Wikipedia:Deletion review
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
1. |
{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted |
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~ |
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~ |
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~ |
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~ |
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive 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".
19 March 2024
18 March 2024
Draft:Yuuki (Sword Art Online)
I improved the article and it was accepted by ::@Geardona, Please review the agreement on my talk page The dogcat (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, just adding my 2 cents here, the article looks good; aside from my small concern regarding over quoting, as for notability it looks to be notable to me, but I don’t know. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The article looks good" I mean yeah, but I am very concerned that this user has an afc right but can't scrutinize each source properly; even some admin knows that the character isn't notable [[1]. The draft makes it obvious that the article doesn't contain any WP:SIGCOV. The only good sources were this [2] but isn't sigcov at all as it doesn't really discuss the character, and this [3] but has less coverage than Kotaku. Anyway, still failing WP:GNG and the article was just recently merged from the AFD this year; so it is still very recent.. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I said the article, not the sources. Haven’t checked those yet, was going to do that later in my review; as for the AFD thing, if I had accepted, I would have to move over a redirect with history. Something I cannot do. I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming that my review was fully done. Most everything I have said is from a glance. Geardona (talk to me?) 05:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question/Comment what are we supposed to do here? You've added to what was discussed at AfD. You don't need to go through either us (DRV) or AFC: if you've improved the article, un-redirect it, incorporate the improvements such that the former criticisms don't apply, and let anyone who objects re-AfD it. Mind you, this only works if you understand notability and can readily incorporate it into your improved version. In general, DRV is for when someone thinks the decision was wrong and wants to contest it on the basis of the evidence available at the time. This doesn't look like that. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing to do here. This was submitted and declined at AfC. The decline reason was about a potential copyright issue - you could just remove the block quote and accept, but since there was a previous AfD we need to make sure that whatever's being submitted is substantially different. This is so far out of my area of expertise I'm not sure which sources in the AfC are GNG notable so I can't make any other recommendation as to what to do here, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
15 March 2024
Luxury real estate
Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a correctly closed seven-year-old discussion, what exactly are you asking us to do here? SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- ...Reinstate the article? Er. I was told by @Thryduulf: over at RfD that this was the proper method of getting a previously-deleted-by-AfD article reinstated. Did I screw up here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked closely enough at the AfD to realise it was that old and assumed it was recent. I have no further opinion on the merits or otherwise of overturning the decision. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Upon review, I would not reinstate the article which was deleted at AfD as is, so an endorse. I have no problem if you want to write a draft of a new article using better sources than the one in the redirected article, but I'm a bit concerned about WP:DICDEF here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked closely enough at the AfD to realise it was that old and assumed it was recent. I have no further opinion on the merits or otherwise of overturning the decision. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The closing correctly reflected consensus. And while three participants isn't much, we generally consider it to satisfy WP:QUORUM. But even if we treat this DRV as AfD round two, the provided sources do not confer enough notability to support a standalone article. That said, I do not object to any editor creating a "Luxury real estate" section in the redirect target, essentially treating the seven-year-old AfD result as a Merge rather than a redir. Owen× ☎ 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Closing admin) Eh, it's a consensus, but like the weakest consensus possible. Only a weak self-endorse on my part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as correct interpretation of consensus. This article was redirected with minimal participation seven years ago, so I have no objection to restoration to a full article if (and only if) more information is available to give luxury real estate standalone notability (which I do not believe is the case), obviously subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Allow re-creation. I was the person who first pointed out (at RfD) the flaws in the old AfD, though at this point there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from reopening this. It's a large industry that should have enough material to support notability for a stand-alone article, but the article as it stood before AfD did need improvement. The optimal course of action here I think would be to explicitly allow re-creation or restoration of the article (preferably with improved referencing), at the editor's own discretion. Without prejudice to a new AfD, of course. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Content is bad and redirection should not be undone. Additionally, I am against this topic as a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This AfD was fine. The problem was obvious and needed no further comment.—Alalch E. 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and allow re-creation with prior review. There was no other way to close the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and allow recreation, preferably via AfC draft so that a reviewer can look again throughly before it falls into the vicious cycle again. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and Allow Submission of Draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and Do not allow re-creation without consensus in support demonstrated at Talk:Real estate. Do not encourage creation of a draft without consensus at Talk:Real estate, as draftspace should not be used for content forking. The rationale for the redirect is obvious, there was no deletion, this is not a matter worthy of DRV or a second AfD. Use Talk:Real estate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- So no need to add on to what everyone has said above, but one of the unspoken concerns, I'm guessing, from those not favoring a new article by this title is that the title is likely to be a spam magnet. Am I wrong? Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- No. The redirected article has a long history that doesn’t including real spam. It does include sourcing from real estate fashion sources, which I consider weak, not really a foundation for an article so titled, but not spam. My opinion is that the article, like others listed under Niche real estate, are worthy of coverage but not as stand alone articles, a WP:Structurism issue. But more importantly is process. It was properly redirected, and there is no deletion involved, so it is out of scope of DRV. When it comes to organising and improving content, editors should use talk pages. Coordinating content on multiple pages is not well done by unilaterally making new draft pages, or unilaterally overturning a past redirect decision. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Example content was:
- Its not spam, but it does read like high end real estate agents talking about what they do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
13 March 2024
Priyanka Choudhary
She has attained WP:NACTOR with her roles in tv shows, films, web-series and music videos. She was the 2nd runner-up in the Indian popular reality show Big Boss (Season 16) which makes it fit to create an article for her.
- The most important point to be noted is that her co-stars Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia and Isha Malviya have wikipedia articles even though they have lesser significant roles than Priyanka.
- So can we please create an article for Priyanka Choudhary?117.246.80.237 (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - Subject is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. There is a history of the gaming of titles by changing the spelling or form of her name. There is a history of sockpuppetry attempting to recreate articles on the subject. This request by an IP is no exception. The title is not salted either in article space or in draft space, although maybe it should be, so the appellant can create and submit a draft, but they probably know that the AFC reviewers will be wary. There was nothing wrong with either of the two AFDs, and her fans are doing her no good by making another tendentious request. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not only is that the correct outcome for the discussion, my sense is the requesting IP may be evading a block. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I am not a sockpuppet who is evading block. You can check my edit history.117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The edit history shows that the appellant is submitting from an IPv4 address that does not have any previous edit history, which proves only that they are an IPv4 address, and that IPv4 addresses often shift because they are managed dynamically by ISPs. In case anyone hasn't noticed, IPv4 addresses have been exhausted, and so have to be managed dynamically by ISPs. Why are you editing logged out? Why don't you register an account (which, if pseudonymous, is more secure than editing logged out), or why don't you use your existing account? Rather than being a block-evading sockpuppet, the appellant may be a pop-up, an editor who shows up for the first time because they were canvassed on some other web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I am not a sockpuppet who is evading block. You can check my edit history.117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- But I agree I am a fan of Priyanka which is why it hurts me that actresses like Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia and Isha Malviya who didn't pass WP:NACTOR have a Wikipedia page but Priyanka doesn't.117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Isha Malviya's page is already nominated for deletion, can anyone here who knows how to nominate a page for deletion can do the same for Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia too?117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation and relist - I think that's the bare minimum that can be done since Priyanka passes WP:NACTOR. 117.242.82.161 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why not allow a redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) where she is mentioned? Google news suggests there may be enough to write an article about her, no matter how annoying fans may have been in the past... Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly my point, why not allow a recreation when the actress has passed WP: NACTOR and has everything required to have an independent article. Why are we denied recreation all because of some unpleasant experiences from her fans earlier? 117.209.172.233 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, per /Perennial requests. Any article that has reached the level of a listing there has been discussed at very great length and the standard at that point is that a request from an established, high-volume editor presenting a well-sourced draft is the hurdle to be reached for us to reconsider it. This is not setting different standards per topic, it is setting a basic level of respect and consideration for people's time. A request from an IP with no edit history, presenting no sources, and just asserting the standards are met isn't going to cut it. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- We can present a full fledged resourced article of Priyanka Choudhary if we are allowed to do it. Which is why I have asked for Allow recreation and relist. We could have already done ✅ it and shown to you because the topic is not salted. But we didn't do it because of the number of times it has been deleted and huge number controversies surrounding the article.
- Please please please give us a chance to recreate the article.117.209.172.233 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing whatsoever prevents you from drafting an article in a user sandbox. Mainspace and draftspace may be denied by past bad behavior, but I don't see how or why user sandbox space would be. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- To be very honest Sir/Ma'am. We had no idea about user sandbox. But now that you suggested it we will surely try it. Thanks a lot 😊.117.246.253.49 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing whatsoever prevents you from drafting an article in a user sandbox. Mainspace and draftspace may be denied by past bad behavior, but I don't see how or why user sandbox space would be. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please please please give us a chance to recreate the article.117.209.172.233 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment- I am using we instead of I because we are a group of 5 editor friends who create new articles of Indian Television actors and actresses. We have come earlier for the DRV of several actors. I edit anonymously using IP because I am comfortable with that. However, one among the 5 of us has an account. If required we can ask her to come her to come here using the account.117.209.172.233 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse existing status. NACTOR is not passed by having roles, it's passed by receiving reliable source coverage about those performances, so just arguing that she's passed NACTOR without showing the sourcing is not on. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- We will create her article in user sandbox and show it to you how she passes WP:NACTOR. 117.246.253.49 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment to all editors and closing admin- @Jclemens:,@Bearcat: I have created the WP:BLP of Priyanka in my user sandbox here [4] with reliable source coverage such that it proves Priyanka Choudhary passes WP:NACTOR. I kindly request you all to go through the same.
- It is proved in the article that Priyanka passes WP:NACTOR through her lead and significant roles in the TV shows Yeh Hai Chahatein, Udaariyaan, Savdhaan India – F.I.R, Bigg Boss 16 and the web series 3G Gaali Galoch Girls, Dus June Ki Raat. Plus, she had also appeared in over 15 Music videos which should count too.117.246.253.49 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
K. Annamalai (I.P.S)
So this is a my first time doing this so tell me if im wrong, but the article (prior version) Draft:K. Annamalai was deleted, and the outcome was endorsed. As a draft has been re-created, an endorsement of the draft is required from DRV (if I understand correctly). So, endorse re-creation of draft or no? Geardona (talk to me?) 02:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- previous DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2#Annamalai KuppusamyFiler is a new page reviewer. Annamalai Kuppusamy and K. Annamalai (I.P.S) are salted/blacklisted. This is submission of a draft to DRV for a review: Per Sandstein's close, DRV should decide if there exists a draft that is "competent" (prima facie worthy of a review) and suitable for acceptance, as a basis for allowing recreation. I formatted the malformed request.—Alalch E. 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- K. Annamalai is not the same person as the K. Annamalai from Draft:K. Annamalai.—Alalch E. 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Salting or Reject Draft, depending on what we are being asked and how to phrase our reply. As an AFC reviewer, I see two blatant problems with this draft. First, it is clearly written to {{praise}} its subject rather than to describe them neutrally. Second, it has been reference-bombed. For these reasons, reviewers should not spend any significant time reviewing it, and nothing should be said that might encourage the submitter to waste both their time and that of the reviewers. This does not mean that the subject is not notable or that the subject is notable. It is not feasible for reviewers to determine whether the subject is notable, because the draft is not prima facie worthy of a detailed review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse salting and reject draft, this is still not a 'competent draft' in my opinion. The draft creator (note not the DRV filer) is the same single-purpose account that submitted it last time, and then bludgeoned the discussion so badly. There are the ongoing faults regarding notability displayed in the draft, neutrality, and an overwhelming sense that there may be an undisclosed conflict of interest at play here. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
10 March 2024
Dr. Squatch (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
No clear consensus reached, but a few editors made excellent points, I believe this should be relisted one more time and reviewed 108.49.72.125 (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 March 2024
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The only 'Keep' !vote was from an obvious SPA COI account - MarkusSchulze - the same Markus Schulze after whom the article is named. This !vote should have been stricken out, or at least discarded, leaving just the nom and my Redirect views, either of which would have been preferable to the No consensus non-admin close. Owen× ☎ 14:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrong assessment. Majority was "Delete", however, further reading would show that it was "delete" in terms of it not being a cover and it being used in the "cover" parameter, not that the images themselves needed "deletion". This even was stated by the nominator, who withdrew their !vote after the issue was fixed and this was stated as well by other editors, who focused on the images not being covers (i.e. not in a "cover=" parameter) and not that the images needed deleted. I request a reassessment of present !votes from that discussion. From a personal assessment, I see 2 Keep !votes, 1 true "Delete" !vote, 1 half true "delete"/half "parameter delete" and 3 "parameter delete" !votes. There is no full consensus at all for straight deletion. In fact, since the 3 "parameter delete" !vote are not in support of a true deletion, there would be a consensus to keep the file. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
6 March 2024
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Fhektii recently created an account, performed almost 200 edits in 2 days focused entirely on nominating articles for AfD and tagging {{coi}} on random articles, and then was indefinitely banned. I am concerned about drive-by nominations. Particularly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Richman where the reason given is
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
22 February 2024
File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg (closed)
The result is that the original "delete" closure remains in place for lack of consensus to overturn it, without prejudice against the reuploading of one of the alternate images, and its possible renomination at FFD. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I originally approached the deleting admin, but they were uncomfortable with unilaterally undeleting it after a discussion and told me to take it here. I don't think this image should have been deleted. 1) the assertion that it was a press agency image was false, the victim was a child not known before he died and the context and distribution of the image make it clear that it originated from his family, who it is perfectly permissible to use a minimal version from under the project's fair use rules. With cases like these it's often redistributed by agencies, who obviously do not own the copyright. It's also standard to have a picture of the murder victim (see: Murder of Brianna Ghey) on their article if one can be found that isn't a press agency image (which this isn't). 2) It's also particularly relevant to the article in question, as the victim's young age is what made the case notable. Without a picture, a significant aspect of the notability is lost on the reader. The point over it not being a press agency image was brought up in the discussion, but was not addressed by anyone. There was a single delete vote before this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, otherstuffexists applies everywhere in deletion debates. Why would you think it doesn't?I mean, to be fair to you, otherstuff is part of WP:ATA so it isn't a policy that binds you. It's an essay that you're free to disregard. I tend to say that ATA isn't a rule at all, it's just a laundry list of things some Wikipedians think other Wikipedians shouldn't be allowed to say.But in content decisions, it's custom and practice that Wikipedia doesn't do precedent. We take each decision separately on its own.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |