Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

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

Instructions

Shortcut

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 May 29}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 May 29}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 May 29|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

29 May 2025

28 May 2025

List of Sony Bravia televisions

List of Sony Bravia televisions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unreasonable nomination which consisted of following arguments:

1. Lengthy list → Usually, an article being too short is a reason for deletion but not it being too long. If that was truly a problem it would have to be split up, not deleted entirely. Otherwise, any article that exceeds some specified size would have to be removed

2. doesn't provide notable coverage of any individual models → It provided the sizes, resolution, light source technology, light control technology, ports, refres rate, a notes section which can include any additional attributes like screen curvature and availability among others, as well as references for many models. That is a lot of coverage on the individual models in my opinion.

3. Fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE → In what way?

a) Simple lists (such as a list of phone numbers) that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. → Does not apply, it has contextual information listed in 2.

b) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) → Does not apply, this is about a clearly delimited topic

c) Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" → Does not apply, it's about one subset (TVs) of a range of products from one manufacturer.

d) Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. → Does not apply, is about things not persons

e) Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. → Does not apply, is about products not electronic programs

f) A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. → Does not apply, this was in no form conducting business

4. There was exactly one answer to add any new content which has not been mentioned before which said "It's not the job of Wikipedia to include every single model number of a particular television producer" → The article does not just list the model numbers (which would be 3.a.) but instead with contextual information which include the most important attribues of a TV. Also, there are many other lists on technological products from different manufacturers which are broadly accepted, like List of Intel processors, List of Microsoft Windows versions, List of Apple products, all of which show that these arguments brought up have no foundation or any relevance in any other similar articles. Punkt64 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse This was a unanimous discussion that couldn't have been closed any other way. Deletion review is only for challenging alleged failures of the closer to read the consensus of the community. If the consensus the community comes too is substantively incorrect rather than incorrectly assessed then you're just out of luck; it is supreme. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So just because I am a less frequent user than the people voting for the deletion does mean my opinion is automatically worthless? Does that mean one could just team up with two other users and vote to delete articles with less frequent edits by using unfounded arguments? That seems to be a gap which would allow both sabotage from outside and self-destruction from inside on large parts of the content of Wikipedia. That would also mean the opinions of the many would trump the facts of the few. It also would mean that Wikipedia hates infrequent authors even though they make up a large part of the authors. In that case, it seems more plausible for such users to stop contributing at all. Or is there any other way where I can request to continue the discussion on a deletion after the just 1 week of time there seems to be between a request for deletion and it’s execution? Punkt64 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - After one week, there were two possible valid actions by a closer, Delete or Relist. In my opinion, either would have been valid. After reading this statement twice, I see that the appellant is not arguing any error by the closer, but is arguing that the statement by the nominator is wrong. That is a Round 2 argument, and DRV is not AFD Round 2. So the closure of Delete should be endorsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete it was a valid close but if the DRV nominator had made this argument at AFD the outcome might have been differently. I might have voted keep if I'd been there. It's true that DRV isn't round 2 of AFD, but there wasn't really a proper round 1 here, also no one came back to look at the improvements made late in the AFD. If someone misses an AFD but has a valid argument against deletion, what are they actually supposed to do? I don't know of a specific process for that, it doesn't technically fit WP:DRV or WP:RFU but surely leaving a valid article deleted just because of process isn't a good outcome. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

27 May 2025

User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association

User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
User:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussions were improperly closed before 7 days. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SLAP the nominator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SNOW closes were correct. An admin could have closed them “speedy keep” WP:SK#1 no reason for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist All (involved):
    On the one hand, I think that the appellant was seriously misguided in nominating these four pages for deletion at MFD. Just leaving useless pages in draft space or user space does no harm to the encyclopedia. Draft space is self-clearing. User space is not self-clearing, and pages can linger in user space for years, but do no harm. They are just there. Considering their nominations for deletion at MFD causes the regular editors at MFD to spend time that they could be instead improving the encyclopedia or working on their day jobs.
    On the other hand, since the appellant thinks that their nominations should be allowed to run for 7 days, letting them run for 7 days might persuade them that they should stop wasting the community's time by nominating useless drafts for deletion.
    By the way, the appellant/nominator has referred to an interesting situation, which is that there are 39,545 pages in the Category:Stale userspace drafts. It will be very much a waste of time for humans to try to deal with them, but many of them have probably simply been forgotten by mostly active editors, and I have proposed that a bot be written to notify the authors of these drafts, and also to make a report on abandoned drafts by blocked users. The appellant/nominator saw an interesting situation and approached it enthusiastically, but in an unproductive way.
    The non-admin closer acted in good faith, but sometimes a relist is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association was eligible for G13 per the clause Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text., but it isn't now since Josh's decline reset the clock. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and SNOW close this. I'd love to see the day when there are so few real problems with Wikipedia that we can go around policing up userspace content with impunity, but this was wrongheaded from the get-go and continues to waste our time restating the obvious: It's not worth anyone's time to go cleaning up useless but non-abusive userspace content. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We often see, at DRV, closes under WP:SNOW that are meant to stop us wasting community time. These don't tend to achieve their intended result because then you get the drama at DRV instead, leading to more time and text being generated than if we'd just let it run for a few days. But the self-appointed userspace police do need to be shut down, hard. I'd endorse this.—S Marshall T/C 07:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2025

Gary King (radio presenter)

Gary King (radio presenter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The article shouldn't be deleted, but a notability tag should be added for a few couple of weeks in order to allow a number of people to attempt to improve it and to add three secondary, independent sources - "https://media.info Steve Penk: It's time to rebrand Key 103 and start again", "https://www.jstor.org/stable/853501" and "https://radiojinglesonline.com/legends/the-super-station/"; this is given Gary King's extensive career in presenting and narrating high and medium-profile radio and television programmes. Jw93d59 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Properly deleted. Respect that consensus for at least six months, and then if you still think so, try the WP:AfC process. Read WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can see that there's the odd passing mention in a moderately reliable source, and I'm not greatly impressed. The article was tagged as lacking sources for an extended period already.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 2025

Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka

Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD is not related to my recreation of the Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka article. I created that article by translating content from its Bengali version. Since then, I have noticed that significant coverage has emerged following the deletion. Therefore, an independent article can now be reasonably created. I would like to highlight some sources to help establish notability per WP:GNG: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

References

  1. ^ Bano, Masooda (2007). Allowing for Diversity: State-madrasa Relations in Bangladesh (PDF). International Development Department, University of Birmingham. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-7044-2567-5.
  2. ^ Sarwar, MD Ghulam (2013). Bengali Fiqh Practice (1947–2006): An Analysis of Its Forms and Features (PDF) (PhD thesis) (in Bengali). Bangladesh: University of Dhaka. pp. 303–304.
  3. ^ Wadudi, Abdul Bari (2015). The contribution of Sheikh al-Hadith Allama Azizul Haque and Mufti Amimul Ehsan to the study of Hadith (PDF) (M.Phil. thesis) (in Bengali). Bangladesh: University of Dhaka. pp. 83–85.
  4. ^ Qasmi, Ainul Haque (7 February 2023). "Jamia Rahmania split: An impartial analysis". Monthly Adarsha Nari.
  5. ^ Akbar Hossain, Chowdhury (16 July 2021). "End of Mahfuzul-Mamunul Dominance Over Rahmania Madrasa". Bangla Tribune.
  6. ^ "Waqf Estate Gains Control of Rahmania Madrasa After Two Decades". Bangla Tribune. 19 July 2021.
  7. ^ "Mahfuzul and Mamunul Lose Administrative Hold on Jamia Rahmania". Kaler Kantho. 19 July 2021.
  8. ^ Parash, Shahadat Hossain (22 April 2021). "Rahmania Madrasa Sees End of Mamunul's Administrative Hold". Samakal.

–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 18:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deny request as not in scope for DRV. Instead, advise User:Owais Al Qarni to go to WP:REFUND and request undeletion to draftspace, to improve it there, to follow advice at WP:THREE, and to submit for approval. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23 May 2025

ThinkMarkets

ThinkMarkets (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted seven years ago after an AfD discussion, but since then circumstances have changed significantly, with extensive independent coverage and notable developments regarding the company. I've prepared a completely new, well-sourced draft from scratch: User:Kahvihenki/ThinkMarkets. My draft extensively uses independent and reputable sources, clearly addressing previous notability concerns. Initially, I mistakenly submitted a request at WP:Requests for undeletion, which went unanswered and was archived. I now realize that DRV is the appropriate venue. Thank you for considering restoration or providing feedback on my draft. Kahvihenki (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow review of draft but do not unsalt until draft is reviewed. Does the appellant have any conflict of interest? In view of the history of four previous Deletion Reviews in 2019 (listed at the top of the AFD), largely frivolous and by spammers, we should be cautious about any request to re-review this deletion or to review a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no conflict of interest regarding ThinkMarkets or any other financial company. My interest in writing this article is purely encyclopedic: I contribute regularly to financial and regulatory topics, as you can see from my edit history. I fully support having my draft reviewed before restoring the article. Thanks! Kahvihenki (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinkmarkets too. —Cryptic 03:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you, Cryptic. That was after ThinkMarkets had been salted, so the capitalization was changed to game the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all routine, WP:MILL coverage in specialist trade press for online financial markets. I see zero interest in ThinkMarkets from any kind of mainstream news outlet. Don't unsalt.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is all specialist stuff, but a lot of it is anything but complementary. It doesn't feel like PR work or anything--it's real (if specialized) news. I'm not sure it meets WP:CORP's fairly high bar, but it does appear to be real and meaningful coverage. Hobit (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to mainspace I am, of course, also okay with going to draft. The sources appear to be real reporting and not PR stuff. The article covers the ups and downs. If there is a case made that WP:CORP isn't met, please ping me and I'll look (I don't know that guideline as well as I could, but I think we're over it). Hobit (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hobit, what two or three sources do you think meet WP:CORP and the GNG? Are they in the current reference list of 34 sources? On skimming none look promising to me.
    I really think that the topic proponent should be challenged to point to the best two or three sources, and really think it is unhelpful to the proponent for you to suggest that what they have done is productive. “real reporting and not PR stuff” is not the threshold for the best sources to meet. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep salted I agree with S Marshall that the sources clearly don't pass WP:NCORP. I would not unsalt until we have clear NCORP-passing sources in the article itself. SportingFlyer T·C 00:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not the right venue. Your mistake at WP:REFUND was requesting undeletion straight back to mainspace. (The REFUND instructions are pretty lacking here).
You have a draft, User:Kahvihenki/ThinkMarkets. You were right to work with AfC. You need to read the response better. Read WP:THREE, you have WP:Reference bombed the draft.
Dont worry about the WP:SALT. If a draft is approved, the title will be UNSALTed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22 May 2025

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

I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. The family descriptions I used in the Lakshadweep page were taken from List of birds of India. The pages for List of birds of India and List of birds of Uganda were created on the same date (27 April 2007) by the same person, Yomangani. He presumably wrote the family descriptions for both of the articles, as they are the same.

However, the website that was mentioned in the copyright infringement case was created in 2020 (as mentioned in their "about" page).

"And in 2020 (of all years) he started to start a tour company and spent the pandemic lockdown learning about the industry and building the first pieces of content for the website"

So it is much more likely that the website that was mentioned in the copyright infringement case took the information from List of birds of Uganda. As the family descriptions in List of birds of India and List of birds of Uganda are the same and I took the family descriptions from List of birds of India, the descriptions look the same.

Mitsingh (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying all of these articles should be reviewed for copyright infringement? Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's more likely that content written on Wikipedia in 2007 infringes a blog created in 2020, rather than the reverse? —Cryptic 17:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. On re-reading it, this is more clear the second time. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fine challenge of a speedy deletion.—Alalch E. 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per my information the article has already been deleted. Mitsingh (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Draft:Michael Rojewski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This draft article was recently rejected after multiple submissions, with reviewers concluding that it did not meet notability standards due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. I respectfully disagree and request a second opinion, as the draft includes several third-party, non-trivial sources that cover the subject in detail.

Specifically: – A full-length “Mile Markers” feature in Keys Weekly (May 2024) – “Neighbor of the Week” profile in Upper Keys Weekly (July 13, 2023) – “Realtor Spotlight” in Upper Keys Weekly (May 4, 2023) – “Directors Spotlight” with Florida Keys Board of Realtors (April 4, 2024) – Participation in the “Big Kahuna” fundraiser (featured by Keys Weekly) – A member spotlight published by Business and Professional Women Florida

These articles reflect sustained, independent, and published recognition in regional press. The article has also been revised to reflect a neutral tone with no promotional language. I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for people based on reliable and independent documentation.

I respectfully request reconsideration or additional editorial input.

--Keysnewssource (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


Recent discussions

16 May 2025

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

Reliable sources and citations added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakir_Pichler&oldid=1259223011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.220.109 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close, Endorse. No deletion has occurred. New sources is not in scope for DRV, take it up at the redirect target’s talk page if you want to propose a WP:SPINOUT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2025

List of Delta Air Lines destinations

List of Delta Air Lines destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as "merge", but there has been a follow-up conversation on my talk page objecting to this. To resolve the logjam, I'm opening a discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. None of the Keeps addressed the actual question of meeting NLIST. Two of them relied on an RFC that determined that an airline destination list does not violate WP:NOT, which still doesn't tell us whether it is notable. One comment suggested it may be a useful navigational list, which was refuted. One relied on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at a wikiproject, and one was a VAGUEWAVE. On Ritchie333's Talk page, Axisstroke (679 edits) dismisses Aviationwikiflight (10,000+ edits) as a "noob", and brings up the argument that "The reference for each destinations (sic) passes widely WP:GNG", which tells us nothing about whether the list, as a whole, passes NLIST.
    The 2018 RFC, unanimously upheld at a 2024 AfD, was not superseded by a local consensus at the wikiproject. This is one of those AfDs that was bound to reach DRV no matter how it was closed. Ritchie333 closed it correctly based on P&G weight rather than on a nose-count. Since the page isn't deleted, I'd normally suggest participants take the matter to the article's Talk page and continue as a spinout discussion. However, seeing as Axisstroke is unwilling to discuss the matter or even listen to opposing views, Ritchie333's close stands. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a newer RFC from this year. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you link it, please? The most recent RfC I'm aware of is November 2023. Once again, I'm going to bemoan the fact that we don't have a searchable index of RfCs. We ought to organize them in the same way as we do AfDs, but for some reason we don't, and every time I suggest this, nothing happens.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's linked in the AfD: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that's an RFC about an unrelated airline in a different country.—S Marshall T/C 02:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the closest thing to a recent, on-point polling of the community about how it sees lists of airline destinations. I don't think the airline name or country are relevant differentiators. Both Delta and BA are large, global airlines. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, okay. Whether you prefer that one or the November 2023 one, it's pretty clear that there's fundamentally no consensus across the whole community about these.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the times of your relists it should have been closed as “no consensus to delete”. I suggest this biases your perspective here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was not a consensus to merge, or anything else. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was involved, but this was clearly a bad close. Furthermore, after the most recent consensus we should probably restore the United Airlines destinations as well. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC per Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think most people want these lists completely deleted, although there's a vocal minority who do. I think the more useful question is whether they should be separate pages or included in the main airline article. We as a community can't agree on that so I guess that instead of a logical, principle-first approach, we're going to get contentious, fractious, ad hoc decisions that are inconsistent. Which leaves me at a reluctant overturn to no consensus, as there was none.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus" was my second choice in closing this. Actually, that brings me to another point, there doesn't seem to be a consensus (a meta-consensus?) when closing AfDs of this kind between "no consensus" (which keeps the article) and "merge / redirect as a compromise" (which doesn't.). I'm certain I have done a mixture of both. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be too concerned. Long as the information isn't lost, I'm not overstressed about whether it's in the main airline article or a separate list.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When in doubt, don't delete. (from WP:DGFA) is pretty clear: we keep the article on NC, rather than merging it as a compromise. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That item is not relevant, as Ritchie333 did not delete the nominated article (logs, already included above in {{DRV links}}). Merging is not deletion.
    1. WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators (guideline, shortcut WP:DGFA) does not pertain to merging article content. Ctrl-F for merg returns a section about categories and a passing mention of WP:History merging. I skimmed DGFA's history, finding only a 2009 addition by you: Be aware of alternatives to deletion and only delete an article when another measue (e.g., merging) is not appropriate. It was reverted within a few hours.
    2. As you know, WP:Deletion policy#Merging (shortcut WP:ATD-M) is a subsection under Alternatives to deletion.
    3. Page deletion (WP:Deletion policy) and content reorganization (WP:Editing policy) are distinct.
    Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – The first two keep votes are correct in that the list does not violate WP:NOT per a recent RfC. However, the RfC discussed whether or not these lists (along with airport destinations) violated WP:NOT, not on whether these lists were notable. One keep vote cited "WP:AVIATION guidelines", however WikiProject guidelines do not trump official Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly, no evidence was provided as to why WP:GNG/WP:NLIST was met, so all in all, the close was correct. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you're saying, but it's actually pretty obvious that had the arguments been made with a different emphasis, the discussion would have uncovered plenty of RS'ing. I just don't see an argument from silence--no one argued RS/GNG--as normative when the bulk of the discussion was NOT vs. not-NOT. At most, such an oversight would call for a relist. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This dispute is difficult for at least three reasons, two of them interrelated. First, this was a deletion discussion where the majority of participants cast !votes that were at variance with policies and guidelines. Such disputes often end up at DRV, because the closer either agrees with the majority, but against guidelines, or overrules the majority. Second, this was a dispute about a list of airline destinations. Disputes about lists of airline destinations are usually controversial. Their inclusion in Wikipedia violate various guidelines, but there are editors who are enthusiastic about wanting to include lists of airline destinations, and for those reasons the majority of participants often call for inclusion and argue against normally accepted guidelines. It is difficult for at least a third reason, which is that two editors have been uncivil to each other, but DRV is a content forum, and it is not easy to ignore the conduct, but DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your opinion that they violate policy. There are plenty of other editors, both participating here and at the AfD, who disagree. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and as the most recent AfD shows, the consensus of the last RfC was that a similar list did not violate policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The comment by User:Jclemens is correct. On the one hand, there are sometimes deletion discussions where the majority of participants cast !votes that are at variance with policies and guidelines. On the other hand, I am persuaded that this is a deletion discussion where there is No Consensus on what the guidelines say or should say. In an ideal world, the guidelines would be revised to make it clear that we don't know whether lists of airline destinations are encyclopedic, but in an ideal world, we would have a guideline one way or the other. Lists of airline destinations are like articles about films that are about to be released. Reasonable humans disagree, and disagree unreasonsably. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus because there is no consensus as to what the guidelines are or should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the civil follow up User:Ritchie333. My three points questioning the AfD were:
A) This specific list had seen previous AfDs which should have heightened the bar for thiw latest iteration, but previous AfD conclusions were not mentioned nor taken into account.
B) Consensus from the British Airlines list with wide participation was ignored.
C) Plenty of destinations were properly referenced and the sum of references are proper WP:GNG.
As I was involved in both the vote and previously in improving the list my bias is quite clear. Axisstroke (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved, in this AFD anyway) per OwenX. Policy-based arguments were made based on WP:NLIST which weren't decisively rebutted by the other side. The BA discussion, which bundled unrelated issues related to a specific airline and a specific branch of WP:NOT, says nothing relevant to the specific issues on which this was decided. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. We've had these discussions so many times now that merging is clearly without precedent. The simple fact is that we can't keep up with a commercial flight destination list and shouldn't need to. Therefore violated WP:NOT in various ways. Claiming there is no consensus is at odds with regular practice. The information doesn't need to be kept, the destinations are found on the airline website, we don't need to be a mirror. That's it. That's how we've consistently dealt with these AfDs many many times now. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm given to agreeing that straight-forward deletion is probably the correct thing to do with what are ultimately list of commercial services, and that the outcome of the BA discussion owed a lot to the bizarre bundling of different issues by the nom in that discussion, as well as their attempted withdrawal that gave a lot of people the impression that the discussion had ended. However, this is DELREV and we're supposed to review the close, not re-litigate the discussion. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I am relitigating. The point is that those who dismissed Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the discussion (which are !merge and !keep votes) are not taking account of consensus and many AfD results. There's no point in counting or weighing these as valid !votes.
    Any other solution gives us the ridiculous situation that this specific airline has had the information kept via a merge when many other airlines in exactly the same situation at AfD have been deleted and not merged. JMWt (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "many other airlines in exactly the same situation at AfD have been deleted and not merged". Indeed, in excess of 200 of them. I know, because I nominated most of them. Unfortunately Sunnya's bizarre and misguided RFC back in January - which was anyway targeted primarily at lists of airport routes, not airline destinations - has made a complete mess of this field. FOARP (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The logical fallacy there is that there are articles which could and should have been deleted in that list and ones that probably should not have, based on what can be sourced. There's no reason this information isn't encyclopedic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense. In what sense is this information encyclopedic? It's like saying that the parts of town that the local Dominos pizza will deliver to is encyclopedic. JMWt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a completely incorrect analogy. Destinations that were served by air transport providers have a long history of being reference information - I recently even saw volumes of books in a bookstore listing different air mail routes from maybe 100 years ago now. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Books of stats/catalogues, something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. But we’re going OT. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to “no consensus”. That was not a consensus to merge. It is not workable to call a WP:Rough consensus of “merge”. “Merge” is the start of a process requiring consensus that is subject to change. An AfD close cannot create a future consensus to merge. If the discussion needs to be stopped before an actual consensus has arisen, it can be closed as “no consensus” defaulting to “keep”, or “redirect with the option to merge material from the history”, which defaults to “redirect”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But consider Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 14#Masini Situ-Kumbanga, where I was criticised for closing a similar AfD as "no consensus" when people wanted a merge / redirect. These two deletion reviews seems to directly contradict each other. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, you could try avoiding difficult cases. No, don’t do that.
    my advice is for closers to avoid the word “merge”. AfD is not for merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd be criticized either way. As I said, this was bound to come to DRV regardless of how you closed it. Listening to criticism is good, but don't take it as proof you made a mistake. The variety of opinions here tells us this AfD was anything but straightforward. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been involved with both, I think they are two entirely different AfDs. The one from 14 March was problematic because a majority of people didn't want the article to be a stand-alone page. This one was problematic because keeps and merges were split evenly, and those saying the keeps don't hold water here are also the ones who don't think this material is encyclopedic when it is. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    those saying the keeps don't hold water here are also the ones who don't think this material is encyclopedic when it is - please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. I have no opinion whatsoever about whether the content is encyclopedic. I am here to voice my opinion about whether the AfD close reflected P&G-based consensus or not. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an aspersion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read further, it is very unsatisfying, but, per Stifle. No consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a single !vote to redirect, closing it as such would be seen as a supervote. I know you're not a fan of closing AfDs as Merge, but our current policy clearly lists it as a viable option. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator’s proposal was to delete. There was no consensus to delete, even consensus to not delete. After the nominator, no one !voted for deletion or simple redirection. User:TurboSuperA+‘s !vote is invalid due to self-contradiction. You are right, closing as “redirect” would not be defensible. “No consensus” was the result.
    A proposal to merge scan be started on the talk page. Go to WP:PM, proposed merges are not in scope for WP:AfD, even if sometimes a consensus for something out of scope can arise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Like OwenX, I do not see the (first two) Keeps as grounded in our policies and guidelines. The close of "merge" does preserve the information. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closers are allowed to ignore or downweight non-policy-based !votes, and so a merge is the correct assessment of the consensus here even if, like @JMWt, I think the proper outcome would have been deletion. Merges are listed as common AfD outcomes in the second sentence of WP:AfD and are recommended multiple times elsewhere on that page as well as on the deletion policy itself, so I do not see how that's a problem. JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was a not a consensus for the article to stop being live and not enough (any) discussion of what the content intended for merger would do in the suggested target article. A list bigger than the article sitting there collapsed Yo Dawg style as is currently the case? That's against MOS:DONTHIDE. So what should the merger actually be? It's an absolute mystery. Now the list needs to be spun out. Or removed. It's too late for a zero-byte merger, which is like an AfD "redirect". And there was no consensus to remove the content from Wikipedia. Nothing makes sense. AfD is so terrible for merging. "Merge" is not a compromise outcome and the workings of AfD strongly bias participants and closers into treating it as a workable middle-of-the-road resolution to an eligibility dispute. I agree with SmokeyJoe.—Alalch E. 21:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC Basically per Stile and Alalch E. To be more detailed--the first two !votes do a fine job of countering the nomination statement. If you are going to throw those out (as some here want to do) you also have to throw out the nomination. But yeah, we have no consensus on how to handle this--even among senior editors. The latest RfC seems to eliminate NOT as an argument and sourcing is debated (and frankly, debated poorly) in the AfD. Arguments that some list elements don't have sources that meet WP:N's requirements really aren't a deletion argument, we only need to meet WP:V for the elements of the article--there just has to be enough coverage overall to meet WP:N. If someone in the future wants to delete this, they should have an argument based on sources (or the lack thereof). Hobit (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment′ These articles are problematic on so many levels but I have to be honest that they are genuinely useful and generally accurate. I currently work at Heathrow and have worked in airports across Europe and the Middle East too. There is a frequent need to verify what airlines fly where or what routes are available from what places and, astonishingly, this information is only easily found on Wikipedia. That should be sufficient but as we often see now there is insufficient participation at AFD or RFCs to overcome entrenched views of editors engaged in the area. That often leaves us hamstrung as we are here. I don't have a strong opinion to be fair as I use the lists regularly but I don't believe that they are properly compliant with site policy and content guidelines. So I'm a strong meh Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time I've had it pointed out that these lists are useful, and I'm sure that they are even if that is not a reason to keep under policy. I'm surprised they haven't just moved off-Wikipedia on to "Wiki routes" or something similar TBH where they can make and maintain these lists in peace TBH. I'd be happy to undelete all the ~200 lists that have been deleted so far to facilitate this if anyone wants to set it up. FOARP (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki travel guides don't want them, because they're not travel guide-related information, even though one of the main claims that these are "not encyclopedic" is WP:NOTTRAVEL. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's also edited Wikivoyage, it definitely isn't something for Wikivoyage. —Alalch E. 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1271841323"