Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion)
 |
| 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".
An extension of the proposal was brought up and sought comments from earlier participants, but the discussion was closed less than 15 minutes later. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I read MtBotany's comment as supporting a single Trees of Northern America, given they opposed a "trees of the United States". Compassionate727 implied that keeping the originally nominated category might be a viable alternative, but explicitly stopped short of opposing the proposal. MtBotany's comment opposed having any sort of "US" division, which I interpret as supporting a triple merge. The Bushranger explicitly wanted a triple merge (explicitly). You wanted to rename, which would have kept the US categories but combined together. Finally, WP:RELISTed discussions can be closed whenever consensus is achieved, to say nothing of twice-relisted discussions which have been past the seven-day mark for over 24 hours.I am going to stand by this closure, though I will hold off on implementing it until this DRV is closed. If you need anything else from me, let me know. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The CfD was open for almost four weeks. There is no obligation to extend the discussion each time a new proposal is brought up. Owen× ☎ 12:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The first nomination was closed by OwenX as Keep without prejudice against early renomination, while the second was closed by Xplicit as simply Delete.
The second nominator incorrectly claimed that the "good faith" sources that told about Kincl's "personal life" in the first nomination were not reliable and independent. It may be true or not. Of the five sites, those are secondary in my view. Deník is one of the most frequently used sources for Czech Republic-related Wikipedia articles, so as a daily newspaper, it is reliable and secondary. From what I remember, there seem to be not more than five secondary sources before the page's deletion, then their opinion is asked without using a translator at least first.
⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse The discussion was unanimous and couldn't have been closed any other way. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Restore to draftspace to allow Clariniie or any other user to incorporate sources into the article to improve upon it, considering the "keep" result that occurred less than a month earlier, and the sources that received at least some level of acceptance in the first AFD. Frank Anchor 20:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Brian Thompson (businessman) (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:BADNAC. The support for keeping, while strong, was not unanimous or nearly so, and there was considerable support for merging/redirecting the article. The closer made no attempt to weigh votes by the validity of the arguments, and many of the arguments made by keep supporters were weak and should have been discarded/downweighted. I would put the discussion personally at "no consensus", but I wouldn't mind somebody else (preferrably an admin) closing the discussion as "keep" provided that a proper and thorough rationale was provided. 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
It is clear to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. Several solid sources were found late in the deletion discussion. I think if more editors were involved who examined those sources, the article would have been kept. Thriley (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse The discussion clearly shows that you and others made their cases there but failed to convince the other participants. DRV is not for taking a second bite at the apple. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse That was closed correctly. There was a clear consensus the available sources were not good enough for an article, and in reviewing those sources I don't see clear error. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - The close correctly reflected consensus. It isn't the function of DRV to re-review the sources. The title has not been salted. The appellant may create a draft with the additional sources and submit the draft for review. The AFC reviewer is likely to request that a copy of the deleted article be emailed or userfied to them so that they can compare the draft and the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Self endorse as closer. To be honest, I don’t remember this AfD, but reading it now as if it were in the queue I’d close the same as I did. The discussion ran about ten days after last source added so I think it’s fair all had time to assess sourcing. That said, Thriley if you want this for draft I have no objection. However, I won’t be able to enact it in a timely manner, as I’m editing on mobile and not that comfortable with multi steps and without scripts so leaving it for another admin if that’s an outcome that would work for you. Star Mississippi 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the close as a correct reading of consensus. There is an active WP-wide dispute across AfDs on what kinds of interviews "count" for notability purposes, and until there's a clearer policy, cases for notability based on interviews are going to be based on participants' judgment. I would have probably !voted to count the Forbes and SFGate pieces toward a GNG pass, but clearly the consensus did not. (Thriley would have been advised to supply sources in their keep !vote, not merely assert that they exist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as a valid reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The participants adequately rebutted claims that the sources were significant and independent/secondary enough, including multiple editors noting that primary content from interviews does not count. @Alpha3031's dissection of the sources also went unrebutted for a full week. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Olympian who is also in the Equestrian Victoria Hall of Fame. I don't think sufficient research past a basic google search was done. Australian newspaper coverage online is very poor from the 1990s due to highly concentrated media ownership and tightly held copyright. Should be draftified as a minimum, or redirected to the olympic event she competed in. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did you try asking the closing admin for a draft to work on? Owen× ☎ 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Asking the closing admin for a draft is going to be the best result I feel, I did my own WP:BEFORE search and could not find any significant coverage of her that wasn't the Equestrian Victoria Hall of Fame, but if you can find sources draft space will be the best option. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I notified them as per the instructions of point #2 of not section of WP:DRVPURPOSE. The-Pope (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Asking the closing admin for a draft is going to be the best result I feel, I did my own WP:BEFORE search and could not find any significant coverage of her that wasn't the Equestrian Victoria Hall of Fame, but if you can find sources draft space will be the best option. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to draft based on The-Pope’s good faith request to recreate this page with SIGCOV that may or may not exist. Best case, coverage is incorporated and the draft is accepted at AFC. Worst case, minimal or no SIGCOV is found and the draft will be abandoned and eventually G13ed, which is not a big deal at all. Frank Anchor 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the close, and advise the appellant that they may fix it by creating a redirect, creating a draft, or submitting a draft for review. The title was not salted, and permission from DRV is not required to create and submit a draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
- I'm not an admin, so I can't see what was in the deleted article. I'd like to work from that, with the full edit history, not start from scratch. The-Pope (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're going to be disappointed. It cited basically nothing, was four sentences long, and managed to fit at least two inaccuracies into them. —Cryptic 18:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, so I can't see what was in the deleted article. I'd like to work from that, with the full edit history, not start from scratch. The-Pope (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Nom is making an argument to keep the article, not an argument that the closer read the consensus wrong. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DRVPURPOSE point 3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" No one mentioned that she's in a hall of fame during the AfD. The nominator also incorrectly claimed that she "didn't even compete in the individual Olympic event", when she did. It was a minimal AfD at best, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It says "She did not even complete the individual event", which is accurate according to the least trivial source in the deleted article. —Cryptic 18:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DRVPURPOSE point 3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" No one mentioned that she's in a hall of fame during the AfD. The nominator also incorrectly claimed that she "didn't even compete in the individual Olympic event", when she did. It was a minimal AfD at best, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, no other way to close it and DRV#3 is limited to significant new info, which being in some HoF is not. JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This was closed as delete by a non-admin in contravention of WP:NACD, which states that non-admin closers should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.
The actual deletion of the page was carried out by a participant in the discussion, which I interpret as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Additionally, I think this is a close-enough call that it ought to be closed by admin anyway per Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.
In particular, arguments involving WP:XY should be interpreted as in support for a retarget to the location that discusses both topics, as that is explicitly a solution to that problem (and the proper alternative to deletion). -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since it's relevant to this discussion, here's a shameless plug for my essay on non-admin deletions. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I figured that my deletion was okay because it had been closed by an uninvolved user, and I was carrying it out against my own position. I've had others close discussions I was involved in and ask me to implement them before, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination), etc. and didn't see this as any different. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:INVOLVED (emphasis added):
Involvement is construed broadly by the community...regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute
. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)- WP:INVOLVED also says:
In straightforward cases … the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.
IMO, pressing a button to delete a page at the behest of someone else is an obvious action, although I can imagine reasons to disagree. Anyway, it would probably be better if that question was discussed at AN and this DRV focused on my closure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:INVOLVED also says:
- Per WP:INVOLVED (emphasis added):
- In my opinion, it would be quite problematic for several reasons to interpret someone's vote for a position as a vote for something else because they cited policy incorrectly, which is what it sounds like you are saying I should have done. (One of those reasons was demonstrated in this very discussion: sometimes people invoke a policy as a way of eliding. If it's pointed out that the policy doesn't actually say what they thought it did, they may flesh out their argument to say what they actually meant, rather than, e.g., changing position.) I could discard their vote as contrary to policy, and if that policy was clearly controlling I could find a consensus solely on its basis, but it would be wrong to pretend that they personally supported something that they didn't. Anyway, XY is relevant here, but it doesn't say that the redirect must be retargeted if possible, only that it may be possible and that the redirect should not necessarily be deleted solely because of its form in such cases. A discussion must then be had on whether the redirect is serving the encyclopedia, and several editors made reasonable arguments that this redirect still wouldn't be doing so with the new target. With good arguments on both sides, but the delete position being supported by far more people (five voted to delete, two for voted for Tavix's retarget proposal, one was okay with either deleting or retargeting to a different place), I found a consensus to delete. I think any other outcome would be quite a stretch given how the discussion unfolded. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that you should not have closed the discussion at all because in doing so you violated WP:NACD. There are no policies at play here; WP:XY is an essay. However, XY says
It may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed
. Once a suitable location was presented, as I had done, "Delete per WP:XY" !votes should also be okay with a retarget because that is the better way to resolve the conflict at hand. I find this akin to a more common situation in which "Delete per no mention" !votes would be okay with a retarget to a place that has a mention if one is found. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)I find this akin to a more common situation in which "Delete per no mention" !votes would be okay with a retarget to a place that has a mention if one is found.
In many cases that's a reasonable assumption. But if many editors subsequently voted to delete anyway, I wouldn't assume that those editors were unaware of the retarget proposal, or whatever it is that you are proposing a closer should have done here.- As for my not being an admin, I already explained on my talk page why I did that. If editors agree here that I shouldn't have, I'll respect that; I thought I was in the habit of doing this for all kinds of discussions, but looking back over my CSD log, it seems that before today I've only done it for CfD discussions, which WP:NACD explicitly permits. But closures are rarely (never?) overturned solely because the closer wasn't an admin, so I think it would be more helpful to focus on the substance of my closure than the propriety of my doing it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that you should not have closed the discussion at all because in doing so you violated WP:NACD. There are no policies at play here; WP:XY is an essay. However, XY says
- Endorse I simply don't see this as a BADNAC nor as a violation of INVOLVED. Not being able to implement the decision probably should have meant it was closed by an administrator, but there's not a lot of people closing these, and consensus was correctly determined. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The close was against WP:NACD and the closer admits it, however I feel RfD should be made an exception to this, just like CfD is. The RfD backlogs go upto 25 days of logs, with a time range in months. Closers (admin or non-admin) aren't doing enough to close backlogs. The newer page entries see a good rate of closes, but older (and more participated) ones are ignored for weeks. If a non-admin wants to close older (and this was one of the oldest, from Nov 14) discussions as Delete, I would support that.
- On INVOLVED, I do not understand the quoted text enough to see if it is relevant. Does "dispute" equate to "discussion", which the RfD is? I would believe the "dispute" quoted in INVOLVED refers to long-term participation on topics, not one-off RfD discussions where each nomination is a different "topic". I don't know how to interpret involvement with respect to
outcome of the dispute
. Can someone explain that, or Jclemens who added it, may want to explain the context behind adding that text. I think Tavix's concern here is not that Pppery deleted the page, but that Pppery did not call out the closer for violating NACD, and that is not really an argument for DRV. - Agree that this was a close call, and that the closure summary should have had justified it. Jay 💬 08:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. All I'm seeing here are technical "violations" - correct actions that violated the letter of the law, but not its spirit. The reading of consensus was correct. Compassionate727 is an experienced RfD participant, and while we don't (yet?) have a deletion queue for RfD like we do for CfD, he followed the same process, using the {{Db-xfd}} template for its intended purpose.
- I don't see why
arguments involving WP:XY should be interpreted as in support for a retarget
. WP:XY offers both approaches as an option, and consensus landed on the delete one. The appellant cites WP:ATD, but there is no meaningful history to preserve in this redirect. In its 18 years of existence, this page has never been more than a 19-byte redirect, and one of highly dubious value at that. - As for the "WP:INVOLVED" accusation, I can't help but laugh. An admin responsibly carried out a G6 housekeeping deletion against his own !vote. How much less biased can you get?
- WP:NOTBURO applies here:
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles.
We have a non-admin and an admin who carried out a necessary administrative task, dutifully and without colour of prejudice. They should be thanked, not dragged to DRV. Owen× ☎ 10:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)- I agree: carrying out an action against your own preference is not always a problem. INVOLVED says This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. It's really difficult to understand "he voted to keep, an uninvolved editor determined that the consensus was delete, so he went along with the consensus" as "being, or appearing to be, incapable of making objective decisions". This looks more like WP:How to lose with grace.
- That said, I don't think that NACs should close deletion discussions as delete, and if they do, I definitely don't think they should tag the page as {{db-xfd}}, because speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions, and the fact that we're here indicates that this isn't uncontroversial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as the correct close, with a caution to the non-admin closer. Either the guidelines should be changed to allow non-admin Delete closes, or non-admins should not make Delete closes. If the rule is unnecessarily restrictive, don't ignore it, but change it. My own opinion is that we at DRV have seen that the rule is unnecessarily restrictive. Once the RFD was closed, the deleting admin was performing a purely technical function and was no longer involved. Take the guideline to a policy forum. It isn't clear what if anything the appellant wants to change in the outcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because non-admin deletion closes are not allowed per WP:NACD, the closure needs to be vacated and properly closed by an uninvolved admin (ideally explaining how they arrived at their decision). Pppery is involved, so he can't be the admin to take over the close. The guidance is correct, there's no need to change it. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Tavix - Bludgeoning the RFD didn't change the outcome of the RFD. Do you think that bludgeoning is more likely to change the outcome of this DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a bit off-topic so I've responded on your talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse with caution per the above. However, I want to echo the above that INVOLVED is specifically not in play here. Admins are people too, and we want them to actively engage on topics of interest, while working to implement consensus even when it's against them. If we need a verbiage update to INVOLVED, then by all means let's work on that, instead. I'm also not opposed to rolling the whole thing back and letting a different admin reclose and perhaps delete. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you, Jclemens, originally penned much of those policies, I think it's only fitting that you boldly update this one to exclude cases where the administrative action is clearly not in service to the personal opinion of that admin. Owen× ☎ 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any other case where INVOLVED should be clarified? In other words, is this a general case (admins implementing consensus they personally did not support) or just a NAC implementation issue? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you, Jclemens, originally penned much of those policies, I think it's only fitting that you boldly update this one to exclude cases where the administrative action is clearly not in service to the personal opinion of that admin. Owen× ☎ 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse with little enthusiasm. Should have been left to admin, but the consensus was reasonably clear. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I asked about this at Village Pump. Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Non-Admin_XFD_Close_as_Delete. On the one hand, non-admins should not be making Delete closes. On the other hand, we, DRV, can endorse such irregular closures. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
On the deletion review, there was NO "discussion" or "review". Iruka13 asserted that the image can't be used, I posted the reason that I believe it can be used. Then @Explicit: deleted the image. The image needs to be restored pending an actual review & discussion per WP policy instead of arbitrary actions by individual admins/editors. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy @Iruka13: to fix template issue Star Mississippi 15:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn close and Relist at FFD. After no discussion, the FFD should have been relisted, and should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a correct description of FFD practice. Unopposed deletion nominations at FFD result in a delete closure. See WP:FFDAI. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The image was a faithful reproduction of a copyrighted 2d image - not CC-BY-SA-4.0, as labeled - a black disc with the two-all-beef-patties jingle split into three lines at the top (but otherwise with spaces omitted), "McDonald's Big Mac" at the bottom, and a picture of the sandwich in the center. The image of the text isn't copyrightable, beyond the copyright for the text itself; the image of the burger certainly is, and is inarguably redundant to the high-quality free image in the infobox (which I see you also took - thank you!) and other images in the article. There was no discussion of the button in the article other than the caption ("Big Mac button worn by Canadian crew members during the 1975 campaign"), and no attempt at the xfd to show how it increases understanding of Big Mac#"Two all-beef patties" jingle - which already includes the full text, and not a whole lot more.Length of the discussion isn't unusual for FFD, and it didn't even need to go there - it was technically an F9 speedy because of the wrong license. That was trivially fixable, of course, but that leaves it as an F7 for a disputed non-free use rationale, and I assure you that F7 tag would've been honored. —Cryptic 18:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the initial dispute, I asked for help with the re-licensing. Unfortunately, no one seems to care to help... speedy deletion is all anyone offers by way of "help".
- Regarding whether or not the image adds value on the page, it also shows how the jingle was used: all lowercase, no spaces (as you noted); moreover, at the very least the image makes the page more interesting.
- If the standard to be applied is whether or not the image "increases understanding", then the next image on the page, captioned "McDonald's playground Officer Big Mac climb-in jail", should also be deleted; as should every album cover posted to WP (because they don't "increase understanding"). Christopher Rath (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's no point fixing the licensing if we have to delete the image anyway, which is why I said it was only technically an F9 and trivially fixable.The standard for inclusion of non-free imagery isn't just "increase understanding", it's "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" from WP:NFCC#8 (emphasis mine) as mentioned by Iruka13 in the FFD. "Significant" is problematic here - it can be read as having to increase understanding either a lot, or at least a little - but the burger part of the image doesn't meet even the more lenient reading, and that's the part that makes the image non-free in the first place.It's not immediately clear whether playground equipment like in the Officer Big Mac photograph is legally architecture or a sculpture; the image would be free in the first case and non-free in the second (Freedom of panorama#United States). There was no such ambiguity in the image of the button.I actually agree with you with respect to albums. The cover is solely marketing material, and shouldn't be included unless there's sourced commentary specifically about the artwork or some other aspect of the cover; the nonfree content we should be defaulting to for audio works is a sample of the audio. —Cryptic 18:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming that Iruka13's description of the image was correct, this was correctly deleted. I cannot view it to confirm, however. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming that the image's license is corrected, what is your objection to it appearing on the Big Mac page? Christopher Rath (talk) Christopher Rath (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:F7. This is not a content issue. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why don't you believe that the image can be used under a fair use provision? How is use of a photo of the button any different than use of an album cover? Christopher Rath (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:F7. This is not a content issue. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming that the image's license is corrected, what is your objection to it appearing on the Big Mac page? Christopher Rath (talk) Christopher Rath (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as copyright violation of the underlying . Fair use was not raised at the FFD.
If there is now going to be a proposed fair use rationale, that should be put forward now. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Per my (and earlier, Darnios') discussion with Sandstein on his talk page,
- 1) Sandstein incorrectly characterized two RS'es, journal articles from Slayage which is discussed at Buffy studies, as self published sources when the publication was peer-reviewed and indexed at DOAJ at the time in question.
- 2) Sandstein raised an objection to the sources as non-RS when this was not only not brought up in the discussion, but the one editor commenting after they were posted in the deletion discussion had specifically mentioned them implying their suitability to expand the article.
- 3) WP:NEXIST exists for a reason, and this is a textbook case of it: there's now no dispute that this character has RS'ed commentary, so the multiple editors objecting to the current state of the article are not articulating a policy-based reason for deletion. "It sucks since no one has worked on it" has been accepted as a reason for deletion by multiple administrators, when it runs afoul of our WP:NOTPERFECT policy.
- While this is a redirection with history intact, I maintain that it is still not a policy-based outcome. WP:BEFORE is designed to filter out such nominations; three separate participants made the correct, cordial observation that no BEFORE was articulated by the nominator, an editor who made numerous questionable deletion discussions, was counseled by Liz for this, and then vanished rather than address criticism here. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC or relist there is reasonable split both in the discussion and at Sandstein's talk that the sourcing was misassessed. NB
did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them a
how they are referred to has no bearing on their standing in RS. I'm not convinced this is a clear keep, but more time to discuss would be a viable outcome. Star Mississippi 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) - Overturn to Relist. This was a sloppy AFD by an inexperienced editor who has since left Wikipedia, and a sloppy DRV by an experienced editor. The appellant states correctly that the nominator failed to perform the before AFD search, but that is more of a conduct issue than a content issue, and DRV is a content forum. Failure to do the before search is a waste of the community's time, but is not a basis for a Speedy Keep. Either No Consensus or Merge or Redirect (with history retained) were valid conclusions by the closer. The appellant repeatedly stated that sources exist, but has not inserted the sources into the article, maybe because they are expecting the community to do the work of inserting the sources. (So both the nominator and the appellant were expecting the community to do their work for them.) The appellant's comments on the closer's talk page appear to be expecting the closer to do the work of researching the sources, which is not the closer's responsibility, and the closer was reasonably annoyed. One more week of discussion may clarify whether the community, which is divided, thinks that the stated existence of sources is sufficient to Keep the article. Or someone might be constructive and add the sources to the article for a Heymann keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1) Speedy Keep was not invoked by any participant in this discussion.
- 2) Per WP:NEXIST and WP:VOLUNTEER there is no requirement by anyone, at any time, to take any specific action to improve an article. This is the third and most important point in my argument. Sandstein is far from the only closing administrator to have acceded to arguments that "Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT", and it's time to either stop it or change the guidelines to match conduct. Not one of those arguing for redirection asserted a complete lack of sourcing; everyone arguing for keeping asserted that sufficient sources existed even if not present in the article. Does a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS allow an administrator to assign WP:NOEFFORT votes equal weight to those based on WP:NEXIST? Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sandstein did not accede to
"Yes, there may well be sources enough to establish notability, but WP:NOEFFORT"
. Sandstein's close is clearly predicated on the lack of any evidence that the page meets GNG after two weeks at AfD. This is also the upshot of the discussion on their talk page. It is a policy based close. It is not the closer's fault if participants at AfD do not bring sources to the table. And looking at the wider argument: those not voting keep cannot prove that they cannot find sources. We don't prove a negative. But AfD is thus heavily biased towards keeping information, in that a failure to achieve consensus keeps an article, and alternatives to deletion are preferred to outright deletion. We cannot then just allow that any hand wave arguments like "I don't believe you looked properly" will do. AfD requires us to do some work. We are not compelled to do that work. No one has to contribute. But if an article is brought to AfD, and if it is not obvious the article is notable, then sources need to be discussed. Rather than sayingplease search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage
it would have been far more productive to have said: I searched Google scholar, and by adding the additional keyword slayage, I was able to find multiple sources including the following secondary sources, [1] [2] and [3]. These meet GNG because... Yes, it is more work. No, you are not required to do any such work, but when an article is up for deletion, this is the time to look at the sources. It is often the only time an article has ever had a proper review of its sources. The attention it gets will greatly benefit the article. That is the added value of AfD. And I am sure you are already preparing to say that deletion is not for cleanup. It is not. But article improvement is often the happy result, and if the attention finds no secondary sourcing, the article should not be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)- Regarding the passing reference to WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sandstein did not accede to
- Comment - I had written an Endorse but Allow Submission of Draft but am persuaded by User:Star Mississippi. This is a difficult DRV because both the AFD and the DRV were sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I won't say that assessing sources' reliability is a job solely for an afd's participants, but it's pretty close. It would have been reasonable for a closer to discount sources if they were inarguably unreliable - from open wikis, perhaps, or sources listed as unreliable at WP:RSP - but even then, best practice is to comment on the afd instead and leave an easier job for the next closer to look at it. Introducing a new argument like this in the close, when there's any chance at all that it could've been rebutted had the discussion not been simultaneously ended, isn't on.This, ironically, would've been a more reasonable close, and a harder one to overturn, if it hadn't included an explanation, just the result. —Cryptic 03:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (but maybe a relist is a good idea) A reasonably articulated close entirely within the closer's discretion for an AfD that had been open for two weeks, and where keep voters had failed to show that sources exist. The two "BEFORE not articulated" !votes were rightly discarded, and although, per the above, these were intended as a "cordial observation", text based communication loses nuance, and they could easily be read as an assumption of bad faith. I see from evidence here that the AfD nom. did have a habit of not searching for sources, expressed on their talk page - but there is no way the closer could be aware of that. It was the job of the keep voters to actually select and present some of the sources they claimed were so easily found, so they could be discussed at AfD. Only one !voter presented sources, but there was no indication in the presentation as to what those sources were or why they met GNG. Sandstein, on their talk page, explained what is equally clear to me, that prima facie, these add nothing. Who wrote them? are they independent, reliable secondary sources? None of this was addressed, and so the last redirect !vote notes GNG is not met. Not one keep voter showed how this met GNG. Also on Sandstein's talk page, I do not think Jclemens'
A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
is a suitable way to address a closer with queries over their close. That is a demand with a threat, not a question. And there is no way in the world that this was a keep outcome. It is closed correctly on the face of it. However, as most of the failure here is on the part of keep !voters who have simply not addressed the issue, and as it is possible that sources do exist, relisting this might be a reasonable outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) - As closer, I endorse my own closure based on the information presented in the AfD.
- If somebody presents new information after a closure (here, that the two sources linked to by Daranios in the AfD were from a supposedly reliable academic journal), that information can not be reflected in the closure because it was not presented to the other AfD participants and could therefore not have been the subject of discussion or consensus. In such cases, the person making such belated arguments must accept (as Daranios in fact did) that the closer will make their own determination about the merits of such a belated argument rather than reopening the AfD to let consensus decide. Here, I concluded that even assuming for the sake of argument that the two sources were reliable academic sources (which remains questionable given their amateurish presentation), they did not establish notability because only one of them covered the subject of the article more than in passing. For that reason, too, I concluded that a relisting was unwarranted.
- I note also that this DRV was preceded by a threat by Jclemens against me. DRV should not reward such misconduct. Sandstein 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: You are asserting that my statement that if you did not correct your incorrect close (accompanied in the same edit by a justification of why I reasonably believed your close was incorrect) I would bring the close to DRV constitutes a threat in your mind? If not, please clarify what you thought was a threat. Threat is a very serious word that I do not see can be reasonably used in this case consistent with WP:ADMINACCT. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, this was written before the statement just above.
- Overturn to no consensus or relist, pretty much agreeing with Star Mississippi and Cryptic. (And in that regard I am grateful to Sandstein that they did take the time to elaborate on the closure rather than just posting the result). Since the AfD I've learnt that the way I've posted the two exemplary secondary sources was rather inconvenient and I should have elaborated on those sources. But I believe they are reliable and discussing the sources rather then dismissing them right away is the more helpful way to go. And the information that they are from an ISSN-listed magazine is there now even if that was not clear then. Likewise I agree that the closer would have no obvious way of knowing that the nominator purposfully ommited a WP:BEFORE search, making the nomination flawed. But that information is known now. So in the interest of the project, deciding what to do with the article now while considering those facts is more relevant than figuring out if the closure was wholey justified then or not. Daranios (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- So I guess this means that this is a case of a deletion review under 3. of WP:DRVPURPOSE: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." Daranios (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse I agree with Star Mississippi that the closer could have better characterized the sourcing of the two pdfs provided by Daranios in the discussion, and that a relist may have been acceptable. It is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources provided in the discussion - only to characterize them. In this case, the visible links to the pdfs were to "offline.buffy.tv" and "dashboard.ir.una.edu" and described as secondary sources, the former which could be easily seen as an SPS. And the closer only needed to look at the next comment in the discussion (following Daranios' comment) that said that the sourcing did not meet GNG (so we must presume that at least one editor did not feel the sources provided by Daranios was sufficient). In addition, early in the discussion, Jclemens pointed discussants towards Slayage, where the articles Daranios pointed to are hosted. Shooterwalker suggested the sources were "trivial mentions or WP:PLOT and this doesn't pass GNG." So all of this being said, the closer saw at least two editors concluding the sourcing did not meet GNG, with general handwaving by editors supporting a keep decision, and suspected SPS sourcing, a redirect close is well within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. It is impractical to the point of absuridity to expect an AfD closer to do their own WP:BEFORE and their own source analaysis. It is also anathema to the administrative role of an unbiased adjudicator reading consensus. I don't know a single admin active in AfD who gives much weight to !votes that are merely, "I've seen sources, they exist!". WP:NEXIST tells us that sources need not be cited in the article to establish notability. It does not--and cannot--tell us that a mere claim about the existence of sources, even when made by an established, trusted WP veteran such as Jclemens, counts as a citation for establishing notability. The entire AfD system would grind to a halt if we gave weight to such claims without substantiation. How would we record such citations in the article - by a link to the AfD where there was a claim about their existence?
- As for the two PDFs cited by Daranios in the AfD, please note that six days passed after they were cited before the AfD was closed, and the only interveneing !vote was a Redirect. I don't see why Sandstein was expected to carry out his own source analysis as a closer, especially in the absence of any !vote expressly deeming those sources as RS. The appellant's rebuttal to Piotrus was correct, but neglected to even mention the two identified sources on the AfD. Had Sandstein done his own source analsysis, and used Daranios' sources to overrule the preceding Redirect !votes, he would likely be accused of a supervote.
- As for Jclemens' note on Sandstein's Talk page, I see it as unnecessarily combative, but not an actual threat. Under most legal systems, a threat must involve the expression of an intent to carry out an unlawful or punitive action, which clearly isn't the case here. Typically, an appellant would ask the closer for their reasoning, and after some back and forth, one of the two would suggest taking the case to DRV. I like to think Jclemens simply wanted to cut to the chase here. However, I know Jclemens to weigh his words carefully, and therefore cannot escape the conclusion that he chose the belligerent language deliberately. Not a WP:CIVILITY violation per se, but an unnecessary preempive escalation in tone we could have done without. In my dealings with Sandstein, I found him to be very accommodating, and have no doubt this whole thing could have been settled between the appellant and him had Jclemens broached the subject as a question or polite request, rather than as a demand, if not an outright ultimatum. Or as the kids say, "This could have been an email." Owen× ☎ 21:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse closure per Enos and Owen, but if a relist would better solidify consensus then I guess that can be done. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse I also would have closed that as a redirect without prejudice for recreation. As a closer, I simply don't think keep !voters were persuasive that this character passes WP:GNG on its own. After making that conclusion I performed the source search and viewed the sources in the discussion just to make sure this wasn't redirected in error and that's not clearly the case. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. I see no consensus that the sources mentioned in the AFD fail notability guidelines, nor do I see consensus to either keep or not keep a standalone article. A second relist, along with the added visibility from from this DRV, May be enough to find a consensus at the AFD. Frank Anchor 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Evaluating sources is generally outside the scope of DRV, but listing Slayage at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard could clarify its suitability. Does anyone have WP:Canvassing (guideline) or other concerns? Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Flatscan: Sounds like a good idea to me, and this being somewhat of a niche area of publication, the more editors and projects are pinged for input the better in my view. Daranios (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing Daranios's support and no objections, I posted at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Slayage. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Flatscan: Sounds like a good idea to me, and this being somewhat of a niche area of publication, the more editors and projects are pinged for input the better in my view. Daranios (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. The final keep !vote was unrebutted, and the closer seriously erred by a) rebutting it himself and b) rebutting it incorrectly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi can I get the deleted version of this article deleted on 11th November 2023 by @Explicit under G8 in the draftspace. The actress has done multiple significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR Amafanficwriter (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2024 (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. |
|
Simaran played significant roles in Agnifera, Aghori (TV series), Aggar Tum Na Hote, Tose Naina Milaai Ke and is currently playing the main lead in Jamai No. 1. So, I think the consensus of this XFD can be overturned and the article can be restored either to mainspace or draftspace Amafanficwriter (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (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. |
I request that the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States be overturned to no consensus for these reasons:
Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (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. |
|
Closed two days early by a non-administrator, despite the AfD having over 30 votes. While the outcome will still likely be keep, it was an improper closure and didn’t give me time to rethink my vote reading through the keeps. Someone on the talk page noted that one in every five votes was something like merge or delete, and given more time could have closed as no consensus. Isn’t there a policy against non-admins closing potentially controversial AfDs, anyways?— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 December 2024 (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. |
Even after the deletion discussion's consensus to delete, page has not yet been deleted. Forgive me if this isn't the correct place to post such requests TNM101 (chat) 10:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |