Wikipedia:Deletion review

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)

Administrator instructions

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.


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); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.


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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log 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:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2021 May 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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=2021 May 16}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 May 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express his or her 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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by 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. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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

  • 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 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

16 May 2021

Niraj Gera

Niraj Gera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Purpose 3. I was reviewing this article and felt it was notable since many new sources were added. Reached out to blocking admin [1] but seems like they are inactive. Then reached tea-house where someone asked to come here if the deleting admin was not responding [2] Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad I am afraid but this is not the right place for discussing declined (not deleted) AfC Drafts. The Decliner has further been blocked (and is btw not an Admin). Better place to ask would be WP:AFCHD . CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

15 May 2021

Girasole (album)

Girasole (album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I didn't realise it was deleted and I want to make revisions to the page by adding sources, but I don't have a copy of it on my machine. I don't devote all my time to Wikipedia, and so only just noticed that it was gone Mikeyq6 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: No reason for a DRV provided. Sounds more like a WP:REFUND request. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In all fairness, they had the article title wrong here and so it appeared as a redlink until I fixed it. —Cryptic 10:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It hasn't been deleted, Mikeyq6. It's been redirected. The copy you request is visible here.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

14 May 2021

Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry

Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This was a clear supervote - not only did the closer clearly evaluate the sources when closing instead of the arguments, it's not clear they engaged with the arguments for deletion at all, which were WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not WP:GNG (even though there's a few articles which use the word "rivalry," that's not uncommon in American sports - there's no significant coverage of this as a rivalry.) I am asking for this to be relisted, especially since opinions were split and discussion was ongoing.

Also note I specifically did not discuss the close with the closer given their recent difficult history with these types of discussions: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Agg (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hoffmann, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 17, and my own personal history with them at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 6, where they refused a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse The close was per the numerical preponderance. SYNTH wasn't substantially addressed by the participants like sourcing was, so the closer looking and agreeing that the editors who'd found the sourcing adequate weren't off their collective rockers is not a problem. That is, just because an editor starts an AfD with deletion argument A (e.g. synth), if a bunch of others argue !B (e.g., sourcing) then the proper way to evaluate consensus is by the yardstick the majority of participants themselves used, not the one the nominator started with. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Apart from the supervote, the difficulty I have with the discussion is that GNG really isn't the issue here, but rather that the sources provided which "show" GNG don't discuss any sort of rivalry in depth apart from using the word "rivalry." There's significant coverage of two teams playing each other, but there's no actual significant coverage of a rivalry between these two teams. Of course, that's not why I'm petitioning for a relist, but it's frustrating that we're basically saying two teams are rivals when there's only one demonstrated source which doesn't use the word in passing. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • With 4 keeps, 2 deletes, and the nom, the closing statement was aligned with the majority. I'm not sure what you're meaning by supervote, as I've usually seen that term used when the closer closes an XfD against numerical consensus. Feel free to explain more if you think it'll help me understand your perspective better. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jclemens: I appreciate you letting me respond to you. With discussion numerically at 4-3, a keep !vote which didn't discuss sources, and a keep !vote which said they understood the SYNTH argument and were waiting for more coverage, along with the fact discussion was ongoing, I expected this discussion to be relisted. (I'm not saying keep wasn't a possible outcome: I think there were three possible outcomes for a closer at that point in time: relist, no consensus, or keep, of which I think keep is the weakest choice.) The definition at WP:SUPERVOTE shows that the close reflects the preference of the closer, not the outcome of the discussion, and the way I read the close as written was that the closer substituted their own judgement in closing the discussion. Most closes don't/shouldn't read like votes. This one does. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Endorse - A Relist would have been even better, but either Keep or No Consensus would have been valid closes, and the closer did explain why they chose to Keep. The question at DRV is whether the close was a valid conclusion, and it was. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would have !voted to Keep. They are the two best national women's association football teams in the world, and the two best women's association football teams in the world. The Japanese team is the best opponent around for what is both the best women's football team in the world, and the best American association football team in the country. What is that if not a rivalry? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • endorse Outcome was within discretion. Relist was an option, and maybe a better one. But reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - as closing admin, it is ridiculous to suggest that a closing admin can assess the strength of arguments without assessing the quality of sources presented when they are fundamentally interlinked. The AfD was not unanimous but the keep votes presented sources that clearly indicated gng and as such the strength of keep votes was such that the outcome was clear. Fenix down (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vacate close I voted for Keep but agree this was yet another bad close by an admin who seemingly cannot resist a !supervote in these situations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as per JClemens, WP:SYNTH was not addressed by the participants like sourcing was. DRV only checks if the close was valid and it was. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Although I wouldn't support Bring back Daz Sampson's rather heavy-handed language in the preceding !vote, I do agree with him that we need to vacate this close. I also agree with him that "keep" was the correct outcome. The problem is with the closing statement. Fenix down says that they read the sources for themselves, reached their own conclusions, and made a decision based on that. This method is problematic for three reasons:- (1) The community has delegated sysops the power to make unilateral deletion decisions on their own authority, but only in the limited circumstances described in WP:CSD. None of those criteria applied, and therefore Fenix down's decision was not within their authority. (2) There are circumstances where a closer needs to read the sources for themselves when evaluating a difficult discussion, particularly where there is reason to suspect socking, COI or other bad faith editing, but in general the role of the closer is to read the discussion and summarize what the participants said. The closer's own opinion is neither needed nor even particularly helpful. If the closer finds that they do have a strong opinion, then they should !vote rather than closing. (3) The process Fenix down applied leaves no role for the community. The !votes in the discussion were treated as no more than a sysop's suggestion box. As a consequence, this close amounted to a sysop making a content decision on their own authority. So overall, right close, wrong method. Someone else should re-close with the same result.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    @S Marshall Please mark comments as comments and it would be nice if you do not forget to ping the Sysop you are mentioning. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    There's no rule you need to specifically mark a comment as a comment. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    It's ok: at DRV, our closers are very experienced. Anybody who has any business closing a DRV will read what I wrote, understand it in context, identify correctly whether it should be understood as a !vote or a comment, and apply the appropriate weight per DRVPURPOSE. They will not need a word in bold. But for your education, CommanderWaterford, that was not a comment. It isn't needful to constantly ping the sysop whose close is being reviewed, either. The closer and the DRV nominator are both assumed to take an interest in the DRV. Others I would ping, if that was appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hasan Moghimi

Hasan Moghimi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After two times listing the page, only one user was in favor of deletion. No proper discussion or census had happened. The page had 20 references, many of them among most reliable sources. Erfan2017 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Please follow the advice at WP:THREE - evaluating unfamiliar sources for reliability, especially those in a foreign language, is time-consuming and sometimes difficult. (Though not so for the three I clicked on at random, none of which so much as mentioned the article subject except as an image credit.) —Cryptic 20:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Cryptic: There are references from the most reliable sources in the country (including national news agency IRNA) (please see WP:NEWSORG) as well as Department of Environment (Iran) that is the most important source for wildlife in the country. The issue is the language. If they are not in English, it does not mean they are not trustworthy. In this link on IR Iran News Agency IRNA "نامزدهای-دریافت-جایزه-مهرگان-علم-معرفی-شدند" dated Feb. 2021 as the latest news(I used Google Translate from Persian to English) you can search his name "Hassan Moghimi" and find his book is nominated for a national award. This is another news article by IRNA that you can find his name "Hassan Moghimi" as the winner of a national award (also translated):محيط-بانان-نمونه-و-برگزيدگان-دومين-جشنواره-آموزه-هاي-رضوي-معرفي" . Moreover, the page is deleted before bringing up issues and trying to fix them. It is deleted without proper discussion. I suggest it to be undeleted and properly discussed. Please review these pages regarding references and achievements and compare them with above mentioned article: Nikol Faridani, Parisa Damandan and Mauricio Alejo.Erfan2017 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Neither of those are significant coverage, or even close. The one is limited to "Hassan Moghimi from Markazi province, Maziar Asadi from Alborz and Hossein Khademi from Markazi province won the first and third places, respectively", and the other to "The list of 14 environmental books that made it to the semi-finals of the Mehregan Alam Award in the fourteenth and fifteenth periods (1397-1397) is as follows: ... Foot of Zayandehrood, Heshmatollah Elected, Photo: Hassan Moghimi, Naghsh Mana". These are not the kind of sources on which you can write a full-length biographical article. Endorse. —Cryptic 10:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Endorse - Either a Soft Delete or a second Relist would have been better, but this was a valid close. The appellant hurt their own case at AFD by making an overly long unfocused statement. The combination of an overly long statement and a reference-bombed article make evaluation difficult, and may have reduced the participation in the AFD. The appellant is advised to request help at the Teahouse in putting together a draft that is not reference-bombed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: Please forgive me if I am a bit confused. I wonder why no one addresses my reasoning. I am saying that "there are valid and reliable sources for the article" the only issue is the language. We can talk about how other users could be sure about the content of a valid non-English source (like looking at the web address and using google translate, or even asking Wikipedia users in Persian service to review). But it should not mean it is not in the English language = it is not reliable. This creates a sort of downgrading non-English languages. On the other hand, there are lots of articles with a few weak references live on Wikipedia. If there is a fair measurement, they should not be there either (I provided a few examples). Finally the article listed 2 times with only one in favor of deleting, no discussion had happened. I would be happy to fix any related issue in a fair discussion. Moreover, if I am almost a new user and a bit inexperienced (so in your words hurting my case) wouldn't it be better to make clarification (instead of deleting)? Erfan2017 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Erfan2017 - I haven't seen the article, and am not requesting to see the article. However, the nominator and the one !voter did see the article, and they disagreed with your statement that there are valid and reliable sources. Your statement that there are valid and reliable sources has been heard, just disagreed with. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: You said that you haven't seen the article and you don't want to do it, therefore your endorsement is based on one person in favor of deletion and the nominator. If this is the common practice on WP, why we should waste our time to request for a review? Your reasoning would be a golden key and an answer to anyone who is looking for second idea or review (there are always a nominator and usually one in favor). Regarding references, I gave two examples to show that even English speaking users are able to investigate non-English sources -if they want. Also the example source is the official news agency of the country. I am not sure if you are insisting that my sources are not valid or they are not showing a distinguished person. There are 20 references, I can list them based on their importance. It needs a fair discussion not a quick deletion. Erfan2017 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - valid close of the AfD Discussion. DRV is not a second AfD Discussion at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @CommanderWaterford: Could you please bring up some reasons why "DRV is not a second AfD Discussion at all". I believe we are here to see the reasons not mere judgements.Erfan2017 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Erfan2017: First of all I would appreciate if you sign your replies. Secondly please take careful notice of WP:DRVPURPOSE - where exactly do you read "this is a second AfD Discussion" ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@CommanderWaterford: Thank you for reminding me about the signature. I am almost new and it takes a bit of time for me to cover all details. Regarding WP:DRVPURPOSE I believe there was not a consensus about the deletion. After two times listing the article, there was only one person in favour of deletion (and certainly I am against it as another WP user, so we are even). Besides, no reasoning was mentioned by the nominator. I asked her on May 9 and she has ignored my message on her "talk" page up until now (while she answered others on May 12 and 13 on her talk page). So, I am still in the dark that what was behind the nomination and deletion. You said: "DRV is not a second AfD Discussion at all". This is what the nominator should answer because she didn't let the article to be discussed properly and my 3-4 days of research and work is gone -as simple as that. Also, she doesn't seem to be willing to answer in her "talk" page [[3]]. All I am asking is a fair discussion on the article page not here (as you mentioned). I should of ask you: why you recognize the closure of AfD as a valid one? Do you mean old users have priority over new ones and whatever they do is fine and there is no need to answer about their decisions? Erfan2017 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 12:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Good-quality references are a necessary but not a sufficient condition to accept or keep an article in Wikipedia. The idea that more references will overcome a lack of notability is a myth, although good references will overcome a problem in establishing significant coverage. I have seen the deleted article, and have not checked the references in detail. This is not AFD, and it is not always necessary to check all of the references to determine either that an article should be kept at AFD or that an article should not be kept at AFD. One of the participants in the AFD did a Google search rather than checking the references, and did not find significant coverage, which was a reasonable approach, especially because an article should speak for itself. The time to have explained the importance of the references would have been during the AFD, rather than by inserting a comment in the AFD during DRV. There was no error by the nominator, the participants, or the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I believe I am lost between different comments and ideas. We were talking about non-English references and how we can find significance (like wining 3 national awards), but now you are talking about Google search in English language. I provided 3 examples (I can make it 10 or more) of live WP article with few references and no achievements, but no one wants to talk about them. No one wants to enlighten me if I don't understand the differences or if there is a double standard. As I said before, ignoring non-English references is downgrading their importance -that is sort of inequity. Moreover AfD is a place to discuss about the article, do you consider a few words of one user about Google search as a proper discussion? Can you find even one word of nominator (she has ignored my questions on her talk page -since May 9).Erfan2017 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Not to relitigate the AfD, but maybe this could help clarify the notability issues for Erfan2017. I don't think anyone is/was disputing the quality of the references used, just the degree to which they directly cover the subject. Being merely mentioned is not enough, regardless of who is doing the mentioning or the context, and unfortunately it looks like even the Persian sources do not provide the in-depth profile of the subject that GNG requires. JoelleJay (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: Thank you for the clarification. There are three types of references, one group shows uniqueness of Hasan's works. You can find his photos in text books, PhD dissertations, UNDP reports and various news agencies. The second type contains bios and interviews and the third part is reports of wining national awards (3 up until now). I would be happy to present these types in discussion page of the article. Erfan2017 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

11 May 2021

Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies

Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The significance of the article was not considered when deleting it. This is a serious research center, which is part of the largest university in Russia - MSU.

  • [4] — information about the center on the MSU website, the information is essential. The source is more than authoritative.
  • [5] - information about the center is posted.
  • [6] - the publication is scientific, authoritative, the society (its scientific activity) is the subject of the chronicle section (see page 11), the center is mentioned in the publication of Anton Kuznetsov, a little, but in detail, he is an employee of the specified center; the publication of Maria Sekatskaya, who briefly mentions the center with other authoritative institutions
  • [7] - magazine, founder's interview
  • [8] - similar to the previous paragraph.
  • [9] - mention in the book by Professor David Smith: [10]; [11]
  • [12] - publication of the lecture on an authoritative resource-an additional argument that the center is not marginal. 2A00:1FA1:2E3:899F:AC02:1CE:4EBD:6C4C (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure, which was the only possible closure. It appears that the significance of the article and of the center was considered. There were arguments for deletion and no arguments to keep. The title has not been blacklisted. If the appellant wants to submit a draft, they may do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Robert. I'm also a bit concerned about possible sockpuppetry; the petitioner is reminded that one account (or IP) is generally the limit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You are only considering this article as an advertisement. I see it as a significant article about a serious organization that is part of the largest university in Russia. In the discussion for deletion, no links were provided that indicate significance. I opened this discussion to show such links. 2A00:1FA1:42C9:2A3F:791E:E74D:D808:B4FA (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Then, as Robert said, you're welcome to submit a draft through articles for creation. If you do so, take care to write in a neutral, encyclopedic way. But there were no errors in the AfD that merit reversing it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure - The only possible closure, clear consensus to delete. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In your opinion, the article is not significant? That is, it is impossible to restore it based on the links provided and the article that has now been restored for clarity? Do you need to go through the draft thoroughly ? 2A00:1FA1:B0:6929:90D6:119C:941D:208C (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Temp undeletion is only to allow for non-administrators to view the article during the discussion so that they can properly make a judgement call. It does not express any views on whether the article should or should not be retained. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The above is correct; this undeletion is temporary, but the article could be permanently undeleted, or not. I honestly haven't looked closely enough to have any opinion, other than that it's possible seeing the article could inform this discussion. WilyD 10:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • endorse Sources don't look great, but more so the tone is so problematic that we can't keep it. Reads like a PR piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Sounds like it may be been written by a PR company/group? Hobit (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

10 May 2021

Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter

Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Misinterpretation/misrepresentation of consensus (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Overturn and declare the original nomination beyond scope. As requester. The closing opinion misrepresented the consensus by claiming no means yes. The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping (with the same name or with another name). The closing opinion basically twists the "keep but rename" position to mean "delete as rename". In order to do this, a third, non-existent option is invented: "recreate and rename". Apart from the absurdity, this goes against both the letter and spirit of the "keep but rename" position, held by almost 50% of the participants.
    There is no consensus for the "delete" position and the close should be overturned.
    Note that the original nomination happened as the fate of the category was already being discussed at its project page. Apart from jumping the gun by bringing it here in the midst of discussion, there is the question of whether narrow tracking categories fall under the scope of CfD. The closing opinion with the novelty of "recreate=rename" effectively treats it as a "discouraged category". Following the closing revision, the nomination may be explicitly marked as void. (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In case this is not clear, I was an active participant in the discussion, under various unregistered (IP) handles. (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the CfD close as nominator, and perhaps some admin can reread the CfD and remind the IP (and some others) about WP:CIVIL and WP:BLUDGEON. No idea where the claim comes from that CfD shouldn't be the place to discuss the fate of hidden categories placed more than 1 million articles and for which no actual purpose is formulated ("tracking" is not a purpose, "tracking" is just another word for "categorizing" in this instance, the question is what one would do with these and why these are being singled out, considering that the discussion which lead to the creation of the cat was overturned and these parameters clearly indicated as perfectly acceptable ones which aren't discouraged, deprecated, or to be replaced by synonyms). Whatever the result of the DRV, closing the CfD as "void" would be totally wrong. Fram (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The closer wrote From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be. At the time of the close, that discussion had already happened at Help Talk:CS1, and the code to implement consensus-approved, neutrally named tracking categories had been implemented in the sandbox, allowing the modules to neutrally track any parameters of interest (as we have been doing for many years with parameters like |authors=). We had been waiting for this CFD to close before implementing the new neutral category names, in case there was some additional nuance that needed to be accounted for. Perhaps jc37 (the closer) could look at this linked discussion and see if it meets their criteria for such a discussion, and then formally endorse those new category names so that we don't have to go through all this again. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse (I argued for deletion, so I'm involved) but I don't see that the close misrepresents the consensus at all. It's clear that this discussion came to a consensus that a category called "CS1 maint: discouraged parameter" should not exist. I also see a consensus that a category to track these redirects shouldn't exist under another name either - that consensus isn't as strong but it is still extant when you read the arguments presented rather than just look at who shouted loudest and/or most often. I haven't looked at the help talk discussion yet, but if that came to the consensus Jonesey95 says it did then we have a problem of parallel discussions coming to opposite consensuses (which is why having parallel discussions is usually a bad idea). I would argue that a well-attended CfD following a well-attended RfC that came to essentially the same conclusion is more likely to be the stronger consensus than one in an obscure location, but that's not the sort of thing one editor should be deciding alone (regardless of which editor that is). Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with Thryduulf that parallel discussions are a bad idea. A discussion about removing the "discouraged parameter" category had already been in progress for more than 24 hours when the CFD was created, and clear consensus had already formed there that the category should be deleted. Hence, there was no reason for the CFD to exist at all (as I wrote at the CFD: ... currently being discussed at Help Talk:CS1. This discussion is moot; there is no disagreement at HT:CS1 that the current tracking category name needs to change.). The CFD and its subsequent close just muddied the waters. It should have been procedurally closed as redundant, IMHO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn We should be discouraging the parameters (actually, we should be removing them entirely,) the RfC was wrongly decided by giving too much weight to WP:ILIKEIT grounds over the proper concerns of the maintainers of the templates. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This DRV is not the place to re-litigate the original RfC, or it's close, but only to determine whether the closure of the CfD that it is reviewing actually reflected consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Gee, SF, you expected the CFD closer to overturn the RFC result, after the first RFC close had already been overturned? :-P Levivich harass/hound 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The entire thing is a mess. The CFD assumes this is no longer a useful category, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you to User:Pppery for notifying me of this discussion. - jc37 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Endorse (as closer) - I suppose the first thing I should mention is that CfD (from very long standing consensus) stands for "Categories for discussion", not "Categories for deletion", as the IP nom seems to presume when stating: "...The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping..." - CfD can result in any number of results, such as redirecting, merging, category tree re-organisation, and even deprecation/removal from templates or modules which populate categories.
    And all but one person commenting in the Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RFC_reclosed also commented in the (later) CFD, so I presume the CfD would be considered the more recent discussion, and had more participants.
    For the rest, I'll defer to the close. - jc37 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I did not presume anything. The category was nominated for deletion by the nominator. There is no gray area here. It is either deleted, or something else... which would be one of non-deleted options, maybe? (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Stating that "No real argument is presented for overturning this close" seems specious. Re-read the reasoning for the deletion review at the top of this thread. As I noted at the CfD page before, repeated here:
Closing opinion
However, this is WP:CFD, and probably not the place to determine how and where to clean up all of whatever may or may not have been left from an RFC (and its closing and re-closing).
My observation
If that is so, an opinion should not have been rendered. Is this the right forum or not? Notice, as it was pointed out by several people, that the category was already the subject of discussion at its project page. The nominator could have continued the discussion there. Instead it was brought to CfD.
Closing opinion
Those who suggest that this could be kept, mostly also agreed that it needed to be renamed/repurposed in light of the reverted RFC closure. Which, in category terms, essentially involves removal of the existing category, and re-creation under the new name.
My observation
This is an entirely novel definition of "renaming" (there is no "repurposing" as the sole purpose of tracking categories is to track). Renaming a category involves... editing the category name... removal and recreation would be absurd.
Closing opinion
And in the discussion below, there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed.
My observation
??? Clarify? "Recreated" and "renamed" are not the same thing. Which one is the "no consensus" applying to? And if it applies to renaming, how is the "no consensus" evident? It is as valid, or more valid, to state that there is no consensus to delete.
Closing opinion
From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.
My observation
Irrelevant. Unless there is a new guideline regarding the creation of tracking\maintenance categories that I am unaware of.
The reasoning for this deletion review at the OP summarizes the above. As stated there, the consensus for deletion is manufactured. (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
And in any case, the fate of this DRV will ultimately rest with an uninvolved administrator. The closer stated his/her opinion. I think it is a wrong opinion, and it was laid out at the OP and above. So here we are. (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I'm afraid the discouraged-parameters-are-bad people are going to have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve so many edits. This is a big deal because the sheer number of edits that we're talking about is colossal, with the consequent impact on people's watchlists and attention spans. Volunteer time is our only scarce resource and this is spending a lot of it. Find another way.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
:-) And what exactly has this to do with this deletion review? (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to DRV! My contribution above consists of me endorsing the closer's decision and offering my view of how you should proceed. I have not engaged with the arguments in your nomination statement, and I'm not required to. Hope this clarifies.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you and you are welcome to DRV too! I am afraid your comment does not clariffy. In your original post you are referring to some parameters and edits. This DRV is primarily about whether the closer was correct in finding that the "delete" option has consensus. Anything to state on that? (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeed! I have said "endorse", by which I mean that I agree that the closer was correct in his finding.—S Marshall T/C 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Noted! (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm past caring about whether the category exists or not myself, but I do take issue with this close. (Maybe what I am looking for is clarification.)

    On the one hand, it says

    ...there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed.

    while on the other it says

    I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.

    Jc37, could you please clarify what you mean in the first quote in context of the second? --Izno (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    Happy to. The first was a No Consensus result from this CfD discussion. The second was to try to allow for a way forward, because an XfD close can sometimes be considered a bar to further immediate discussion. Another way to put it: "No prejudice against a follow-up RfC to determine whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.". - jc37 01:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no policy, guideline, faq or information page in Wikipedia that proposes maintenance (or any) categories have to submit to review in order to be created. Interested editors may or may not discuss the particulars at the related maintenance talk page. This newfangled approach seems to be an attempt to make the absence of real consensus more palatable. (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I merely suggest that you might want to read WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
They do not apply here, as you noted in your closing opinion. This is about the closing of a contentious CfD, not about run-of-mill edit-revert cycles. And you still have not explained how you arrived at the decision that deletion has consensus. Well? (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn the part that prohibits maintenance tracking categories based on that RFC via normal discussion channels. The issue here was the wording of the "non neutral" term 'discouraged', not the existence of such tracking categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn as this was brought up at the wrong venue and the close didn't appropriately consider this (note: I did support keeping the category, as well as deprecating the parameters. I really wish editors would stop getting in the way of efforts to maintain the complex citation templates we all take for granted). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    CFD is the wrong venue for discussing categories? - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    This wasn't really the discussion of a category - it was the discussion of behavior of a template. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, CfD is the correct venue for nominating categories for sure, and the history of how the category came into being has been adequately summarized by the closer. Opposers did not disagree on the history, they just did not like the consequence. (In the CfD discussion I voted delete for another reason.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Is it possible to state positions that actually state something? Nobody disagrees that CfD is such a venue. But nobody has come up with a justification for nominating a tracking category that is already in the process of renaming, and has been rather expansively linked by the nominator to the result of an RfC. Nobody disagrees with how the category came into being. And it is true that opposers disagree not just with the consequences of nomination, but with the nomination itself. It is also true that this DRV is about the closer's opinion and the way the decision for deletion was explained. Any thoughts on that, currently relevant topic? (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The category should have been discussed at CfD anyway. It can't be "in the process of renaming" elsewhere because renaming categories is one of the CfD processes. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      While CfD was a correct venue, I disagree that it is required to perform non-controversial restructuring of tracking categories. Given that this is clearly controversial, however, discussing it at CfD was appropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Good, more fog. This category, like all tracking categories, is hardly controversial. The flawed nomination made it so, by linking it (without a reason) to the 2nd RfC close. The first RfC close did not mandate any categories. The 2nd RfC close did not mandate their removal. What is controversial is the ridiculous CfD nomination. What is pertinent is the flawed CfD closing opinion which invented consensus to justify the ridiculous nomination. Get yer facts straight. (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Largely Endorse, but remove the clause "From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created". We have wasted more than enough time on this issue already. My (involved) reading of the discussion is that given the previous RFC closure, there is no legitimate reason to be tracking the unhyphenated versions of cite parameters in category space. @Jc37: what is your rationale for encouraging a follow-up discussion? The principle objection raised by the nominator of the CfD and a majority of those who supported it, is that the unhyphenated parameters are not to be tracked. The fact that this slipped in as part of an overturned RFC was not the principal reason.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note that said discussion is already happening at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Post-CFD-closure discussion about tracking parameters using categories. It appears people are not listening to my 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC) comment, and are about to make exactly that mistake yet again. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, I had already noticed that discussion, and you're exactly right - it seems like its goal is to recreate the deleted template under a new name, in yet another bout of failure to drop sticks. If that happens, I predict that we'll end up back at CfD again, and the whole merry-go-round continues. It would be far better for the closer of this CfD here to make clear that the consensus is that the matter is done and dusted, and that there is no reason for unhyphenated parameters to be tracked in this way.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Discussion about the CS1 modules happens at Help Talk:CS1 and always has. The discussion linked above is not about specific parameters; it is simply about category naming and is essentially mandated by this CFD closure. It would not be happening without this CFD closure, because the category deletion discussion had already been concluded, and revised code was in the sandbox modules, ready to be deployed.
    I just don't know what to say here. The "discouraged parameter" category, a novel and ill-advised coinage, was created only because of an RFC closure (from a discussion outside of Help Talk:CS1). Then the RFC was overturned, so a discussion was held and concluded at Help Talk:CS1 about how to remove that category. While that discussion was in progress, this CFD was started (another discussion outside of Help Talk:CS1). After that CS1 discussion had ended with a strong consensus, this CFD was closed with a statement that yet another discussion needed to happen. In short, proper discussions are happening at Help Talk:CS1, as they always have, and every time an editor starts a parallel discussion, RFC, CFD, or whatever, outside of that venue, the result always makes things worse, as warned about at WP:TALKFORK. These parallel discussions are delaying updates to the CS1 modules, including elimination of the very category that the parallel-discussion-advocates want to eliminate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse (voted delete). The only relevant question is whether the closer correctly assessed consensus, and that they did. Some may disagree with the consensus, but that doesn't mean there wasn't consensus. There was strong consensus to delete, and while some participants advocated to rename, there wasn't consensus to rename. This is true numerically, and there doesn't seem to be any policy grounds to weigh some votes more than others. Bottom line: editors agreed the category should be deleted. That's the end of it. And of course the CfD closer wasn't going to overturn the second RFC result, especially since an earlier RFC close was already overturned. Another way to put this is if the close had been anything else other than "delete", that would have been a supervote. It seems that each and every argument against this CFD closure is actually arguing against the RFC result. Sometimes we think our colleagues get it wrong, but nevertheless, consensus prevails. Levivich harass/hound 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    The closer did not correctly assess consensus. The burden for consensus is on the nominating position. Numerically, the delete and keep opinions are equal or within one of each other. The way the closer produced the false consensus was by moving the "rename" or "keep/rename" opinions to the delete column. This was justified by the absurdity that rename=recreate which implies deletion first. Pretty crude manipulation. If the people who want to rename wanted to delete the category they would say so. Instead the closing manipulated and misrepresented their position to the opposite. Very uncool! So cool it. (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Even though I'd rather see the aliases removed, I'm not going to try to overturn consensus. As far as the deletion closure is concerned, I believe the decision and rationale where, on the whole, correctly decided. (Honestly, I decided after I voted that it may just be better to delete the category and let us start over if we want to do anything.) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Care to explain why you think the deletion closure was justified? Curious. (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    We said we wanted this category gone and to discuss the next steps on the main CS1 talk page; the closure let that happen. While I am miffed that such a CfD was made when WT:CS1 was already discussing what to do with the category, I don't think anyone could have closed it better with the same level of power. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Well this is a deletion decision review, it does not presume that the closure effected is a pre-ordained event. Neither is this a review of the CfD. Certain specific claims have been made that the closure should be overturned as misrepresenting consensus. That what this is for. I don't understand the statement I don't think anyone could have closed it better with the same level of power. ??? (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a CFD participant. There was a clear consensus not to have categories using this "discouraged" naming, the only part of this dispute that the CFD closure actually settled. Whether to have some kind of tracking category at all remains the subject of ongoing discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1, but that is not a reason for reopening the CFD and getting clarity from that discussion would not be helped by reopening the CFD. (Also, the IP bludgeoning of both the CFD and this DRV is unhelpful and trolly, but I hope it can be passed over without too much drama.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    I would like to help: the category renaming as an option was already being discussed at the CS1 talk page before the CfD nomination. Also, the CfD nomination was about deleting the category, not renaming it. Finally, this DRV is about the closing of the CfD primarily (it is called a review of the decision) and only secondly, with whether the CfD nomination should have happened. It would be helpful if people stick to the facts of this DRV rather than imagining things. (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, since it was clearly the consensus view that was the right thing to do in the light of the decision reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention. That said, the concern that CfD was being used to force conclusion of a debate that was active at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and the closer could instead have intervened to ensure the CfD debate was kept open until that had become clearer. I don't think not waiting was wrong, and I certainly don't want want this to increase bureaucracy through rule inflation, but I personally like it when admins show in close statements that they have are aware of the option not to close if there is a reason that might be desirable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    I believe you are in the wrong forum. This is not about an RfC, neither is it about a discussion at CfD. This is a review of a deletion decision, based on very specific claims of misinterpretation of consensus, and subsequent to that, the merits of the original nomination. Let's focus on topic. Your input will be appreciated. (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    He's arguing "Wrong venue" which is a fine argument at DRV. If CfD was the wrong place for the discussion, it would be reasonable to overturn. That's not what Charles is pushing for, but it's reasonable to fault the closer for not addressing the issue. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • overturn to NC I don't have a dog in this fight and my sense is that we are fighting over a molehill and wasting a lot of time doing so. That said, the closer's argument that rename was somehow the same as delete is utter BS and cannot be allowed to stand. Those !voting in such a way clearly considered deletion and didn't pick it. To get "delete" out of "keep but rename" is an abuse of discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (not the nominating ip, am at work checking on my downtime) FWIW, I went thorough and counted the responses so they're actually listed somewhere in some way, there were 18 votes for delete and 17 for not-delete (5 for Keep/Rename, 8 for Rename and 4 for Keep).
While I myself have been following this arguement since the start I don't want to pick one side or the other because honestly, I feel like there is a lot more important work to be done and I think it's embarassing the length that some of the editors on both sides of this arguement have gone to try to push their own opinions. The absolute ignoring of standard procedure is embarassing. -- (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Users are reminded to read WP:BLUDGEON and consider whether replying to every last comment will help their case. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your observations! Does constantly referring to this non-binding essay constitute bludgeoning? Do tell? There is no "case" to be made or to be helped. The facts of the closer's opinion are obvious, as is the methodology by which the opinion was arrived at. Every last comment will be replied to if it veers off topic, if (imo) it dissembles, embellishes or twists the facts or others' opinions. Not really concerned with "winning" anything. I believe I exposed the closing opinion's inconsistencies and the closer's conscious or unconscious bias. And this (and all the related prior discussions) brought out more of the same. This is fun. Now do with it as you will! (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent discussions

7 May 2021

Peter Fox (Welsh politician) (closed)

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

Peter Fox was elected to the Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament today. It may be more practical to augment a pre-existing article than to start a new one from scratch. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sionk, you know, you could have just asked at my talk page. I've restored it. ♠PMC(talk) 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Sionk (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Poland)

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Poland) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, Order of the White Eagle (Poland) is not some minor award, our article states that it "is Poland's highest order awarded to both civilians and the military for their merits". It's right there at the top of Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland (interestingly, we still have categories for two other Polish major civilian state awards, i.e. Category:Recipients of the Order of Polonia Restituta and Category:Recipients of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland; as far as I can tell the fourth, Category:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Independence, never had been created on English Wikipedia yet). I am honestly not sure what is the American "top" equivalent, but would we delete Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients or the Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients? Or the British Category:Recipients of the George Cross, which I think the British "top" civilian award? I think such a proposal would be laughed out. On that note, please keep in mind WP:SYSTEMICBIAS: this is a Polish award and many of its recipients (most of whom are Poles) still don't have an article on the English Wikipedia. Polish Wikipedia has biographies of about 1,000 recipients (pl:Kategoria:Odznaczeni Orderem Orła Białego) and the category exists on over a dozen other Wikipedias.

Second. Three categories were nominated under the rationale "There are only heads of state, nobility, ministers and generals in these categories to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture." I have no issue with the other two categories that were deleted, they seem minor and perhaps that was an apt description for them, but the singled out category discussed here contains also many activists, artists, journalists and like (ex. Marek Edelman, Irena Sendler, Andrzej Wajda, Oswald Balzer). Granted, the order is also given to some dignitaries (presidents, queens, popes, etc.) who couldn't care less about it, but this is true for many major awards. With regards to the awards being defining, it is mentioned in the lead of some biographies (ex. in the lead of the Polish version of the biography of economist Wojciech Roszkowski). And for someone like the activist pl:Łucjan Królikowski it likely is very defining (in that particular case I don't see what makes this individual notable except the fact that he received this very award; in other words what makes him notable is the virtue of receiving the highest Polish state award). It may not be memorable for a President or a Pope whose biographies don't generally mention such awards in the lead, but it is very significant for a professor or activist and that award is granted to both groups (contrary to the assertions made at the deletion discussion). It should not have been deleted after few votes from editors who, with all due respect, considered it minor ("honorary gifts for already notable people", "merely a gesture") because they are not familiar with Polish culture/politics/awards and clearly didn't notice the status of this award (top Polish civilian award with over 200 years of history). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I think the 2015 consensus to delete the category has expired from the passage of time, and I would say that it's open to you to re-create it.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • We frequently and routinely delete these sorts of categories with consensus and without much discussion, since there's heaps of non-defining awards. I'm happy with the argument this is defining for the purposes of overturning/re-creating, which wasn't presented in an otherwise routine discussion. It can be re-litigated at CfD again if need be. Given the passage of time, I'm not sure this needs to be explicitly overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, someone will have to work hard to categorize over 1,000 recipients. :-) I would suggest to create subcategories, because indeed it looks like >80% of awardees are courtesy awards and subcategories could help to weed them out. Lembit Staan (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Asian-American librarians

Category:Asian-American librarians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was to oppose deletion of "Asian-American librarians," but instead it was changed into a container category titled "American librarians of Asian descent." Unfortunately subcategory American librarians of Korean descent was deleted in February. There's no way to maintain this as a container category since most of the categories will be challenged due to WP:SMALL. (An organization dedicated to this specific group has existed since 1980, the Asian Pacific American Librarians Association.) Skvader (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

6 May 2021

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

meets GNG, significant coverage in Men's Health, [13], yahoo uk [14], voyagela [15]. Tidekazan (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Allow Draft - Having seen the references, I disagree with the G11A7, because I think that a credible claim of significance is established. Whether general notability is satisfied is a matter for AFD to decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon It was an A7 Robert not a G11. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I knew it was an A7, which is why it was overridden by a credible claim of significance. Random error. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No idea what was in the article (not seeing it in Google cache) but sources would seem to clear the GNG and certainly over the A7 bar. So no idea if the deleting admin made a mistake, merely that the topic should be allowed to exist. If the article was horrible, fine, just recreate. Otherwise restore and allow someone to fix it. Hobit (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It is now available. Sorry for the delay. WilyD 10:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Meeting WP:N is far more than needed to overcome an A7. overturn with a side of trout. Hobit (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in the article text that would make me hesitate to A7. All three of those sources were there, though, as well as [16], [17], [18], [19], and a few more of lesser quality. Though I'm not usually in favor of summary moves from articlespace to draft, that's what was indicated here. —Cryptic 08:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Cryptic: But A7 is "a lower standard than notability". So if this meets WP:N (which I think it plainly does), it's also well over the bar for A7. Put differently, reliable independent sources covering a topic is a claim of importance. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think what I said is incompatible with that? Or, for that matter, what you wrote before the temp undeletion - the article text is legitimately horrible, and doesn't say why these sources have taken an interest in him. Because these sources are there, it isn't A7able and shouldn't be deleted, but it shouldn't be left untouched in mainspace like that either. —Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I think that moving something out of mainspace that meets our inclusion guidelines is generally a bad idea. WP:TNT is a thing, but I don't think it applies here. And I took a "summary move" to mean without an AfD. That I'd strongly disagree with. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn - Vox article is, at a minimum, too much sourcing for an A7 deletion to be at all justifiable. WilyD 10:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd say that you can inoculate an article against A7 by citing the reliable sources that have noted the person. (I wish that was the only way you could inoculate it against A7, but sadly not.) I think this one shouldn't have been A7ed because of that.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn articles which cite press coverage like that shouldn't be deleted under A7. The wording of A7 makes it clear that A7 is a lower bar to meet than notability. Furthermore whether something is notable is evaluated through AfD and PROD, not speedy deletion, so any article which indicates the subject might be notable is also not a good A7 candidate. Hut 8.5 18:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn but note that the text of CSD A7 does not clearly indicate that sources can be where claims of significance can be found, unlike WP:SIGNIFICANCE which clearly states this. I'm not inclined to say this is troutworthy: if there isn't an unambiguous claim of significance made in the text of the article, the article is at risk of being speedied; this would be true even if we fixed the text of CSD A7 because human nature being as it is, admins are usually going to make the judgement call based on the text of the article, not on the basis of researching the references found. Maybe it would be better to draftify articles that fall foul of WP:SIGNIFICANCE if they have sources rather than delete them? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • "A claim of significance in a source" is the wrong standard to use. It's too lenient in that, for example, a bio shouldn't be immunized from speedy deletion because it links the subject's blog, no matter what they claim on that blog. And it's too strict in that a sysop should be referring source evaluation to AFD rather than doing it themself, except in the very clearest of cases. The right standard is a not-patently-trivial mention in a not-patently-unreliable source. —Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn I'm not convinced this should be kept, but with the sourcing it leaps high over the A7 bar. SportingFlyer T·C 15:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn Speedy A7 and send to AfD if anyone wants to, per all of the above, with the exception that a single reference is enough regardless of whether or not it's an RS or not. A7 is entirely unrelated to V or N. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll disagree with that. A single reference isn't always enough. If there is no claim of notability and the sources don't count toward WP:N, A7 would still apply as I read it. So just linking to a workplace directory or your own blog isn't going to prevent an A7. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
      • It would depend on what the blog asserted, actually. If I make a credible claim of significance on my own blog, even if it's not picked up anywhere else, that needs a discussion rather than an A7. I mean, you're right if an article said "Joe Blow is awesome" and linked to the entry for "awesome" then yes, that's not a credible claim of significance despite having a link. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I'll still not agree with that. A7 is about what's in the article. A non-reliable source in the article isn't something I'd expect people to chase down. I mean imagine if there were 20 of them, only one of which made such as assertion. Hobit (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Speedy deletions are to be unambiguous; nothing with 20 links should be speedied in any routine event (except, of course, if G10, 11, or 12 applied), we have PROD and AfD for sorting out things like that. The temptation with declining admin:editor ratios is to expand the leeway for speedy deletion, but that is not actually the right way to solve the problem. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Having read the article as nominated for CSD-A7, I find the action entirely inconsistent with the article in the state it was at the time. CommanderWaterford, would you care to explain your actions? Was this just a Twinkle mistake? Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn and trout. That was nowhere near being even remotely close to an A7 candidate. The article contained at least three credible claims of significance, each of which would have disqualified it individually, and multiple mentions in sources at least 7 of the references would individually have disqualified it from speed deletion. Anyone thinking this was suitable for speedy deletion needs to reread the policy before taking any more admin actions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2021

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

2 Merge Votes contra 4 Delete Votes, this is not a consensus for merging or redirecting+further redirect to an Article which also is at AfD !? CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Buddy, you've got several DRV nominations going on at the same time and you're quite new and very enthusiastic. I'm concerned that you might not really be understanding the decisions you're challenging and you're certainly not talking to the discussion closer before you raise a DRV. Will you consider withdrawing this, talking to Sarah about her decision and then coming back if you still think something is wrong?—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @S Marshall First all I am not your buddy. Secondly of course I will not withdraw it. I am concerned that you are lacking some kind of experience regarding the closing of AfD Discussions. This is clearly not a consensus. Even more if there are duplicate votes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    As you wish. I endorse this close, which correctly assessed the strength of the arguments in the light of policy and guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    You are of course free to do so @S Marshall but a quick look at your Afd Stats tells me that my concerns are very well justified. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'm intrigued. What are your concerns specifically and which stats support them?—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    You have after 15 years an AfD Stats Result of barely 50% matching your votes the final result, in other words: Your judgement did not fit to the community consensus in around every second of your votes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. In that case, not-buddy, from the depths of my inexperience with these matters I still think you should have consulted the closer. I note with some amusement that you're adopting new users, and I admire your unselfconsciousness about that.—S Marshall T/C 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    S Marshall at AfD. The majority of his votes are “non discernible”. Hah! Beware auto stats. Green is 58%, Yellow 15%. Errs on voting to delete much more than voting to keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse It could have been closed with "delete", but the ATD compliant "redirect" was the better close. It could not have been closed any other way. If the target is deleted, then deleted the redirect and the history behind it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry to say but as far as I remember the result of an AfD is a consensus, not what single Editors believe is a better close. There is absolutely no consensus for a redirect/merge. The actual result was to delete the Article and this needs to be reviewed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note that WP:ATD-R is deletion Policy, and several delete rationales cited notability, which explicitly does not mandate deletion if there is a plausible redirect target. On the other side, “advert” and COI arguments are arguments to delete the history. The two sides did not engage, therefore the closer can interpret, and redirect is better policy (WP:ATD-R) compliance, and better in that light. That said, I think the discussion could have been closed as “delete” or “redirect”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse good close: the prior delete rationale included no reasoning that would have defeated Cunard's merge rationale and there were no later delete opinions. While closing as a delete would have been acceptable, we generally encourage alternatives to deletion, and I commend the closer in having taken advantage of this option. If the delete !voters object to the merged content, they are free to edit the Munaf Kapadia page or nominate it for deletion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete It was also a single book review, not multiple reviews as normally be required. That is not a logical argument. There was a clear consensus for delete and User:Dial911 voted twice, making the whole thing suspect. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Scope creep Where did I vote twice? Are you crazy? Dial911 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Multiple reviews are normally required for a keep outcome, but the close was merge, which doesn't have a minimum threshold for sourcing. I don't see the illogicality?—S Marshall T/C 14:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as per ATD policy. Merge was a better decision than deletion. If Munaf Kapadia survives in mainspace, it all makes sense to have his book listed there. Dial911 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist - Cunard's suggestion of a merge came at the end of the discussion, and there was insufficient time for it to be fully considered. Most of the delete votes did not take it into account, but Scope Creep's response to Cunard shows that there's no clear consensus about whether a merge would be appropriate, either. A relist permits further debate about whether merging would be appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse WP:ATD is policy; thus, when an appropriate merge or redirect target is identified in the discussion and not refuted, all delete votes become non-policy based. While counting noses may seem to support deletion in this case, the net policy-based count is 0 to 2 for merging. As such, there is no particular reason to relist such a discussion, and the AfD is nominally "successful"--the nominated article ceases to exist as a separate article. Note that this interpretation of policy is not universally held. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject, but nobody offered a reason not to redirect/merge it and there was a reasonable argument for doing so. Admittedly the target article has also been nominated for deletion so this may well be a pointless coversation. I suggest the OP stop trying to find random discussions/deletions to nominate here, it's not a very constructive exercise. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Delete — Per CommanderWaterford & Stifle, i too believe the close did not correlate with community consensus. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist and Bundle with the author. There was no error by the closer. Redirects are cheap, and a Redirect, which is a backdoor delete, is consistent with a Delete !vote under normal circumstances when there is an obvious redirect target. However, the fact that the target article has also been nominated for deletion is a complication. Since two related articles were nominated at the same time, we should bundle them, and allow the community and the closer to consider whether to keep both, delete both, or keep one. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:S Marshall - I do not see multiple DRV nominations by User:CommanderWaterford. I see one nomination, and another in which they are participating. Have I missed something, or are two editors, one of whom is new and enthusiastic, being conflated? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon No, you did not miss nothing. I guess "new and enthusiastic" was a mistake and as you can imagine I think many times and very carefully before I nominate an AfD for Review. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Two others initiated by that user are pending here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse This DRV really makes no sense: the article was deleted, the information is now at the merged article, the merged article is now up for deletion (NOTE: I did just !vote in that AfD, but I typed this out first and just realised I hadn't submitted.) If the merged article is deleted, the redirect won't go anywhere. If the merged article is kept, the information at that article is validly sourced, and the redirect is valid. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • And I predict we're going to see a WP:BADNAC protest of the merge target article AfD in 3... 2... 1... Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2021 (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.
Andrew Gower (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I found it quite disturbing that some editors at wikipedia believe that the creator of the greatest MMORPG in history has no significant relevance. If creating a work of this size has no historical importance, I honestly don't know what it is.

Lack of information is not a reason to want to erase traces, did you learn anything from the story? He had been withdrawn from Jagex credits some time ago, if there were no other records, how would we know who started it all? I thought that keeping records was one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. A person does not need to continue creating content all the time to be relevant, whether you are ignorant about it, the fact that he is one of the founders of an MMORPG that today has more than 290 million accounts is an irrefutable relevance.

Furthermore, there was no consensus for the page to be changed, basically the result of the decision was that the opinions were controversial, which makes no sense. Iammachi (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Good Lord, that was an excellent close of a difficult discussion. Barnstar-worthy.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • endorse The keep arguments were very weak (very old discussion being kept, "he made a lot of money on something notable") and the deletion arguments are that the sources about him really aren't there. Delete wins. That said, if someone can find independent, reliable, sources that cover him in detail that would be different. The keep !voters really didn't try from what I can tell and it seems likely they would exist given his history. If good sources can be identified at this point, I'd be fine with a relist. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It's kinda disappointing. Yes, there is simply not much information available about him. So a dozen people have decided that the little information that exists is not enough to be kept together in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone else needs the address Andrew Gower (Jagex) (?)
    I really didn't expect things to happen this way. I found out by chance when I went to research about him and the page had been deleted.
    I don't usually edit wiki, so whatever guys, your wiki, your rules. Peace. Iammachi (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good close. Checking the article before redirection, there is very little there and nothing that is not well covered at Jagex and RuneScape. WP:BIO2E isn't really a thing, but coverage of Andrew and his brother at these articles is also very brief. Brief is the heart of the problem. Fails WP:BIO. Re-creation advocates can use draftspace, but see the advice at WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, essentially per Hobit. The keep !votes mostly failed to assert substantial coverage, and so the closer was within his rights to disregard them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. If I'd taken part in the AfD, I'm guessing I might have put together a case for keep: the first search I tried found this among other results. But the closer has to go with the case made in the AfD, and besides the !vote of Stuhunter83 which linked to a substantive Ars Technica article, the keep rationale was hopeless. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment @Iammachi You need to inform the deletion closer of the review which you have forgotten - @S Marshall, who praises the result of the closer in the highest praises here, did inform the AfD closer for you. BTW: 5 Times had this subject been nominated for deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse We've now had five AfDs on the subject and even though the first four were in the early days, there hasn't been a single keep !vote which has clearly demonstrated notability via sourcing. Not only were the redirect/delete/merge crowd more numerous at this debate, but the keep !voters really didn't advance any sort of argument for keeping apart from notability being inherited from the product he created. I don't see any mistake here, but if he really is notable, we can always re-create through the draft process. Very good close. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the close, but allow the submission of a draft without waiting two months or six months, but with no guarantee that the reviewer will accept the draft. It was the right close, but the issue was not that the subject is not notable, but that the draft did not show notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the rationale for deletion was that the subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline. This is, in principle, a perfectly good rationale to delete something, and I don't see much of an attempt to refute that in the discussion. The arguments for keeping were that he's notable as the result of creating a very successful product, and that the nomination is disruptive because of the previous nominations. The first argument doesn't have much grounding in the notability guidelines, and even if it did (e.g. "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" from WP:ANYBIO) it would be overruled if the subject doesn't pass the GNG. There is some scope for exceptions to the notability guidelines, but that would require a solid consensus at the AfD. Given that the previous AfD was 12 years ago it's not at all disruptive to renominate it. I suggest that anyone who thinks we should have an article on the subject try to come up with a draft which shows that he meets the GNG. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 May 2021

  • Template:Cute news – Consensus is to relist the RfD for a more serious discussion in which it should be examined whether this redirect from a misspelling is useful. Sandstein 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Cute news (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This redirect should not have been deleted, or speedily deleted again, because the "reasons" given in the deletion discussion appear to be sarcastic and joking. No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion. This is a useful template redirect (per WP:RFD#KEEP) for a common misspelling. If someone objects to the existence of typos like this in articles, a bot can and should simply replace these transclusions with the correctly spelled target of the redirect.

When I created this redirect, I included {{R from misspelling}}, whose template documentation clearly states: Use this rcat template in any namespace. Redirects like this are used over 100 times in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Just a bit of information here: No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion is the norm at RfD, because the guidelines contradict what participants actually think (IMO the guidelines are right, but not many people care). The jokes were mostly opinions with no explanation. I think JPxG's argument was just a joke and he didn't want to actually keep it, but I'm not sure. FWIW, my comment was just a comment and not a !vote, but I trending towards keep if anything. J947messageedits 01:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I do typo "cite" as "cute" sometimes, but it wasn't a particularly strongly-held opinion (is it really that much of a tragedy if, every once in a while, someone typoes a template invocation and has to go back and fix it?) jp×g 01:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I feel like I'm in some Alice in Wonderland world here. Nobody follows the guidelines? Is this yet another joke? I haven't found another venue within en.WP that says things like that in seriousness, so I'm guessing that it is. In any event, here's a request based on actual reasoning from WP:RFD#KEEP: Editors, including me, a template editor with more than ten years of editing experience, find this redirect useful. {{R from misspelling}} exists because editors make mistakes and find redirects from misspellings useful. Thanks in advance for restoring this redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Sadly, it isn't a joke. Often RfD seems like a venue where no sense is followed, immature editors are attracted to and trigger !vote delete with little thought. You go back and look through 2010 RfDs, and the results of discussions are much different. When people do reference the guidelines, they often do it mistakenly, failing to acknowledge RHARMFUL and K5 (and often K4). I've been frequenting RfD for most of the past year and a half, and I'd be interested to see my !vote/result percentage. 60% maybe? A lot of keep !votes and delete results. J947messageedits 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I've never done a DRV before, despite more than ten years of editing at WP. Is there a way to get a speedy restoration so that editors making this typo do not unintenionally violate WP:REDNOT, a guideline? Should I expect any of the above commenters to actually comment in support of or in objection to this DRV request? This process seems as strange as your description of RFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
            • I was just commenting to provide background, other editors will !vote to endorse or overturn the closure. Getting a speedy restoration in this scenario is pretty much impossible considering the !vote balance in the discussion. J947messageedits 02:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
              • I guess that all I can hope is that a reasonable admin will look at the quality of the !votes, the lack of supporting guidelines there, and the multiple guidelines cited here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
                • That would result in many, many, many RfD results being overturned. Anyhow, relitigating the RfD in a DRV is generally bad. J947messageedits 02:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • What? The top of this page literally says Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. Maybe I miss your meaning. That seems to be happening to me on multiple pages today. I need to take a break. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • Relitigating the arguments of a deletion discussion. Sorry for the confusion. J947messageedits 03:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn: I !voted to delete in the RfD, not as a joke, but because I didn't realize it was a redirect from a typo, so I didn't see the usefulness. That was my mistake. Clearly, it's a plausible typo and some editors find it useful. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist or overturn since the original had enough joke responses that you can't really find a consensus either way. It might have made sense to have relisted it, tagged those who notvoted, with a relist message asking for serious responses. That said, I don't really find fault with anyone's actions here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist/Overturn. Users are often apt to quickly vote in these sorts of RFDs to make quips and puns without fully considering all the facts. It's definitely unclear how seriously participants took the RFD, since only Ivanvector gave an actual, grounded reason to delete that took into account the typo. That being said, it's hard to fault the closer given how the !votes split and WP:RFD#D5 technically does apply to the literal meaning of the redirect. Given the concerns raised here, it would be good to relist and tag participants so a cost-benefit analysis of having such an {{R from typo}} can be debated. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The jokey !votes should be treated the same as plain votes with no rationale would be – because they are genuine opinions supplemented by humour, not just full-on jokes. J947messageedits 05:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Ivanvector's squirrel in the original discussion. There were 5 delete declarations and 1 keep declaration. The keep declaration did not have a valid rationale while one of the delete declarations did, so the closer acted correctly in closing the discussion as delete. To close a discussion with such a clear majority for deletion as a keep, there must be an exceptionally strong argument for keep. There wasn't. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we're looking at a case where the close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was Wednesbury unreasonable. Contributors to the discussion were enjoying a moment of levity and merriment to such an extent that they failed to read and understand the reasoning in front of them. On the rare occasions where this happens, DRV can either faint-heartedly relist for further discussion, or else boldly and decisively step in to resolve the problem. I would prefer the latter outcome. But in this it is very unfair to allow any criticism of the closer, express or implied. DRV almost always finds that closers should do what the consensus tells them to do even if the consensus appears, to the closer, to be wrong; this close was exactly what we would expect. For this reason I would wish to avoid the word "overturn". Can we say that DRV thanks the closer for acting as we have always asked them to act, but intervenes to alter the close because it's to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so?—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vacate/relist Undelete this and just start a new discussion from scratch with a clear link to this discussion/explanation this isn't a joke, it's rare that discussions themselves are defective but I agree with S Marshall here. ("Overturn" doesn't necessarily mean a closer did anything wrong, either, but I understand the implication. This was properly closed.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That the discussion was defective doesn't mean it was wrong. If we're to undelete this, relist it for a serious discussion so we can delete it properly. The misplaced arguments above - that this is a plausible typo (it's not, though {{cute bews}} might be) and that {{R from typo}} is common in the template namespace (it's not; almost all uses are to misspellings, not typos, and there's only two other misplaced-fingers typos, oneboth currently at RFD) - are easily rebuttable. —Cryptic 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn: There was a failure of process here, and it occurred at the start. Whilst the RfD was filed at 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC) by Dudhhr (talk · contribs) they were unable to carry out WP:RFD#HOWTO step I, because the redir was protected. Instead, Dudhhr did the next-best thing: they created Template talk:Cute news with a protected-edit request to carry out the appropriate tagging. Two days later, Xaosflux (talk · contribs) responded to that request and lifted that prot, and the content of that talk page was ultimately:
    == Edit request to complete RfD nomination ==
    {{Edit protected|Template:Cute news|answered=yes}}
    [[Template:Cute news]] has been listed at Redirects for discussion ([[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news|nomination]]), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:
    to the top of the page and <code><nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Xfd edit protected -->[[User:Dudhhr|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr|talk]]) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    :{{not done}} however {{ping|Dudhhr}} I've removed the multiple protections. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    {{ping|Xaosflux}} Sorry, it was automatically done by Twinkle when I RfD'd this page [[User:Dudhhr|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr|talk]]) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    Despite this, the redir never got tagged for RfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - of the comments that were not obviously intended to be humorous, there were two deletes (nominator and myself) both arguing that a misspelling template redirect with only three extant transclusions (really only one actual misspelling, the other two were copies of the first) does not indicate a plausible error, versus one keep (User:J947) referring to frequent use (WP:RFD#K5, though it cannot currently be verified because the new pageviews tool cannot process deleted pages). Jonesey95's assertion upon recreating the page ("create template for common typo") is already refuted by the deletion discussion (a single good-faith typo is a very long way from "common"), so WP:G4 most certainly applies to the recreation, and they ought to earn a {{whale}} for trying to recreate it on the same day that it was deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • AFAICR there were 150-odd pageviews, if that is any help. J947messageedits 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, that answers vague questions I had about why there are sometimes frivolous comments at RFD, which is that some of the regular editors there make frivolous comments. I personally prefer sarcastic comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    I've often said RFD is a silly place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the arguments aren't joking, it appears some just took the page as unworthy of more serious commentary. Having {{Cute news}} in the wikitext of a page is both confusing and just ridiculous. If someone makes a typo accidentally, they should be prompted to that (or it added into a tracking cat for someone else to fix) so that the wikitext doesn't read nonsense. If someone wants to make redirects that prompt a bot to correct the typo (via automatic substitution) that's one thing, but the text shouldn't be redirected to the template. This was the argument made in the XFD (eg by Ivanvector). The redirect guideline is generally designed with article typos in mind, where it is indeed cheap to have a plausible typo redirect to another. It is not the same thing when applied to templates, where the redirect actually stays in the page source. DRV is not a place to relitigate the consensus of an XFD venue, but relisting may be an acceptable outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. We don't need redirects from every possible misspelling, not least in template space. What possible value is there in this one? What's an editor who comes across {{cute news}} going to do? That's right, they're going to waste time looking up this template that they've never heard of before. What's next? {{cite mews}}? {{cite ners}}? {{cite nwqa}}? {{bite news}}? {{bite cook}}? Why create unnecessary problems? Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist as per Redrose64's comment about the failure of process. I rarely say this, but the closing admin really should've known better. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist per Redrose64. The lack of a tag is grounds for an automatic relisting, as noted at WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. - Eureka Lott 20:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vacate and Relist for various reasons, including frivolity and procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vacate and renominate per Redrose64. I would likely have !voted to delete, but process was not correctly followed and the standard of the discussion was poor so the best thing is to nominate and discuss it properly. Given how poor most of the rationales were it will be best if a new discussion is started rather than continuing from what went before. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy Relist as original nominator. It was an honest mistake on my end and I believe it should be relisted to generate a clearer consensus without any semi-sarcastic !votes. Dudhhr (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vacate for the reasons given by User:S Marshall and relist to come to a proper and perhaps less frivolous outocme. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2021

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

Daiyusha HighKing, Kashmorwiki, Vincentvikram, Mamushir, Celestina007, Muboshgu, i have reworked on the concerned wiki page in which all the references could be subject to proper verifications. I would request the people in this conversation to have a look at it and take it forward. But for that i need to get the reworked page up so that it could be reviewed by you all. There were reference links that expired- with no trace of it even on Such links were taken off and the content is condensed, page is ready for review if you could restore the page. Could we get going with a second look at it with me remaining answerable and accountable for all the information on that page. Waiting to hear from you so that i can put up the page for review. Kindly restore the page so that i could update it and present the page for review.Thank you.pilgrimhawk 05:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Question for Pilgrimhawk: What exactly do you want to happen? If you would like to have the deleted article moved to draftspace so you can carry out further work on it, that should be possible if there is no BLP problem with the material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Chalst Thank you for the suggestion. The revised and fine tuned content is moved to my user workspace and is submitted for review. I hope to have a constructive review/ critique that will help improve the mentioned article. Thank you. pilgrimhawk 12:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Update Chalst The draft page is reworked based on the suggestions of Rich_Smith. Kindly review and let me know what ore needs to be done. Notes on the updates are added at the top of the drat page. Thank you.pilgrimhawk 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The draft for review is here.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I haven't checked all the sources, but I have checked a random sample of them. I have yet to find a source that I think is satisfactory. For example this source is unreliable because it takes no responsibility for what its contributors say (evidence). This source is highly reliable and eminently trustworthy, but sadly it doesn't mention Prema Sridevi at all. This source mentions Prema Sridevi in passing, but it isn't about her and it contains very little usable biographical information. There are also a bunch of youtube videos. Pilgrimhawk: Please can you select the three best sources, the very most reliable ones that contain checkable biographical information about Prema Sridevi, and link them here?—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
S Marshall , Thank you very much for these constructive suggestions. Will work on it and get back .pilgrimhawk 13:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
S Marshall Update : Here is a bunch of text from he Wiki page with few new references. Kindly let me know your thoughts on it.

"When with Republic TV, Prema covered a series of stories on the mysterious death of Sunanda Pushkar, an Indian businesswoman and the wife of Indian former diplomat and politician Shashi Tharoor." Published in

Published in The New Indian Express handed-to-cops-delhi-police-denies-it-1602561.html

Published in Asianet News

Published in The New Indian Express sunanda-case/

"Republic TV broadcast her taped conversations with Sunanda Pushkar and Sunanda’s assistant Narayan Singh hours before Sunanda's death. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (The Times Group), lodged a complaint against Prema Sridevi and Arnab Goswami accusing them of copyright infringement." Published in republic-tvs-expose-tapes

Published in The Indian Express reporter-4660840/

Published in Business Standard against-arnab-goswami-for-ipr-breach-117051700902_1.html

"Following this, Prema did over 2 dozen stories on the mysterious death of Sunanda Pushkar. In May 2018, Sunanda's husband Shashi Tharoor was chargesheeted by the Delhi Police for abetment to suicide." Published in ScoopWhoop

Published in BBC

"Prema’s story titled “The Vadra Papers” exposed the alleged tax evasion of Robert Vadra’s firm. Following the story, Robert Vadra sent a legal notice to Prema Sridevi and Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami over "defamatory statements" made against his firm."

Published in The Quint

"Prema's follow-up investigations into the Bofors scandal led to a revealing interview with Michael Hershman - who is the President of the Fairfax Group, co-founder Transparency International - in which, he hinted that powerful politicians exist in India who risk being identified in Bofors Scandal. Prema Sridevi's Hershman interview was quoted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in its affidavit before the Court to request the Court to reopen the Bofors Case based on the startling revelations." Published in The News Minute 76316

Published in Republic TV supreme-court-read-the-stunning-revelations-here.html

      • Hi Pilgrimhawk, I asked for the best three sources, if you could narrow it down for me. Thanks very much—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


  • Endorse the close. If the appellant wants to submit a draft, it should be better than the sandbox, in which the lede is promotional stuff bordering on marketing buzzspeak. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the close was actually contested, but if it was, I endorse it. Deletion review is not the place to review drafts: Pilgrimhawk should ask for review at WP:AfC when the draft is ready, and should identify the three best sources in the request and make sure at least two of them are reliable sources that are independent of the subject matter. This is not an arbitrary hurdle, but something necessary to ensure the article can be worked on by other editors and, particularly important for biographies, have verifiable content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2021

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

This was a contentious discussion closed by a non-admin, who was indefinitely banned on closing AfD discussions due to persistent bad closing, including by just counting numbers and supervoting. The topic area has attracted SPAs and sockpuppets, and a deeper analysis of arguments was required. The article itself is subject to ref bombing where some of the refs don't even mention the group and it likely fails WP:NORG. This DRV is on the basis that it cannot be said there's any confidence in this close; at minimum it should be reclosed by an experienced admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Agree as nominator that the close should be re-examined due previous issues with the closer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist. The NAC close was indeed extremely poor, even terrible. The "There are more keep votes" rationale indicates a simple vote count, without any attempt to evaluate the strength of the arguments presented. Moreover, apparently no consideration was given by the closer to the "merge" options suggested in the discussion. In particular, the article Gain of function research was created during the AfD itself and was mentioned as a possible merge target by the last AfD participant. I !voted "merge" early on in the AfD, before the article Gain of function research was created. I think this article presents a more reasonable merge or partial merge target than the one I suggested. I think that this AfD would benefit from some fresh input. Nsk92 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist/Reclose I am not even sure the closer is even right on the !vote count, with the nominator and Merge, I count 5 delete type opinions (at least 5 saying this isn't a standalone article), and 5 keep opinions. For me it's a perverse outcome to relist to gain a consensus with the following opinions to be 1 pretty weak keep and 1 delete, ending with keep. -- (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm minded to speedily and unilaterally overturn and relist per WP:SNOW. Any objections?—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    As far as I am concerned, go ahead and save DRV some time. This is obviously an unacceptable NAC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist This is a bad NAC close (among other issues). --Enos733 (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Undo close since the nominator does appear to have been topic banned from such an action. An admin can close the reopened discussion as they see fit. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: At this point in the discussion, I summarily reverted the close and relisted the debate at AfD. I considered closing this DRV, but I think I should leave it open. It seems unlikely that anyone would support the original close but there may be a wish to review my own actions.—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a good action to take, and, again, if you had a mop it'd go completely unquestioned. I move to close this. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Relist or Support Overturning and Relisting - Original closer has been topic-banned from closes, but also appears to have been blocked as a socktroll. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the WP:SNOW overturn This was an obviously egregious NAC. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Archives, by year and month
Year 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