be waiting for you're response! Sarim Wani (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarim Wani (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11. While some content is promotional in nature,it is not exclusively promotional in nature. I don’t think this subject is notable and the article probably wouldn’t have any chance at AFD, but the G11 deletion is not correct. Frank Anchor 14:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a distinct level of regret, overturn G11 and list at AfD. This has little chance of surviving at AfD, and for that reason overturning here only to likely delete in 7 days time feels like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. However, this doesn't quite meet G11 criteria and I think achieving a final resolution via AfD based on community consensus might be better for everyone so that this issue can be put to bed. Any AfD will need to be closely monitored by uninvolved administrators to ensure it stays on track. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Like Cryptic, I probably wouldn't have G11'ed it myself, but I'm glad someone else did. Sending it to AfD is a waste of participants' time. Now that the deleted content and sources are visible to all, we can exercise a form of certiorari, and adjudicate both the DRV and the presumptive AfD together. Even those here calling to overturn the G11 seem to agree that the article will most likely fail AfD. Sending it to AfD will not only waste time there, but the appellant's record makes it clear it'll end right back in DRV afterwards. The more I see from this appellant, the more convinced I am that we will not get a well sourced, NPOV article from them. Older versions of their User page make it clear they are here to promote, not to build an encyclopedia. I'm a big believer in due process, but not every POV-pusher needs a soapbox here. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I wrote my remarks, the applicant has been blocked indefinitely. If they remain blocked, I can get on board with this viewpoint. My perspective was I felt this issue wasn't going to go away unless the community spoke at AfD clearly to bin this content. But, without the editor pushing the cart along the path, we may be able to get away with not wasting the seven days at AfD. I'm easy with either now, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list per Daniel. Owen's not wrong, but.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Appellant has been indefinitely blocked per discussion at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I still think G11 was not appropriate here, but given the appellant's block and the near-certainty of deletion once it goes to AfD, I wouldn't object to an WP:IAR outcome to let the G11 stand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2024

Jairam Kumar Mahato (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jairam Kumar Mahato (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Jairam Kumar Mahato" based on new evidence and arguments not discussed in the original deletion discussion.

Jairam Kumar Mahato was responsible for launching a notable movement in Jharkhand, India. Specifically, his protests led to changes in the recognition of regional languages, where languages such as Bhojpuri, Magahi, and Angika were included in the list of regional languages for state-level examinations in 11 districts. He strongly advocated for promoting local languages and demanded that jobs in the state be reserved for Jharkhand natives, preventing individuals from other states from gaining these opportunities.

This qualifies him under Wikipedia's notability guideline for people as: 1. **Biography**: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." 2. **Politicians and Judges**: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

Additionally, he does not fall under "People notable for only one event," as his actions and media coverage span multiple related events (2 to be exact), thus meeting the threshold for separate documentation.

If required, I can provide citations for these claims. Thank you for considering this request. Sarim Wani (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jharkhand’s youth rallying behind this 30-year-old political outsider? Jharkhand withdraws Bhojpuri, Maghi as regional languages from Dhanbad, Bokaro amid protests Jharkhand election: a young leader’s growing popularity leaves established parties worried JLKM
above are some of my supporting citations
I request for my and @Genius64868: deleted articles to be immediately converted to at least draft articles at least for the time of this discussion and the links of those articles to be posted here so that the merger and work of the articles can continue for the time being Sarim Wani (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure; it could not have been closed any other way. Having said that, I'd favor restoring to draft so you can add sources. I can't see what sources were in the article at the time of deletion, but nothing about the commentary on the article suggests GNG was met, and I'm also uncertain about whether the new sourcing would be sufficient in combination. Hopefully, the AfC process can be helpful, but at least that should clear the identical recreation hurdle (CSD G4) so that if you did decide to put it into mainspace yourself, another AfD rather than speedy deletion would be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are two related but separate matters at stake here: 1) the AfD closure which this DRV is asking us to review; and 2) (implicitly, at least) the events leading up to this DRV.
  • RE (1), there is no doubt that the AfD was closed correctly as reflecting clear consensus; therefore (and saying this as an uninvolved editor) I fully endorse that closure.
  • RE (2), I'll happily concede that the G4 speedy request which I executed on Jairam Kumar Mahato wasn't strictly-speaking valid, in that the new version wasn't "substantially identical" to the one deleted following the AfD. However, given the AfD concluded that insufficient evidence of notability had been provided, and since the new version (created only days later the AfD closed) provided even less of such evidence, I didn't see any point in taking the article to another AfD to re-litigate the matter on weaker grounds than before.
Arguably, I could have draftified the new version instead of speedying it, which is indeed what I offered to do here, but rather than taking up that offer the author of the new, G4-deleted version decided to open this DRV instead, in my opinion unnecessarily. The offer to restore the article to a draft still stands, assuming the author agrees to go through the AfC process rather than (re-)publishing it directly as it stands. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please don't G4 something that's not substantially identical. Draftifying it with instructions is perfectly valid, but a G4 speedy is a stricter bar than many admins apply in practice. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this clearly looks like a classic article on a political candidate actively contesting an election, which we also see from the "please don't delete before the election" plea in the AfD. I did have to look through sources to see if he was otherwise notable, but I would keep deleted unless he wins the election. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I am even more confused
    For everyone who has not heard my stance/ are too lazy to go up here it is in plain light
    I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Jairam Kumar Mahato" based on new evidence and arguments not discussed in the original deletion discussion.
    Context:
    Jairam Kumar Mahato was responsible for launching a notable movement in Jharkhand, India. Specifically, his protests led to changes in the recognition of regional languages, where languages such as Bhojpuri, Magahi, and Angika were included in the list of regional languages for state-level examinations in 11 districts. He strongly advocated for promoting local languages and demanded that jobs in the state be reserved for Jharkhand natives, preventing individuals from other states from gaining these opportunities.
    Additionally, he does not fall under "People notable for only one event," as his actions and media coverage span multiple related events (2 to be exact), The launching a notable movement and The recent elections coverage
    thus, meeting the threshold for separate documentation. (Please note that the following person has also got a lot of the obc vote in Jharkhand making him even more popular.
    some of the supporting recourses below:
    https://jlkmparty.org/ https://scroll.in/article/1075548/in-jharkhand-a-young-leaders-growing-popularity-leaves-established-parties-worried https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/Feb/19/jharkhand-withdraws-bhojpuri-maghi-as-regional-languages-from-dhanbad-bokaro-amid-protests-2421373.htmlhttps://www.newslaundry.com/2024/11/14/why-is-jharkhands-youth-rallying-behind-this-30-year-old-political-outsider
    Context End
    This qualifies him under Wikipedia's notability guideline for people as:
    1. **Biography**: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."
    2. **Politicians and Judges**: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
    Please understand that this user stands under 2 notability fields and a wining of an election is not mandatory for the candidate to be listed on wiki that's why I understand zero things which are listed under this please tell me if I am not getting something which I have to get
    thanks :)
    Sarim Wani (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I Think I you all are misunderstanding me or I am misunderstanding you
    more context
    I am trying to justify notoriety here (of the person) I am suggesting 2 options so that the work can still continue
    1. reinstate the article (no drafts and open the deletion review there that way this mess is avoided I will still continue working on it)
    2. reinstate the article as draft (no deletion review. I can complete and cite the article and the article can be reinstated as an article (my article not the other one)
    I also request my article to be sent to me by email asap Sarim Wani (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarim Wani, I think you are misunderstanding what is happening here. AfD and Deletion Review are very different processes. In the AfD discussion, editors discussed whether they thought the article should be deleted or not. Here, in Deletion Review, the question is whether the person who closed the AfD was reading the consensus correctly. So if everyone at AfD was saying "we should delete this article" and the editor who closed the AfD said "everyone was saying we should keep this article", they would be wrong and editors here at Deletion Review would say "no, that editor made a mistake, and we should overturn the decision". Instead, everyone at AfD said "we should delete this article", so the closing editor said "everyone says we should delete the article", and so everyone here is saying "the closing editor was correct, everyone did say that".
    You should probably also read WP:SCAM, because you might be contacted by people pretending to be Wikipedia administrators or special editors who say they can get the article back if you pay them. Do not pay anyone money for a Wikipedia article. It's a scam that often targets people who don't want an article deleted. They cannot do anything, they'll just take your money and vanish.
    I hope that has been at least a little bit helpful to you, and wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD deletion based on unanimous consensus. No opinion on the G4. Restore to draft to allow Sarim Wani or another user to improve this article to the point where it can be mainspaced based on several additional sources presented above that may or may not be GNG appropriate (DRV is not the venue to evaluate sources). I would highly recommend that any recreation attempt go through the WP:AFC process, though this is not a requirement. Frank Anchor 14:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to clarify this that the following desions were made
    1. the following persons meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) (proof above
    2. The fist article will be deleted
    3. my article to be Restore to draft until its ready
    or
    no this does not meet afc delete it
    which one is it? Sarim Wani (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    beacuse if it still does not meet afc even after that concrete proof I am willing to explain it all over again... Sarim Wani (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    or
    1. the following persons meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) (proof above)
    2. my article to be Restore to draft until its ready
    Sarim Wani (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    POINT TO BE NOTED THAT ENTIRE DEBATE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairam Kumar Mahato IS BASELESS My analysis to the "debate" [16] Sarim Wani (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    google docs also uploded :) [17] Sarim Wani (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Points to be noted (from my side)
    1. the following person(s) clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)
    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairam Kumar Mahato is baseless [18]
    I advise
    • my article to be restored (draft or normal) and re-open the delete discussion there so I can properly give it my peace of Mind (i.e) have concrete proof for any further debates
    or
    • the article (my article) to be straight up restored (draft or normal) Sarim Wani (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please slow down, you don't need to respond to every comment made, and you don't need to keep posting the same argument repeatedly. Half the edits to this discussion are now from you, which is starting to get awfully close to WP:BLUDGEONING. Just let the discussion run its course, please. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    got it... Sarim Wani (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last question (Pleas dont ban me here too) (here everyone have a free goat!)
soo there is no process to repon debates so that's why we have "recreate it" and then we can "re review it"
Am I correct? (I am new here don't know a lot of stuff please don't ban please) Sarim Wani (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun a discussion on Sarim Wani's talk page to explain the process to them and answer any questions they may have. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the only reasonable closure of the deletion discussion.
      • The purposes of DRV include arguing that the closer was wrong, but not that the community was wrong.
    • Allow Recreation of Draft and review of draft.
    • Allow Undeletion of deleted article to draft space.
    • Caution to appellant: You have already been partially blocked once for bludgeoning a deletion discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Consensus was correctly interpreted. There are no grounds for a DRV#3 review, since the appellant participated extensively in the AfD but failed to raise any of these arguments there (not that the arguments would have been successful). Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, Sarim Wani didn't participate in the AFD discussion but the article creator, Genius64868, did. Sarim Wani then recreated the deleted article and that was deleted via CSD G4. If I was them, I'd be arguing that the original article be restored to Draft space as it was in much, much better shape that the recreated version was. But Sarim Wani, there is no point in continuing to argue here as many participants in this review already recommended restoring this article to Draft space.
Additionally, Frank Anchor, we always advise content creators who are working with versions of articles that have been deleted through an AFD that they should (even must) go through AFC rather than moving the draft article to main space. The AFC reviewer can check and make sure that the problems raised in the AFD aren't still present and also it avoids questions about a possible CSD G4 tagging. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can we restore both and merge them then? Sarim Wani (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. Must have subconsciously conflated the bludgeoning in both discussions. Will strike. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for an independent actor to end debate with :

  • Endorse. Allow Undeletion of both deleted article to draft space
  • Allow Recreation of both articles to draft, and Meger them and then re-review of draft (after some more editing)
Thank you
Best regards Sarim Wani (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

13 November 2024

Alexander Tetelbaum

Alexander Tetelbaum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I ask you to consider restoring the page "Alexander Tetelbaum" as being deleted without fair justification by Diannaa.
Initially, the reason for deletion was that the page had infringed Amazon copyrights. Namely, had an image and text about the book "Executive Director". The page never had this staff--only a reference to the book.
Later, Diannaa changed the reason and stated the similarities between the page and Amazon's Author BIO. Yes, the two BIO's are similar and it must be expected--if they had been different it would mean that one of them or both are incorrect. Also, this BIO is not the property of Amazon and got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia.
Also, Dianna questioned notability. Alexander Tetelbaum was the founding President of the first Jewish University in Ukraine, the author of 20 books, and dozens more achievements.
It took 5 seconds to delete the page and now Dianna suggested resubmitting the page--and this is 40-50 hours of work. There is also a difference in that the original page was created in 2007 vs. a possible new one.
This does not look right when one person can make such decisions and constantly change the reason for deletion. In case of resubmission, it can be also rejected taking into account that we are not happy with how Dianna handled this issue and we are afraid of retaliation.
I honestly do not see any serious arguments to remove the page with 17 history, fully true, and all facts are supported by multiple references. I do not want to speculate, but the page was deleted soon after Dr. Tetelbaum published his book "Executive Director" which had some criticism of Wikipedia. Also, he recently published a joke on X and Truth websites where Wikipedia was mentioned among other organizations.
To conclude, I ask you to restore the page and if you see any issues, we will fix them. Thanks for your consideration.
Respectfully, Natalie Heroux (nheroux) Nheroux (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor couldn't figure out how to post here, so I have copied the above from my talk page at her request. Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't check the old version, but copyright violation is one of if not the most serious reason to delete a page on Wikipedia, and Diannaa is one of the most experienced users here with dealing with copyvios. If the person is notable, there is nothing preventing you from starting a new version which does not copy text from anywhere else - and yes, it could be rejected for various reasons, but not liking the content is not one of those reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nheroux appears to have misunderstood some of the things that I did. The deletion was triggered by a report at CopyPatrol for the book "Executive Director" Book, where all the content was a match for content present at Amazon. After redirecting this to the author article Alexander Tetelbaum I noticed that everything in the author's article was a match for content present at Amazon as well. Since Amazon's webpages are not archived in the Wayback Machine there's no way to confirm whether or the content at Amazon was copied from Wikipedia or the other way around. So absent that proof, I decided that the author's article should be deleted as well. I never changed the reason for deletion; I noted from the start that the article was a match for the content at Amazon, noting "foundational copyvio, copied from Amazon" in my deletion rationale. I suggested that a new article could be started in draftspace. Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but you are welcome to start a draft in your own words, using independent reliable sourcing about Tetelbaum. Star Mississippi 01:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a matter of taking copyright seriously, even when no one else on the Internet takes copyright seriously, and of trusting the judgment of an experienced copyright administrator. I have multiple comments:
      • I doubt that the material was copied from Wikipedia to Amazon. If it was originally on Wikipedia, it should not have been. It is written in an Amazon style. It looks more likely that it was copied from Amazon to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not allow that.
      • I find the claim that it will take 40-50 hours to write a biography of a living person to be lacking in plausibility, even if there was a large amount of information beyond the Amazon blurb that was deleted.
      • If the appellant was the original author of the article, why didn't she keep a copy on her computer? I find pleas that an author needs the deleted Wikipedia article in order to start a new article unpersuasive. In 2024, large amounts of solid-state storage are cheap. I don't know why authors don't have copies.
      • The deleting administrator refers to the Wayback Machine, and says that Amazon is not archived. But Wikipedia is archived. Even if the author forgot to keep a copy, doesn't the Wayback Machine have a copy? It is a copyright-infringing copy, but that is a legal detail, and it can be rewritten from.
      • Notability is not mentioned in the deletion log. It is not necessary to argue that Tetelbaum is biographically notable.
      • The appellant has already been asked about an association with Tetelbaum, which is a conflict of interest, and does not appear to have answered the question.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The only relevant appeal for copyvio deletion is "It wasn't a copyvio, and here's why." This doesn't accomplish that. Jclemens (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and enjoin the appellant from editing this topic, broadly construed. The appellant created the page three times. The first two were essentially identical, while the third was a stub she expanded over the years to the version that was deleted last month as a copyvio. Statements such as, this is 40-50 hours of work and the two BIO's are similar and it must be expected--if they had been different it would mean that one of them or both are incorrect make it clear she is not here to copyedit, but to copy-paste. Her declared inability to write a bio that isn't a verbatim duplicate of the one published on Amazon tells us all we need to know. Her failure to respond to the question about COI, the aspersions cast against the deleting admin, the disruptive edits on her Talk page, her use of the first-person plural pronoun when talking about her edits, and the Tetelbaum-centric contribution history paint a clear picture. The only article we can expect from this SPA is a duplicate of the one that was deleted. I'd welcome a draft from an unrelated, experienced editor, but for the WP:TENDENTIOUS appellant, a topic ban would be appropriate. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - Deletion Review is a content forum. I agree with the criticism by User:OwenX of the conduct of the appellant, but what should we (DRV) do other than endorse the G12? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer, if an admin, can choose to action both pieces based on feedback from participants. Star Mississippi 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nheroux has now stated on her talk page that she is the daughter of the subject of the article. She mentions that the content at Amazon also originated with her (no surprise there) and that's why they match. She thought if she removed it from Amazon there would not longer be a copyright issue (which is not true; that ship has sailed) but has agreed to my suggestion to instead start a new Wikipedia article on her father, rewriting with new content in draftspace. I have no comment on the still to-be-determined issue of notability. Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Educating this editor on the proper way to do this seems like a win all the way around. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nheroux wrote: this BIO … got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia.
    That’s good enough for us to accept that it is not a simple copyright infringement. It is, however, a WP:COI issue. COI authors are required to not write into mainspace directly.
  • Undelete to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification is not intended for articles that are more than 90 days old. WP:DRAFTNO. So I am opposed to this idea. Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing a piece of that RFC, @Diannaa. Consensus can be behind the draftification. Personally I think starting fresh would be easier if the editor really does intend to make a compliant article but that's also draft space so distinction without a difference unless you're opposed to giving her the material. Star Mississippi 14:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She already has the material, so refusing to give her a copy seems a little bureaucratic. So I am not opposed to giving her the material, but I don't see the point of doing so. Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not a copyvio, it makes more sense to restore the article to mainspace rather than move it to draftspace. Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Diannaa here, I don't see the point of draftifying this if it's a copyvio where the author already has the original material. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COI editors are required to use AfC to write articles. Draftification is retrospectively correcting their mistake. If the page is ok, an AfC reviewer will approve it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. I have no preference where she creates the article. I just thought draft space would be easier for a relatively inexperienced editor without the threat of an AfD hanging over her article development. Star Mississippi 16:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Diannaa, you are referring to unilateral draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the G12 deletion. WP:G12 is not met, there is no unambiguous copyright violation. Send to XfD to resolve any doubt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking at some of the deleted revisions, and I do see it to be a copyright. Are you suggesting @Nheroux release the text for use, or otherwise that it's not a copyright violation? Star Mississippi 02:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see an *unambiguous* copyright violation? There’s a claim that Nheroux published it all on Wikipedia first (thus released the text under the GFDL), making the Amazon copyright claim invalid, or at least generating enough ambiguity for it to go to XfD as an apparent copyright violation.
    If you are sure, then email the deleted page to her, that is allowed.
    In either case, Heroux is a coauthor on a for profit book with Alexander Tetelbaum, and that is a clear connection establishing a WP:COI, and Heroux is not allowed to write on Tetlbaum in mainspace, she must either use draftspace and AfC, or talk page suggestions.
    I think the copyright violation is ambiguous enough to justify an XfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Justifiable suspicion but the suggested scenario of this content proliferating from Wikipedia onto Amazon is very plausible, and the deleted article (accessed via the Wayback Machine) does resemble a legitimate Wikipedia article, and copied content often doesn't. Editors should look at this and figure it out in an AfD.—Alalch E. 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10 November 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of World War II weapons of Turkey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inscurtible explanation given upon close, was not able to extract a sufficient explanation from the closer on their talk page so here we are (please excuse if there are errors in the formatting, I am a regular at deletion discussions but a novice at contesting them) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Once you discard the non-P&G-based !votes, you're left with no quorum to take any action, let alone consensus to do so. Merge and Redirect are great alternatives to deletion, but in the absence of consensus against keeping the article, they are not valid alternatives to retention. Closing that AfD as anything other than no-consensus would have been a supervote. I also commend Asilvering for their patience and civility in the face of incessant bludgeoning by the appellant on their Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: can you explain how a redirect is an alternative to deletion not a type of deletion? Often after I see a discussion closed as delete the page is turned into a redirect, is that not supposed to happen? Note that the substance of the redirect vote is "No compelling reason that it should exist." which leaves me to wonder how three editors (myself, Conyo14, and Geschichte) don't make a quorum opposed to retention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No compelling reason that it should exist is not a P&G-based argument against retention, and Conyo14 didn't even argue for deletion. One !vote isn't quorum. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to argue that it lacks sufficient coverage to be kept. Nobody found more sources, so they're saying it doesn't meet GNG. Wikipedia:QUORUM seems to be met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They said nothing of the sort. You are trying to ascribe your own views to them. Neither you nor the closing admin is a mind-reader. Let's stick to what was actually said there. Owen× ☎ 01:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but nevertheless the article might not maintain WP:GNG." followed by "I mean I've only found the one source" (indicating that they have not been able to establish that the article meets GNG) and you didn't address the point about QUORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of WP:QUORUM is met, apart from the fact no one ever tried to PROD it. Someone opposed deletion and the AfD had decent participation. QUORUM is for instances where there's an AfD with little to no participation outside of the nominator. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You guys need to get on the same page, OwenX's entire argument is based on quorum applying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, their argument isn't. They're saying not enough people agreed to delete this in order to have an alternative result to "no consensus." They are not quoting the Wikipedia policy on poorly attended AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do you need more than one person to agree if there are no policy or guideline based arguments that disagree? What quorum is that then and where is it written down? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the closer to conclude your interpretation of the AfD is the only correct interpretation, which is not how the AfD process works. Given the nature of that discussion, a delete close would clearly be a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially considering no one else specifically agreed with you. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm asking where I can find this claim about quorum written down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see any other way this could have been closed, honestly. Furthermore, reading the closer's talk page, you were able to extract a sufficient explanation from the closer. Trying to claim this should be overturned for not getting a sufficient explanation is not only not a reason to overturn a close, it's wrong on its face. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No correct deletion rationale was articulated. SKCRIT#3 applied the entire time, as "not participating in the war" is not a rationale supporting "not notable" which would, if true, be a rational reason for deletion. Really, it would be nice if some of our new admins could go around patrolling AfD for similar inadequate rationales and just closing the discussions (even NPASR, although I think RENOM's waiting period is an appropriate consequence to discourage frivolous nominations) so as to not waste time. Even if "NN" was a valid standalone rationale, no BEFORE was described--again, lack of effort on the nominator putting a greater burden on everyone else in the process. Disappointing all the way around. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Two wanted to delete it, two wanted to keep it, one said redirect it, another said merge it, and one didn't vote at all. No consensus to delete. Dream Focus 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as no consensus. Not seeing a consensus to do anything emerging in this AfD after two relistings, and I can't see how it could have been closed differently. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There is a numerical majority to not keep the article (4 delete/WP:ATD vs. 2 keep), however there were no compelling, policy-based arguments to delete or even merge. No consensus was certainly a viable option and possibly the best option. As the closing admin stated, a merge discussion can be held at the article's talk page. Frank Anchor 14:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources not a compelling policy-based argument to delete? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No proponent of delete/merge made the argument that there was a lack of significant coverage, so such an argument can not be considered. The arguments made were I don’t think this is notable in the nom statement, No compelling reason that it should exist without any justification in Geschichte's redirect vote, a somewhat-valid WP:NOPAGE argument by Buckshot06, stating that the equipment can be listed in an already-existing list article, and a delete argument that explains there is no policy-based reason to keep the article but fails to make a policy-based argument to not keep it. Frank Anchor 16:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that not a policy-based argument to not keep it? No reason to keep is a reason to delete because not being notable is the default, demonstrating that it is notable is the responsibility of those arguing for notability (and is generally accomplished by providing in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources) and they failed at that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have the burden of proof backwards. We have DEL#REASON, not KEEP#REASON. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N says: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of arguments against notability. None of them were made in the AfD. Not that we're a court or anything, but you can't raise an issue on appeal that should have been argued, but wasn't, in the prior proceeding. Closers are to evaluate the arguments made, not the arguments that should, could, or might have been made. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly see that there is endorsement for the close (although the grounds appear to differ as they normally do), for my own education could you please explain how the plain reading of WP:N is incorrect and there is no burden to demonstrate notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden is on those who recommend deletion to show that this action is the right action. Articles existing is the stable equilibrium. You need to introduce force to the system to get something moving. The force is the argument that there is a reason to delete, and if the specific variant of that argument is that a list topic is non-notable, the arguments needs to explain that the necessary conditions for notability weren't fulfilled. —Alalch E. 09:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what those before you should have said but didn't, and you didn't notice that they hadn't said it, and then you didn't say it either, meaning that no one said the only thing that needs to be said. —Alalch E. 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, now I see that you did say I have not been able to locate any independent significant coverage of the topic and there is none on the page, so unless I'm missing something it doesn't meet the requirements of a stand alone list, which is a fine argument. —Alalch E. 10:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment FWIW, I was able to scrute the closer's reasoning on his talk page just fine.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Sometimes when the arguments for both keeping and deleting are inscrutable, there really is No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    😵 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If you think it's appropriate to close an AfD with two keep votes, a redirect, a merge, and only a single affirmation for deletion as anything other than "no consensus", you're welcome to take it to WP:DRV for a sanity check" from the talk page (from the talk page)—bad explanation. That is not why there was no consensus. There was no consensus because we don't know why the page should be deleted. Should it be deleted ... because Turkey hardly participated in WW2 ... but it did, kind of? Comments like: I don’t think this is notable, No compelling reason that it should exist, or There is currently no policy or guideline based argument for keeping the article don't contain enough information about why the page should be deleted.
    Edit: I am striking a part of my comment, as my assessment of this discussion has changed after finally reading Horse Eye's Back's comment under the nomination (sorry for missing it the first time). This could have been closed as redirect. I can't advocate overturning because a no consensus close was still reasonable and under discretion. I disagree with many statements that underpin and endorse this particular close, and what I don't agree the most with is the mention of "quorum" (... I'm starting to gripe about this, I'm aware) —Alalch E. 07:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means, how many valid, P&G-based Delete !votes do you see in that AfD? I see one. That would not normally be sufficient for a closing admin to take action, unless it was unopposed, which wasn't the case here. Quorum, like consensus, isn't based on counting noses, but on weighing P&G-based arguments. If an argument like "No reason to keep this" doesn't count towards consensus, it doesn't count towards quorum either. With one legitimate !vote to delete, the best we can do with this AfD is treat it as a contested PROD. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 November 2024

2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2024 Duki coal mine attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE.

Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:

"Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."

Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated to "restore/allow recreation." There's nothing wrong with the AfD, but I'm satisfied there's been enough continued coverage that this no longer fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E. 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. Frank Anchor 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to clarify how the article was poorly sourced? — Mister Banker (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would gladly do so if this were AfD. But this is DRV, where we are asked to review consensus among AfD participants, not to rerun the AfD. Owen× ☎ 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. Frank Anchor 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Mister Banker - What is the right forum for redirect discussions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the article's talkpage. This attack has also received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, thus merits an article. (see: ANI, DAWN) — Mister Banker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think those articles clear the continued coverage issue, and would vote to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Nominator's statement Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met[19] makes it clear to me that they do not understand that routine events like this do not have or get enduring coverage, AFD is often the venue where the consensus for merging/redirection emerges so the closer was correct in redirecting this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse - Appellant has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but ...
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1188230539#Temporary_review"