Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:UDEL)
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.

Instructions

Shortcut

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=2025 March 9}}</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=2025 March 9}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 March 9|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

9 March 2025

8 March 2025

2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder

2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder The nominee only opposed the article topic with WP:NOTNEWS. 3 out of 5 editors just supported the nominee and did not clarify further. There were primary news sources ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) that were able to confirm this event was a Massacre that brutally killed 5 people. But the AfD did not get the keep vote, this article should be reopened (drafted) to change its title (Thiruvananthapuram Massacre) and improve its content. Spworld2 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reopen. Some in the Wikipedia community are cross with India because of Indian authorities' behaviour in Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation, which has another hearing in May 2025 (the one in February got deferred, because it was 4:30 by the time the judge got to it). And there is a widespread view that most Indian news sources are unreliable because of the pervasive, undisclosed paid news in India issue.
But on balance I am convinced that there are good grounds to reopen that AfD. If someone knifed five people in the UK or France or Germany, we would very likely have an article about the incident, and to delete that one is perverse and inequitable.
It is a spree killing, and not a massacre. The two crimes are quite different.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we would automatically have an article on a killing where all the victims and the perpretrator were members of one family, unless it was particularly notorious. Regardless, if this is reopened and kept the title should simply be "2025 Thiruvananthapuram murders". Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree with reopening this. The discussion was, at best, poor. Could we get a temp undelete? The sources weren't really discussed and I'd like to see what is there. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Owen× ☎ 16:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close correctly reflected an almost unanimous consensus among participants, with the lone dissenting opinion expressed there by the appellant, who failed to address the key issue of WP:LASTING. I see no evidence that the Delete views expressed there were fuelled by retributive urges relating to any lawsuit. They all firmly relied on P&G. The appellant has not presented us with any valid reason to overturn or even relist. This is merely a rehash of what they said at the AfD, for an extra free kick at the can. If it turns out that this spree killing--not "mass murder" and certainly not "massacre"--has a meaningful lasting effect, the article can be revived. It's been 11 days since the killing, and I don't expect any lasting effect to manifest itself during the six-month lifespan of a draft. I doubt the requested draft is anything more than a backdoor to mainspace, as the appellant doesn't seem to differentiate between verifiability and notability. Owen× ☎ 15:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the nominator. My problem about the article is it is unlikely to have any WP:LASTING nor WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and not about the WP:NOTNEWS and I personally think many of the participant are agreeing with my rationale. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 16:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. There was clear consensus that LASTING was not met. Allow recreation as draft if there is an indication of lasting coverage in the future. As of right now, I agree with OwenX that it seems unlikely there will be continued coverage over the next six months but it certainly is possible. Frank Anchor 16:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I did check the last version of the article just to see if the discussion which was a firm delete consensus made a clear mistake, but - and since this is more of AfD 2 than DRV - I must note I also would have !voted delete. SportingFlyer T·C 17:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Return to Draft as a valid judgment call by the closer that a Relist was not required. The assessment as to whether this event has continued coverage or lasting effects can be better made in a few months. A Relist would determine whether there was coverage in two or three weeks, which is not useful. If it has continued coverage in perhaps three months, a proponent can expand it with a description of the continued coverage by reliable secondary sources, and submit it for review or move it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Niknam (closed)

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

The page may need work, but it clearly complies with WP:N. Also, the user who closed the discussion and made the page redirect to Bunq, also made other page redirect there, which is odd. Spokeoino (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Overturn and/or Allow recreation of the page as it seems admins and editors have different opinions about the article. Spokeoino (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who closed this AfD as "Redirect". I recognize that my close was too early and mistaken, and for that I apologize. I have already self-reverted the close, as described on the AfD page itself.
My initial rationale for closing as "Redirect" was on the basis of my evaluation of the sources on offer in the discussion at the time. I thought most of the coverage of Ali Niknam was in the context of his business, Bunq, and as such a redirect to the company article appeared warranted under WP:NOPAGE, which says we don't require a specific article when there can be a redirect. I was also guided by the original BLAR and the reasoning provided by some of the AfD editors that the coverage was predominantly about Bunq.
But now I see that I did not properly take into account a number of key points,
  • Lack of Clear Consensus
  • BLP Considerations
  • Potential Canvassing/SPA Issues
  • Non-Admin Closure
I acted in error of judgment, and I should have let an administrator close this thread. I have learned from this and will be more careful in the future. I agree with this review and defer to an administrator's judgment.
)
UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relist it and allow an experienced administrator to make a decision. As the page is definitely notable with reliable sources and reasonable arguments to keep — including those provided by Fram, who gave a clear argument — it’s strange that two accounts one-by-one added a "Redirect" vote, and a third account (all of them inexperienced) closed it as a redirect. And there were no other "redirect" votes - only those suspiciously added by two users. Was this a coordinated action? I think we should consider starting an SPI. --Cinder painter (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 March 2025

Mohammed Tayea

Mohammed Tayea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Tayea six editors claimed they could not find any sources on the article subject, some of the participants began speculating whether the article was a WP:HOAX. I presented 8 sources, out of which at least 7 confirm that Tayea was a member of parliament and thus easily passing WP:NPOL. At that stage, it would have been an act of good faith if the nominator had withdrawn AfD. He made a comment, which in no way dispute the accuracy of the sources I presented. None of the other five editors that had claimed that it was impossible to source the article made any comment or self-criticism in the AfD. The closing admin, treating the AfD as a majority vote, seemingly made no recognition that new sources had been found in the latter stage of the AfD. Soman (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the closure of the AfD as delete. In response to your comment against me, I would not even begin to withdraw an AfD when 5 other editors had already commented to delete the article. I like to think I exercise a lot of good faith on this encyclopaedia. While your efforts to find some sources in Arabic is noble, I do not believe notability is established. I did not comment on the individual sources as I do not read/speak Arabic. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there were no "!keep votes". Zero. There were six "!delete votes". At best, this was a case of WP:TNT. Also, even if he was part of a "parliamentary delegation", that doesn't prove that he was actually a member of parliament. In the United States, state legislative officials (chief of staff, chief clerk, Sargent at arms, etc.) are considered officers of the state legislature. In 2005-2007, lots of subjects crept into Wikipedia without any or improper documentation. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but no objection to restoring to draft if @Soman feels they can address Verifiability concerns. Star Mississippi 02:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The appellant made a good-faith effort to find and offer sources. While one participant asked questions about one of the sources, and the nominator invited the appellant to add them to the article, there was no additional evaluation by editors of whether the sources met WP:NPOL or WP:GNG or rebutted the claims of a WP:HOAX. Since no "delete" !votes were offered after the sources were proposed, it would have been productive for this discussion to have been relisted to attract additional attention to the sources. (P.S. The nominator is right that a withdrawal would have had no effect, considering the other delete !votes. And contra Bearian, the appellant did leave a "keep" !vote.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This is a case where sourcing was provided late in the discussion. And it appears other participants did not engage with the sources provided. In my mind, a relist is proper to adjudicate whether the sources show that the subject passes WP:NPOL, in spite of the early delete comments. --Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The only engagement with the late-appearing sourcing was non-policy based, expecting the editor finding the sources to add them to the article to merit a keep, which can arguably be read as a keep ("add them and it's notable" was correctly rebutted with WP:NEXIST, and hence implicitly supports notability) but even if not it certainly adds no support to the deletion argument. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I was one of those who voted Delete but my vote was based on the facts presented at that time i.e. there were no sources to verify that the subject was an MP. Since then Soman has provided several sources to verify that the subject was indeed an MP and therefore does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:NPOL). If the AfD was still live, I would've changed my vote to Keep.--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wary of deciding that supplying extra sources late in the debate entitles you to a relist, because that creates a perverse incentive to hold back a few sources til day 6 of the debate.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment appears to suggest a lack of good faith, assuming that the situation involved deliberate hold[ing] back a few sources instead of what seemed more likely: the appellant noticed the AfD with only a couple days to go, then went into a flurry of searching for possible sources. A relist in this situation doesn’t game the system; it’s a normal response when sources are provided and no one else offers an assessment. (If no one were to respond after another week, then a “delete” would be fair since the sources would be unconvincing to those who would see the relisted discussion. In this case, the sources did convince one delete !voter above who just didn’t see them until too late—a situation a relist might have mitigated.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, of course, a comment about the principles of closing rather than about this editor. AfDs have a cutoff time for good reasons.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. While I get the concern about holding off sources until the last minute, I think the risk/reward doesn't really incentivize doing so. And I'd rather us not remove content that meets our inclusion guidelines just because the sources came late. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hobit: That's a bigger protraction and more AfDing that letting the capable editor Soman just add those refs and move the page from draft to article space, and, probably, there won't be any need to discuss the article's eligibility in a formal process. —Alalch E. 17:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There are many cases in which sources are not found until the sixth or seventh day and/or users are unaware of an AFD’s existence until the sixth or seventh day. Several sources were added and were not properly addressed. There is no time limit on discussions and it is most important to delete or retain an article based on whether it conforms to policies and guidelines. Frank Anchor 16:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and undelete to draft. It appears that this article was entirely unreferenced. Deleting an article because of non-notability is saying that Wikipedia editors are unable to create an acceptable article under the core content policies due to the non-fulfillment of objective conditions to doing so (lack of sources to ensure verifiability, avoidance of original research, and neutrality as well). Finding some sources and saying that the subject should be presumed to be notable is an assertion that it is possible to create an acceptable article. The most efficient way to test that proposition is to add the references to the article and see what comes out of the process. More efficient than another round of AfD. Maybe at the end of it, there won't be a need for any additional AfD discussing, as the content will speak for itself.—Alalch E. 17:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse and Undelete to Draft as a valid exercise of judgment by the closer to close as delete rather than relist. Relist would have also been a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. Deleting and returning to draft may actually give a proponent a better chance to get the article approved, by giving them time to put the recently found sources properly into the article where they can be reviewed by machine translation (and machine translation is good enough for the checking of sources, although not for article content). This is one of the rare cases where restoring a deleted article to draft probably is the best practice. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6 March 2025

ArchiveBox

ArchiveBox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi, I'd like to request a review of the delete and the provided reason of G11 when reading the section that explains that reason it even says "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." and at least in my eyes that would apply here. I don't understand why my article shouldn't fit Wikipedia. I spent multiple hours looking for sources, references, getting all of the information together, and writing a rough initial version. That I thought would be sufficient and could be extended later. - Anyway, please at least userfy or e-mail it to me. And if possible please provide some constructive feedback as apparently the amount of effort I invest into writing here is inversely correlated to getting it accepted. I'd really like to know how to change that moving forward. I invested multiple hours into this article and now I'm left with nothing and don't even understand why or what I could have done differently. Agowa (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request temp undelete for review, please. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Owen× ☎ 19:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse-ish It's a G11, but more than that, it's not really anything that we'd write as a Wikipedia article. It's overlinked and full of irrelevant data (I don't know why an EIN would ever be included in an encyclopedia article) in addition to the generally promotional tone. I'd be OK with letting this live in draft, but offline rework before re-upload to draft would also work. I'd also like the appellant to confirm an absence of conflict of interest with respect to this product. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't an EIN similar to an ASN? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Google for example list that one. I'm not from the US so I may just have overestimated its importance.
    I don't have a conflict of interest here. The most I'm affiliated with that product is having downloaded, installed, and used it. But calling that being affiliated would kinda be a stretch. Agowa (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the non-defensive answer. An EIN is a tax identifier for a corporation or other legal person in U.S. tax law. Did you have a different EIN in mind, because that looked like one? Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, no real justification for including it. I didn't fully look it. In short I just assumed it was important.
    In full: What I did was looked at how unique identifiers for niche audiences are handled on existing pages, like e.g. the formerly mentioned ASN, or a stock symbol for Google. Also I thought (without having actually looking into it more closely) that it was some important finances thing in the US and being similarly important to an ISIN here in Germany (see e.g. de:BMW) especially because it was listed on their donations page. Agowa (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse that is not an encyclopedia article, it's a linkfarm for the organization and the lead person involved including self descriptions and Goodreads links. If you can't recognize that it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia, you should not be editing in mainspace, Agowa. Star Mississippi 23:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could trim the references section. You're right. Maybe I let myself get carried away on that one too much. The initial reason for adding stuff like Goodreads was because I thought it would be valuable to link the official points of contact to distinguish from impersonations. However in the end it probably became way too long and side-traced way too much. And for most of the other references my thought process was it being a good anchor point for creating sections in future versions of that page. Agowa (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd do better to start over focusing only on high quality significant sourcing. Trimming will not solve the issues here. Star Mississippi 02:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The excessive amount of external links (including social media profiles) that you added to the article, and the fact that the vast majority of the sources were self-published sources instead of secondary ones, were most likely the reasons why the article was deleted.
I recommend reading up on Wikipedia's verifiability policy before attempting to recreate the article. Not only trimming the references section, but adding more SECONDARY sources (and are actually reliable, rather than a random blog someone wrote) to prove it is notable. ApexParagon (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe I misunderstood a part from that page then. On the very same page you reference it says "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Then further down it references the "Identifying and using primary sources" page where it clearly says "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.". I also thought that I took care of the things mentioned in WP:PRIMARYCARE. The "random blog someone wrote" is actually the primary source of the project owner.
So do these two just not together? Did I misinterpret something here? Or?
(But your comment would count as challenging the notability so we'd be at "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" now anyway. However I'm currently trying to understand if my interpretation of the above mentioned sections is correct) Agowa (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article is supposed to have mostly secondary sources. Primary sources are allowed to be used, but sparingly. Your article consisted of almost exclusively primary sources, and primary sources alone do not show the subject is notable. This applies to an even greater extent with self-published primary sources.
(See WP:PRIMARY: “Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.”)
Also I was giving “a random blog someone wrote” as an example of an unreliable self-published source. I wasn’t referring to the owner’s blog you linked specifically. ApexParagon (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, but I think I don't quite understand the rules here then. Following your statement am I right to assume that WP:SIGNIF no longer apply then? Especially as you just said something has to be notable where as that page literally says it doesn't (It only has to be significant, which is a way lower bar):
> Significance is a lower standard than notability. While the inclusion of reliable secondary sources may itself be an indication of significance, not including any sources is entirely irrelevant to an assessment under these speedy deletion criteria
and that the part from WP:V#Notability that I quoted in the post you replied to also doesn't apply anymore? As you quite literally just said an article has to show that the subject is notable.
> notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
I think just pointing to the rules doesn't quite cut it when rules as written differ from rules as enforced. Anyone here that can clarify the interpretation (or even fix the wording on the rule pages)? Also as this has become kinda about the rules instead of the deleted article itself, should we take this policy discussion elsewhere? Agowa (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is related to criteria A7 @Agowa. There was an assertion of notability which means it merited discussion if it was deleted on those grounds. It wasn't. It was deleted as advertising, which it is. It will not be restored as is, but there's a case an article could be written. You have the text, what further action are you looking for here? Star Mississippi 14:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 March 2025

Talk:Besame Mucho (film)

Talk:Besame Mucho (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It's amazing that I'm opening up a DRV for a talk page [redirect] discussion, but here we are. I informed the closer why I was requesting the discussion be reopened, essentially because their close comes off as incredibly WP:SUPERVOTE/WP:IAR-ish and, in effect, potentially a misuse of the admin toolset. But, since the closer would not reopen the discussion, here we are. In a nutshell, I think the close was out of line, incredibly POV pushing, and should be either left open or closed by a closer who can better articulate the reason for the closing in a consensus-based manner rather than the statement in the close. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing a contested discussion to keep people from "wast[ing] time" never, ever saves time. Even when you're right. (Because Talk:Bésame Mucho (disambiguation) is still a redlink and shouldn't be created solely to mark a wikiproject's territory, especially not when that wikiproject is the only one that acknowledges that you shouldn't do that. And no, redirecting a page to a title isn't adding content to that title either.) —Cryptic 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what's being asked here. Was there, contra the discussion, actually usable content on this page? Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Three revisions: the redirect left by the move to Talk:Besame Mucho (1987 film), the rfd tag, and a failed attempt to update the tag to point to the discussion's new location when it was relisted. —Cryptic 02:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing to do here So unless I'm completely misunderstanding things, this is an admin civility complaint against wbm1058 who closed the discussion in what looks like the only possible policy-based outcome. There's nothing to do here because the close was right, even if more snarky than necessary. There's nothing for WP:XRV because the close used no specific tools. I may be in the minority here, but I'd suggest (NOT recommend) WP:ANI if you really want to complain about a closing statement being too snarky. If an apology would help, I'm sorry that you got smacked down like that Steel1943, but I don't think there's anything here that will help the situation more than a sincere "Yeah, that could have been toned down" from the closer might. Jclemens (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I wanted to really be snarky, I'd say something like "Steel doesn't have the copper" but if there is indeed only one possible outcome, then super-voting is impossible, and I'll apologize for the snark if he apologizes for the supervote allegation, and let's just call it a day and move on. He wasn't the only editor to annoy me; there's also the one who felt the need to relist this thing which had already been left open for nearly a month. Were they afraid an angry editor might show up on their talk if they closed it? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh per Cryptic. The close was unfortunate, but not worth overturning. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good outcome, non-good closing statement, bad relist. I see the closing statement as a complaint about the unnecessary relist. —Alalch E. 22:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cakra Khan

Cakra Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rejected REFUND. The singer passes WP:GNG with enough significant coverage in reliable sources apart from WP:NMUSIC as well as having won multiple music awards (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The closing admin has been inactive since February 2024. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can Sphilbrick shed some light on the 2017 deletion as apparently G5? It's been a decade since the last discussion and over 7 years since this was last brought up, so I'm struggling to see why we would not allow a new article and provide the old as a starting point. Jclemens (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like there's nothing usable and a risk of copyvio per below, so Start Over with a new article. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to add, the assessment below sounds accurate. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refund to draft/userspace to allow Clariniie to create a “new” article conforming to GNG/NMUSIC. Article was deleted in 2014 with unanimous (but limited) consensus, then speedy deleted as WP:G5, meaning it was deleted due to the principal author being blocked/banned, and not due to the content. Two of the three sources posted above post-date both deletions, meaning it is possible the subject has become more notable during this time. Frank Anchor 13:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to endorse based on Cryptic's assessment of copyright infringement, of which I was unaware when I !voted. Recreation is already allowed as the title is not salted. Frank Anchor 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll endorse the G5; it was created by this prolific sockpuppeteer. The version deleted in 2014, which dated to the very start of this person's career, isn't going to be any help at all in writing a proper article - it consisted of an infobox, his birthdate, stage name, a sentence detailing his education, an extremely promotionally-worded paragraph purporting to describe his career but not managing to actually say anything except that he released one single in 2012, a four-entry discography, and an external link to this. Only the infobox is salvageable, and even that is probably worse than the one you'd end up with if you started from scratch. —Cryptic 17:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, its creator is indef blocked for copyright infringement. I'd certainly believe it of the "Celebrity career" section. Don't restore either version. —Cryptic 17:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't have Cryptic's permissions, but I completely trust their judgement here. Feel free to recreate an article from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Creation and Review of Draft - The title was not salted, and the requester doesn't need permission to create a new draft. I don't know what the value is of requesting a refund of an 11-year-old draft that didn't satisfy notabiity at the time. I don't know why editors who see that a living person has become notable want to start with a non-starter article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Need to start from a fresh page here.—Alalch E. 17:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 March 2025

Internment Serial Number (closed)

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

This discussion was closed as "no consensus" by IP editor 2600:1001:B1CE:93F6:9806:438E:34F4:2985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a total of 8 edits, all of them today. The user also closed 4 other discussions as "no consensus" within a span of 4 minutes:

These closes should be overturned per WP:BADNAC: The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions. Astaire (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the closer is certainly not qualified for closing any of these discussions, taking a (very brief) look at these discussions:
ISN: There isn't a consensus, so the closer (while unqualified) was correct.
Kori King: Seems to be a strong consensus for Keep, but again, I only took a very brief look.
Muben Gabol: Weak consensus on Keep.
Therinia Spinicauda: There doesn't seem to be a consensus.
Elias Hossain: Delete (has been closed by an admin). Redacted II (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Starship flight test 9

Starship flight test 9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<There are several reliable sources supporting the details within the article. Original closure did not accept these sources, nor has the deletion nominator. Additionally, while its not required, the deletion nominator failed to notify the relevent Wikiprojects, article creator, or substantial constributors. > Redacted II (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. (Lots of discussion over at the talk page for the redirect for those just joining.) "The original closure did not accept those sources" because the consensus at the discussion did not accept those sources. Meanwhile, the appellant is suggesting an FCC primary source document and an Ars Technica article that doesn't mention flight 9 as newly available GNG-qualifying coverage, which suggests a misunderstanding of what would constitute newly available information under DRV#3. Starship flight test 8 was scratched just hours ago, seconds from launch, which reinforces the WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL rationales of the AfD participants and will surely push flight test 9 into the future. This topic will no doubt be notable someday but there's not enough evidence of it now to overturn an AfD result based on TOOSOON and CRYSTALBALL concerns that closed just six weeks ago. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For current article "version", see Draft:Starship flight test 9)
Significant new information includes the dozens of other sources listed. And a bit of context on the Ars Technica article: its in the section "Impact of Flight 7", and supports the following statement:
"Due to the failure of S33 to complete its ascent burn, this was delayed to a later mission"
And how does Flight 8 scrubbing impact WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTALBALL? Any delay to Flight 9 from this is going to be a few days at most (this is speculation, but so is the presence of any delay to Flight 9), and the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTALBALL as far as I can tell.
Listing specific violations would be very helpful for correcting them. Redacted II (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to weigh in further because it seems futile after the talk page discussion, but the half-sentence this was delayed to a later mission is not WP:SIGCOV of test flight 9. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close. No valid reason to overturn is presented, just a repeat of the appellant's claims at the AfD. Based on his comments on the redirect's Talk page, the appellant believes he is entitled to ignore the outcome of AfDs, and that community consensus doesn't apply to him. He is engaged in what appears to be a war of attrition, hoping to tire us out so he can have his way. His contribution history suggests this SPA, possibly a SpaceX COI, is unlikely to comply with what we decide, so a page protect might be needed. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminder to Assume Good Faith.
    (And no, I don't have a SpaceX COI, other that absoloutely hating Elon Musk) Redacted II (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer here: I certainly feel war-of-attrition levels of worn down looking at that talk page discussion, but at least from my perspective I think this is a case of truly not understanding notability guidelines, not some kind of COI or ulterior motive. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redacted II has gone a long way since joining in April 2023, so we should encourage him to keep improving. —Alalch E. 16:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse while noting that the latest version and the version that was redirected from January’s AFD were sufficiently different and the latest version should not be redirected without discussion (or a subsequent AFD). However, there was a discussion on the talk page and consensus remained that this should stay a redirect based on TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. Frank Anchor 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there's no other way this could have been closed - the consensus is there and the policy for removal is completely correct. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as correctly stating consensus. The appeal doesn't claim an error by the closer. DRV is not AFD Round 2. It doesn't matter whether I agree with the community, but I agree with the community that the deleted article contained crystal balling. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved as I supported redirecting at the most recent AfD). The AfD close reflected consensus and nothing I see in this request or on the talk page convinces me that consensus has or should change yet. I get that its frustrating when working on a topic that will certainly be notable when it happens and appears to meet the GNG already, and AfD says "not yet". But sometimes patience is required. Assuming Flight 8 launches this week*, more sources discussing Flight 9 will appear and an article going live around the time this DRV closes is likely to remain. *Note the contingency still remaining. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 March 2025

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted as per consensus involving six people per WP:NONDEFINING. This was because 1) the articles listed did not spend too much time on dyspraxia and 2) because dyspraxia is so common that the person who suggested it be deleted doubted that it could be defining except in severe cases (they went into greater detail in the category talk page but it has since been deleted, here is a link to a screenshot in case it's relevant). While I do not know what articles were originally in the category, I attempted to make a category myself without knowing that the category would later be deleted because of a decision made 4 years ago. As for the first point, in my category there were multiple celebrities who had another disability that did not receive any more focus than dyspraxia and yet they were listed in categories related to the other disability. This includes Tom Hunt (politician), who is listed in the category for politicians with dyslexia despite his article mentioning his dyspraxia more than his dyslexia and Olive Gray, who is listed in the categories for actors with dyslexia and people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]], despite dyspraxia being mentioned the same number of times as either dyslexia or ADHD. There is also Gage Golightly, whose early life section focuses mostly on her dyspraxia, and I would say at the very least, dyspraxia is clearly defining for her. What is even stranger is that some of these people are in categories for people with disabilities, despite dyspraxia being the only disability mentioned in their article. This includes Daniel Radcliffe, who is listed in the category for English actors with disabilities, despite having no other disability mentioned. As for the second argument, that 1 in 20 is too common, first off, how defining a disability is has no relation to how common it is. Second off, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, as dyslexia also affects about 1 in 20 people and there are many people listed in multiple categories for people with dyslexia, and most of them do not seem to have severe dyslexia. This is clear double standards and I would like this category to get undeleted. I do not believe that this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability and I believe that the fact that dyslexia is well-known and dyspraxia is not is the main reason why there are many categories related to people with dyslexia, but you are not able to create a single category of people with dyspraxia. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., arguments such as, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, or This is clear double standards will not help you make your case. If dyslexia falls under WP:NONDEFINING or WP:TRIVIALCAT, then it, too, should be deleted. Fairness and equitability are irrelevant in categorization. This is an encyclopedia, not an agency determining social assistance. If you can show that dyspraxia is an encyclopedically meaningful defining characteristic, the category will be restored. Consensus can certainly change in four years, but I have no reason to believe the unanimous consensus we saw last time would tip over to the opposite. As a list, this already exists at Developmental_coordination_disorder#Public_figures. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the proper reading of consensus. I think that I disagree with the community and the close, but DRV is also not CFD Round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was obviously the only way to read that CfD, but the CfD didn't consider most of the questions raised here, so I think it would be reasonable to allow for recreation and a new discussion. However, I suspect this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability may be true, and I doubt that much has changed on that front in the last four years. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., you may have to content yourself with the list. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Recent discussions

27 February 2025

  • Ramayana: Part 1 – "Draftify" closure endorsed. There is rough consensus here that this closure should have been made by an administrator, and Garudam is accordingly asked to abstain from such closures in the future. But consensus is also that the closure was correct on the merits, and DRV therefore endorses it. Sandstein 10:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ramayana: Part 1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This non-admin closure is not appropriate for a contentious topic (all India-related articles); especially as this was a 2nd nomination; I left a message on the closer's page, which [had] remained unanswered [before I initiated this DRV]. Requesting a relist to let a clearer consensus emerge and a close by an administrator. -Mushy Yank. 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I was tempted to just reopen the AfD per WP:REOPEN, and immediately re-close it as Draftify - again. The appellant is right that this probably should have been handled by an admin. But beyond that, the close correctly reflected consensus, especially when you consider that the previous AfD for it, with similar source strength, was closed only three weeks earlier. But in respect for Mushy Yank, whose tireless work in AfDs likely saved dozens of articles from untimely deletion, I chose to see what others here think. Pinging @CNMall41, Nathannah, RangersRus, BD2412, and Krimuk2.0, who participated in the AfD. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding @Sribrahma. -Mushy Yank. 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have no problem with Sribrahma chiming in on this, if you believe the article falls under the Contentious Topics sanctions, please note that Sribrahma is not EC. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I understand. What does Sribrahma's user status have to do with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? -Mushy Yank. 16:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once a topic has been assigned by Arbcom to be contentious, any uninvolved admin may impose the standard set of restrictions, the most common of which is limiting participation to only editors who are EC. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. OK, sure, but that's not the case yet. -Mushy Yank. 21:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - As nominator of the both the first and second AfDs. The page could have been speedied due to the fact it was only 20 days since the page was moved to draft upon completion of a discussion. There were only two keep votes, one of which mentioned a redirect or draftification as something to consider. Even the page creator (who should have never moved it out of draft space in the first place), recommended draftification as an WP:ATD.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus to draftify on both AFDs (noting that a large number of users participated in both of them). While this close probably should have been left to an administrator as a contentious subject, the closer got this one right and opening it for an admin to close the same way is just process for the sake of process. I strongly disagree with CNMall41's claim that the page could have been speedied as significant changes were made between the versions art the first and second AFDs such that the draftify equivilent to WP:G4 would not apply. Frank Anchor 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorseish; this wasn't a BADNAC but I think non-admin closers should agree to any good-faith request to revert a close, since that signals it's sufficiently contentious to require an admin. But with OwenX above noting that he would make the same close decision, overturning this particular close would just be an exercise in bureaucracy. FWIW, Mushy appears to have miscounted the "keeps" and I do think the consensus is for draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the close that reflects consensus, and as the close that is consistent with policies and guidelines. The non-admin closer made a good-faith error in closing the AFD, but it is a mistake where Deletion Review can endorse the close rather than either reopening or relisting. There is no need for a relist, because this AFD was essentially a relist of the first AFD. User:RangersRus had a good idea in the first AFD and in the second AFD that the draft should be move-locked. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I feel like there was plenty of time to comment and though the closure should've been from an admin, they'd make the same decision. Nathannah • 📮 23:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn(edit the close). The nominator did not give a valid deletion rationale, and User:BD2412 didn’t address the question, and User:RangersRus was a mere “per nom” which is worthless when the nom statement didn’t give a deletion reason. Nate argued “churnalism” but didn’t get specific. With User:Mushy Yank listing a small number of specific sources, this discussion was not reasonable closed.
It is WP:Reference bombed, but the references include reliable sources, and principle photography has begun, the main threshold of WP:NFF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: What question did I not address, and why would that have anything to do with the outcome? If unaddressed questions are allowed as a reason to overturn an XfD, we will juts be inviting proponents to pepper opposing votes with questions in the hopes that they will go unaddressed, to use that as a gotcha. In any case, my !vote was for draftification, not deletion, which allows for restoration to mainspace when the draft meets the requisite quality in the opinion of an AfC reviewer, usually an experienced one. BD2412 T 01:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question not addressed is whether the topic qualifies for inclusion mainspace.
And if the answer is WP:TOOSOON/Draftify, until what?
The AfDs fail on both counts, and when User:Mushy Yank goes to details, he has procedural points thrown at him. This is disrespectful, and a failure of the deletion process justifying a DRV “Overturn”.
The topic passes the relevant guideline. The page is Reference bombed. The answer is Stubify SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then let a seasoned AfC reviewer make that call, rather than allowing a virtual SPA with fewer than 150 edits to unilaterally promote a recently-deleted subject back to mainspace. The move could have been speedily reverted. The second AfD was an over-extension of grace. BD2412 T 22:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to get WP:UPE listed as a reason for deletion (see the archives of WT:DEL).
I think it should be a reason for draftification. WP:COI already is.
I think WP:Reference bombed should be a sufficient reason for draftification, with prejudice. So many junk promotional references are not ok to be left in mainspace.
I think the page should be “Draftified until fixed by removal of promotional references” amend the close to include this. I know that this will probably prove difficult to write into guidelines, as sometimes a promotional reference can be justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I frankly don't see how the draftification outcome you articulate here is materially different from the actual draftification outcome of the AfD. BD2412 T 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was unhappy with certain aspects of the AfD discussions and the closes. But in the end the article was unworthy. I understand that dealing with UPE products makes people short with UPEs. I like to think that there’s a route for the topic to return to mainspace, cleaned up. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per all (or nearly all) above. This was a reasonable and correct close, particularly given the very recent previous AfD coming to the same conclusion, which was closed by a much more experienced admin. BD2412 T 01:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AFD was closed in a very rational manner. Move to draftify is the right decision. As I said in the AFD, filming did not complete for Ramayana 1, showing source where as of Feb 21, 2025, an actor Yash, who is also a producer began filming his scenes. Sources about pics going viral, phone policy on set, non-independent sources that include members of the production, and director of the film does not help to make the page notable. Indepth coverage is needed in secondary independent sources. It is better to keep in draft as it was done before till the film reaches post-production or close to release date to get more significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFF has used the phrase “commenced principal photography” for a long time.
    You would change this to “reaches post-production or close to release date”?
    Is that for all films, or just Indian films? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about just for films from regions where we have had metric tons of COI and UPE editors pushing films because they see Wikipedia as an advertising platform rather than as an encyclopedia? BD2412 T 22:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality of sourcing here is the same as the quality of sourcing for a released Indian film. The only problem with upcoming films and events is worthless information prior to the release or prior to the event happening, which may not be verified when the thing takes place, meaning speculation, partial information lacking context, totally bogus claims, etc. none of which has any educational value, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. If the facts are stable and the statements we can verifiably include have a lasting bearing on the topic, then the topic is just like any other topic. Here we have multiple stable facts. Did in May 2017, producers Allu Aravind, Namit Malhotra, and Madhu Mantena not announce their collaboration to adapt the epic Ramayana into a live-action feature film trilogy? Did in July 2019, Madhu Mantena not bring Dangal director Nitesh Tiwari and Mom director Ravi Udyawar on board to direct the trilogy? Etc. This is not WP:CRYSTAL content, it is already an account of history, with some events happening nearly 8 years back, and it qualifies for a general judgement on notability. —Alalch E. 23:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn classic BADNAC. The outcome was a close call, there were several valid outcomes, and was therefore likely to be controversial. Going further, beyond BADNAC... "Fails NFF" means "not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography", which has the consequence of the topic not qualifying for notability considerations under NFILM. NFF is a disqualifying criterion. This topic does not fail NFF because the topic is confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced prinicpal photography, and that's not my opinion, it's just reading the guideline and what's in the AfD. This topic is objectively not disqualified from potential eligibility for stand-alone coverage. What is needed is for editors to determine whether it's a notable topic. This AfD did not do that. The discussion tends toward an agreement that the topic is notable. "Still no improvement from before and I will recommend to put a move lock" has zero weight in showing that it isn't. When the nomination is this bad, that generally has a bad effect on the rest of the discussion, and this discussion wasn't good. An administrator can decide whether to overturn to no consensus or relist. If relisting, please say the right things in the relisting comment: The editors should decide if the topic is a notable topic based on the available sourcing.—Alalch E. 22:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curious how the nomination was "bad." The last paragraph of NFF states that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." That is clearly what was said in the nomination - "nothing notable about the production....." Disagreeing whether the production is notable does not mean the nomination was "bad." --CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“sources are mainly announcements” is weak. A better nomination could have said “sources are all announcements (nonindependent) or not reliable” (if true).
A better nomination would have mentioned that the previous AfD was only 12 days previous.
A better AfD1 nominations wouldn’t have said “This has not even finished filming” because that is not a NFF issue.
“full of unreliable sources such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA” is a strong argument to “Stubify” or “Draftify for removing unreliable sources”.
I don’t think your AfD1 nomination deserves criticism. I criticise the two closing summaries, for not giving correct and meaningful information to the editor who wants to improve the draft, or the AfC reviewer who wonders whether the reason for deletion is overcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am noting the drift of this discussion and see that I am pretty isolated in some of my analysis. Draftifying for WP:DRAFTREASON#3 (The article is about an upcoming event or forthcoming work that is not notable yet, but likely to become so in the near future) is one thing, and draftifying because the article needs cleaning up from alleged promotional content is a completely different thing. The latter is a much weaker reason to draftify because while the former can't be fixed editorially (if, say, principal photography needs to start to make the upcoming film eligible for potentially being recognized as a notable topic no amount of editing can resolve that), the latter can. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content is a reason to delete (and generally not draftify -- editing spam rarely produces something encyclopedic), whereas advertising as in promotional content mixed with relevant and encyclopedic content is a reason to do the cleaning up work or put a matching tag for someone else to do it... and if the problem is really severe, draftifying might then also be a good option. But content problems that require someone to sit down and do the work aren't generally resolved in draftspace. Pages more often stagnate in draftspace; they certainly receive less cleaning up. In this discussion there wasn't a consensus to draftify because of promotional content, as evidenced in refbombing, promotional references, etc. —Alalch E. 13:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's going to happen is that the film will get released and the perceived content problems (refbombing, use of promotional references) will be equally present. Then the draft will be moved to article space and that will be it. No one will even think about starting an AfD for a released film at that point, and all the current references and the ostensibly unencyclopedic content they're cited next to will stay, and new information will be deposited on top, simply as another stratum. The original stratum will be undisturbed. Draftifying will not accomplish the stated goal. —Alalch E. 13:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of that is right, but I baulk at supporting a DRV consensus to put mostly promotional nonindependent references back in mainspace.
If this were AfD I would !vote “stubify”. I don’t think I would go as far as WP:TNT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this was a correct BADNAC close, but since we're at DRV it should be overturned and re-closed as draftify as an administrator, as the result was correct. I admit to being overly administrative here, but it's respectful to the participants. SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If, as we agree, Draftify was the correct close, but the non-admin should not have made the close, why should we reopen it for an admin to close? We, the community at DRV, can properly close it as Draftify. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This case is a type of disagreement that we, fortunately, don't see very often at DRV, and that is a disagreement that is not only about how to apply a guideline, but about what the guideline actually means, because the guideline is badly written. The guideline on future films reads:
Text of guideline

Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.

In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

Some editors, including me, read the third paragraph restrictively. Some other editors, including SmokeyJoe, read primarily the first paragraph. We agree that there are three classes of films:

  • 1. Films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation).
  • 2. Films that have at least began production, but have not been released.
  • 3. Films that have been released.

There is agreement that films that have not yet begun production may not have their own articles. The plans for such films are often discussed in the article about the filmmaker. There is agreement that articles about films that have been released should describe reviews and other third-party coverage. The question is about films that are in production, and are reported by reliable sources to be in production. The question is whether the significant coverage of these films should be about the production itself, or whether the coverage can be about the film, and may refer to production.

There have been differing interpretations of this guideline for years. An attempt to change the wording of the guideline by RFC resulted in no consensus, so there are still differing interpretations. This is an unusual situation for DRV because reasonable editors are reasonably reading the same guideline differently. So I think that all that each of us can do is to read the guideline carefully and decide how to interpret it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read three paragraphs. The first has an objective indicator. The second is not relevant to live-actor films. The third says to go to other guidelines, meaning WP:N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 February 2025

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

The actor has done 4 lead roles now after the deletion. Please review the deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.203.73.23 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow new draft. The 2022 deletion was correct. I see little point in restoring the 58 words of prose in the deleted stub, but have no objection either. As for the sources originally cited there, one is now a 404, another was a brief mentionin the TOI, and the third was this one. It looks like there are more sources now, of varying quality. Owen× ☎ 14:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a !vote and I am certain the original deletion closure was correct. But I don't think that 103.203.73.23 is thinking about the 2022 AfD, rather about the 2025 A3-CSD. Not the right venue, but restoring the speedy-deleted page (even stubbish as it seems it was) or the original article (if it is better; or provide that user with the texts of both) into a Draft could be seen as helpful/friendly/a clear token of good will and might be perceived as such by 103.203.73.23, if they are a new user. (This actress seems now notable and I suppose an article about her could be expanded into a decent page with a little help.)-Mushy Yank. 15:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2025 version isn't getting restored. You can see its entire content in the creation log. —Cryptic 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion. The title has not been salted. The requester can create a draft and submit it for review at AFC. Restoring the deleted article that does not show the recent roles would be a mistake and would encourage a lazy approach to creating a new article. Perhaps DRV Purpose 3 should be clarified that it is not the approach to be used for persons who have recently become notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Significantly outdated BLP drafts and articles from the period when the subject was found to be non-notable should usually not be undeleted, because such content is generally substandard BLP content which doesn't even make for a reasonable start of an article.—Alalch E. 23:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See the negative statements at DRV Purpose, including point 10:

    Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

    We (DRV) often don't cite this point, although we do follow it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive of the first source, which OwenX omitted. I'd hope those in a recreated draft would be substantially better than any of the three. —Cryptic 10:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I was the one who filed this complaint. I can't understand what most of you are saying. I just want to know can the contents of the 2022 deleted version be put back since the actress has done enough lead roles? I will work on it, improve it and make it a suitable article Countoninnerbeauty (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Editors, including myself, have been responding to your request to review the deletion. Everyone agrees that the deletion was carried out correctly. You did not state that it was done incorrectly; you suggested that the reason for the deletion, which existed at that time, may no longer exist. Normally, that, in itself, is not a reason to review a deletion. You did not need to initiate this discussion and could have simply created a new article on the topic. (Alternatively, you could have created a draft and asked a reviewer of drafts to decide whether it should be accepted as an article.) While this discussion is unnecessary, one related outcome could precisely, as you desire, be putting the contents of the 2022 deleted version somewhere for you to work on them. This type of action is always optional, i.e., not required to create an article on a topic when a previous article was deleted. And that is what editors have been specifically considering in this case. No one responding up to this point thinks that this should be done. It appears that this will not be done, meaning that your request will be declined. You will need to write an entirely new article (or draft). When you do so, please use significantly better sources than those cited in the deleted content. If you do not use better sources, what could happen is that you will have put in effort into creating a new article, but it will be deleted again, even though it has more text, lists the new roles, and cites more sources; that is not something that anyone wants to happen. —Alalch E. 13:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I do not consider myself to be "no one" and if that was unclear, I'll clarify: can a willing system operator please provide Countoninnerbeauty with the text of the 2022 deleted version? Thank you very much, -Mushy Yank. 11:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced users have to understand that all this is very unclear to newcomers and they should help them. -Mushy Yank. 11:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I think Alalch E. did a great job explaining things in the simplest possible language. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they did. But what is clear to you may not be clear to newcomers and if Countoninnerbeauty came here to ask the text of the article why not just simply provide them with it, instead? Let them know this is the wrong venue, sure, and the wrong request, sure but help them. Because I don't think that clarity was my only point. "You will need to write an entirely new article (or draft)." may be clear but how is it helpful when the text can be provided? And why refuse to do it? Maybe it's the "simplest possible language" but I confess I don't understand. If it is refused here to Countoninnerbeauty, I will, personally, ask a willing system operator to provide me with it, to rework the page with Countoninnerbeauty and anyone who wishes. Hope that is OK. -Mushy Yank. 18:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a better lesson for Countoninnerbeauty to slowly get into reading and comprehending discussions then to get used to having their wishes fulfilled. —Alalch E. 18:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone lacks the language skills to read clear instructions covering their point and can't manage reading any robust conversation then they have no business editing a BLP Spartaz Humbug! 13:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to disregard or undercut your recommendation. I often skim very quickly and look at where the signatures are to identify each comment and almost read upward basically to see where it begins. Your signature is a little less distinct because it's the same color as surrounding text. Probably sounds like a stupid excuse, but I think that's it. —Alalch E. 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really no problem! I was not really offended and only replied (not !voted) and I was certain you had missed my reply (I should have made that clear). Thank you all the same. -Mushy Yank. 19:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
2025 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1271841323"