Wikipedia:Deletion review

Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive · (purge cache)

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of perennial requests.

[edit] What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

[edit] Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

The latter two may be requested here. Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

[edit] History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'

For these uncontroversially deleted articles, you can make a quick request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

[edit] How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request:

1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?.
2. please 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.

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• 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.

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.

[edit] Temporary undeletion

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

[edit] 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 process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. 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. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

[edit] 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.

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

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

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 10 February 2012

[edit] 9 February 2012

[edit] Martin Musatov (closed)

[edit] 8 February 2012

[edit] Taiwanese archipelago

Taiwanese archipelago (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Votes and comments after the article was significant expanded (i.e. from 01:00, 27 January onwards) show a slight inclination towards keeping the article. Further, most of the votes and comments were cast/left before the article was renamed, and some supported the deletion only because the article was improperly titled. The AfD should be relisted/extended, with the article restored for the time being. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Relist I don't think the closer is at fault here, as that AFD is a total mess. Leaving out the IP votes as obvious wp:Meatpuppets there is a large numerical majority for delete/redirect. However, all of the delete votes rest on the basis that Taiwan island group is original research as it is not used in reliable sources. Searching for Taiwanese Archipelago I immediately found two reliable sources discussing the islands ( [1][2]) and a few more mentioning the term. It is still quite meagre, but it is clear that there are reliable sources making a distinction between the geographical Taiwan archipelago and List of islands of the Republic of China, so this needs more discussion. Yoenit (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the talk page has to be temporarily restored too, since it contains the move request discussion. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse as nom. Of the 10 votes that did not support outright deletion, 6 were IP voters who did not provide a detailed rationale. Of the remaining 4:

• Two (Huayu-Huayu, Deryck C.) said that the archipelago / island group exists as a notable concept.
• One (Dmcq) suggested merger because they think it is an identifiable topic, just lacking in sources.
• One (Peterkingiron) suggested merger as he considers the scope of the article to be the same as that of List of islands of the Republic of China because recent discussions suggest that ROC's common name is Taiwan.

In the last case, the vote does not amount to an endorsement of the article—which makes a distinction between the islands controlled by the ROC, and the islands in the Taiwanese archipelago. Aside from that one, the question of whether the keep votes were valid thus rests on whether reliable sources talk about a Taiwanese archipelago. The list of references in the deleted article and searching on Google both suggest that while there are a few, there is almost no direct discussion in sources dedicated to geography, and the number of sources is very low for what one would expect to be a more major concept. Therefore, my assertion is that there are not enough sources to support the existence of such a concept, and the deletion should be endorsed.

I should note that some editors may consider the dispute political in nature, and I would concede that had I not been Taiwanese, I might have stayed out of such a contentious issue. However, even disregarding my own political views, I still don't think the subject is recognised in reliable sources beyond unintentional mentions and fringe views, to the extent that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As the existence of the concept is not well supported by sources, we run the risk of creating or publicising a fringe geographical entity should the article be kept. wctaiwan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The first source put forward by Yoenit clearly demonstrates that the term excludes Quemoy, Wuchiu and Matsu from Taiwanese archipelago. I suppose this fact has to be emphasised and observed in the AfD discussion. Taiwanese archipelago doesn't include all the landmasses of the contemporary ROC. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: both the DRV nominator (218.250.159.25) and the article creater (Huayu-Huayu) are sock puppets of different sock masters. Neither has standing to start a DRV or have their thought counted in an AfD. There isn't any reason to continue this discussion unless Deryck wants it and I think that's unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• What a mess. Its pretty clear that the AFD was severely tainted by meat and sockpuppetry. The outcome in such cases depends on how the closing admin chooses to weight votes and whether ip commentry is discarded - which the closing admin is entitled to do. Its impossible to decide whether the closing admin properly weighted the votes in such circumstances without a proper closing rationale but from my own reading of the discussion I wouldn't find fault with the closure based on ignoring the non-policy votes, discarding assertions and discounting ip votes. But worse, the article discussed was Taiwan Island Group but the page was moved to Taiwan Archipelego during the discussion, which is surely a different subject with different referencing possibilities so the discussion is such a mess I can't see that we can rely on the AFD as any assessment of consensus. I suggest we relist the discussion but semi-protect the new discussion to reduce the amount of abusive socking. It might also be worth asking a CU to review the discussion before closing... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have informed the closing admin of this discussion here. wctaiwan (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] TamoGraph Site Survey

TamoGraph Site Survey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted by Fastily; the reason was G11. The article text was factual and, in my understanding, contained no unambiguous advertising. Adequate outside sources were quoted, including Lisa Phifer, a leading networking professional. The article described a software tool by a reputable software company, the products of which are featured in vendor-neutral WLAN books, study guides, training courses (see, for example load://books.google.com/books?id=CBPnytQp7q8C&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=cwna+tamosoft&source=bl&ots=&sig=u1hhN_JB5L3l45N6INmrwLFPBfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mHcyT4O8LZTb4QT_yMmsBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and magazines. I tried to resolve this issue on the Fastily's talk page, but Fastily simply restated the G11 reason without any explanations. WiFiEngineer (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse. G11 seems to have been appropriate here. WP:NOTADVERTISING states, All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. Half the article touted the survey's features without referencing a single reliable source, while the other half discussed functionality with support from two sources, only one of which is reliable (Blogger is user generated). If you think these issues can be addressed, request that an admin move the deleted text to your user space, so you can work on it before creating the article again. —Eustress ^talk 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per Fastily. I also spent some time checking the deleted article and its sources, and support Fastily's description. If the nom takes up the suggestion of requesting a move to user space, then I suggest that the nom also takes some care to check that the resulting article clearly demonstrates notability per WP:NSOFT, and particularly per WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Permit restoration Oddly , I was the one who marked it for speedy G11 in the first place, But looking it over, I was wrong. The sources are [3]. [4] [5], and I think they are reliable enough and sufficient to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG, that was unexpected and is much appreciated. If it is relisted, I will add more sources. BTW, just found another one that will probably be considered reliable and independent: TamoGraph Site Survey receives the PC Magazine/RE - Best Software 2010 Award. WiFiEngineer (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Restore Looking at the cached file I had thought the article was not excessively promotional and would have probably got a keep from me at AfD even if others had thought otherwise. However, I also saw DGG had originally flagged it and I know his knowledge of sources is better than mine (and, frankly, he is more thorough). So, I am here to make up numbers and say the speedy should be overturned. Thincat (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Abdolreza Razmjoo

Abdolreza Razmjoo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please re-check the sources new I think delete this is not right deleting admin Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkoh (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)

• Endorse - The AFD looks like a straightforward close, and the discussion on the closer's talk page confirmed the decision. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse There was clear consensus to delete the article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question - Can you show us (or at least quote) some of the new material from Chelcheragh and Nezafati's book that you tried to cite?   — C M B J   13:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  You can look there, how the article looked before deletion. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  There appears to have been more added to the article since Google cached it; a live mirror can still be found here. I'm particularly interested in 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998, ISBN 964-5551-11.' -- these could substantially alter the discussion if they're meaningful enough.   — C M B J   13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Completely agree with you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments on these new sources here.Farhikht (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment As part of the post-AFD discussion, User:Farhikht (a native speaker of Farsi) wrote:

I verified the new sources in the Further reading section. The first one is from Chelcheragh, a tabloid weakly which its primary target group is young higher educated people. I can't verify the depth of coverage but I think that Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles. The second is probably a history of music in Kermanshah, published by a local book publisher and written by a local journalist born in 1976 according to his bio here. The writer claimed in his biography that he is head of the current event service in Kayhan newspaper which do not make him an expert on the topic. So I think that the article still fails WP:MUSIC.
— User:Farhikht 03:48, 31 January 2012

Based on his statement, Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles, I don't believe it should affect the close. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Chelcheragh is described as a reformist periodical that is popular among youth for its articles on culture, art, and sports, and its cartoons and satire by Payvand, and we're more or less relying on conjecture to evaluate Kermanshah Music because no one else has actually seen the book. Farhikht may very well be right on both counts, but I'm still willing to hear Farkoh out if he's able to produce that material for our viewing or otherwise substantiate it.   — C M B J   22:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Endorse as deleting admin. I have tempundeleted the article so that versions can be compared. The one deleted at AfD is here. The article author pointed out on my talk page that he had added references after the two delete !votes were cast; I therefore told the nominator and the two delete !voters about the new refs, and asked whether they would alter their opinions. The additional references they considered included 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998' and user Farhikht (talk), whose user page shows he speaks Farsi, explicitly commented on them here. The other two also said that their opinions were not altered: WikiDan61, Spada2.

The new version Farkoh has produced is here. It actually has fewer references than the one deleted at AfD. The only new one is this, given as a reference for Yar instead of this. I do not think any case has been made to overturn the result of the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 7 February 2012

[edit] File:Supermushroom.png

File:Supermushroom.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The file was deleted and the discussion was closed without giving any reason. When asked, the closing admin gave a reason that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The photo is verifiable and notable, and was sourced as the most prominent example of its class, thus making it not replaceable with a free image with the same encyclopedic purpose; I want to take the image to an RfC to gather wider consensus for its intended use at Power-up, and also reuse it at Mario_(series)#Recurring_gameplay_elements where the Supermushroom is covered. For that I'd need to retrieve the fair use rationale that was in the deleted file page. Diego (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the process to close a FfD, and none of the criteria listed to build a rough consensus was met (no bad faith !votes, no sock puppets, no addressing of policy in the reason for deletion, no copyright violation since there was a fair use rationale). So, given that:

1. There was no consensus for deletion
2. The reason given for the discussion closure was one of personal opinion
3. The discussion was closed without attention to procedure. First the file was deleted without notice, then I asked at the deletion discussion why the file had been deleted (see my comment at the bottom) and asked the administrator to undelete it, and only after that would the administrator a bot close the discussion without giving a deletion summary; he couldn't be bothered to close the discussion himself.

Diego (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For these reasons I think the deletion process was invalid. The administrator has shown muchh less than the needed attention that a contested deletion requires. There's an open administrator noticeboard discussion showing that this behavior is usual for this administrator. Diego (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse – Being a longtime fan of Nintendo myself (full disclosure), the deletion was valid. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. --MuZemike 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability alone doesn't, but having a non-replaceable encyclopedic content does meet the non-free content policy, which was the case here.

In any way, that's irrelevant to this DRV since its purpose is not to reassess the arguments in the discussion but to examine the behavior of the closing admin. What's relevant is that the admin deleted the image without being aware of the discussion that was going on, and that he wouldn't provide a valid reason when asked for it, which is against the spirit if not the letter of the deletion process. Diego (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If he wasn't aware of the discussion, how did he manage to link to it in his deletion summary? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As of today he hasn't given proof that he has actually read it beyond the first sentence. Diego (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Relist - Notability may not override the non-free content policy, but there was insufficient participation in this discussion to substantiate its reading. The deleting administrator's rationale explicitly stated that the uploader failed to make a convincing case, which is tantamount to a supervote because that view was never expressed by anyone other than the nominator.   — C M B J   13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! If it is relisted I will drop a note at WikiProject Video games to get wider feedback. Diego (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (as nominator)—I've noticed at FfD that there is a trend of administrators deleting images at the conclusion of a deletion discussion (with a log entry referencing the discussion)and leaving it to AnomieBOT to close the discussions. When the deletion is uncontroversial or the rationale is straightforward, this is understandable. However, with regards to this deletion discussion (where only two users participated), the administrator should have closed the debate manually with a specific analysis of the arguments brought forth. While this is moot now (because Fastily has now provided a rationale for deletion), I do agree with Diego that Fastily should have manually closed the discussion before deleting the file with the rationale provided. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Being the most prominent example of its class does not make an image non-replaceable. NFCC does not specify that a free replacement must be at the same quality of the non-free image. If the education value can be portrayed by another free equivalent, then this deletion is valid.--v/r - TP 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

First, that's not relevant to this deletion review, which is not about the arguments in the debate but about how it was closed. Second, being notable was not the argument for keep but being used in a non-replaceable encyclopedic way. The article still shows The Super Mario Bros. Super Mushroom has been described as the quintessential power-up (source). Exactly which free image would you put to illustrate that sentence? You may want to think about it if this discussion is relisted. Diego (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:JaxNatlCemeterySite.JPG (closed)

[edit] 6 February 2012

[edit] 5 February 2012

[edit] File:Popcorn deelites.jpg

File:Popcorn deelites.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|restore)

Speedy deleted under CSD F7 as replacable with a free image, which I disputed, as the subject's residence in not a public place, and therefore a free alternative cannot be obtained. — Edokter (talk) — 13:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something the subject's residence claim to offer 2-5 tours daily, can't see that as a bar to getting a replacement image. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You missed something: He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia. — Edokter (talk) — 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well I think you are misreading that, our article and the bio on Old Friends refers to Rich In Dallas residing at Linn Farm, not this horse. The full quote being Another Seabiscuit star, 10-year-old Rich in Dallas, was also retired through the combined efforts of Old Friends, Robbi Meisel of Flashpoint Photography, and The Exceller Fund. He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia and still makes public appearances to raise money for The Exceller Fund.. - even if it's badly worded and really trying stating that Popcorn Deelites is at the Linn Farm it's very clear that and still makes public appearances... which would still mean replacement is quite possible. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • In that case, until someone actually does a picture, no alternative is available. — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And the criteria is not that such a picture exists right now, it's that one can be created, which clearly it can. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
          • That part directly contradicts with the rest of NFC #1, which states that non-free content must be replaced if one of acceptable quality is available. — Edokter (talk) — 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
            • The application of NFC#1 has been quite consistent for years. Your opening to this DRV was clearly meant to be based on the idea that a free alternative couldn't be created, now that's been pointed out to be false, you're trying to simply dispute something which as a long term contributor and admin, you will have encountered many times with the same application, that is disingenuous to say the least. To be clear NFC#1 is part of the EDP as required by the foundation the resolution on this is quite clear An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost