Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

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


Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  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); or
  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 WP:REFUND instead.

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


Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2019 June 14}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 June 14}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 June 14|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

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

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion[edit]

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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

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

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

Active discussions[edit]

14 June 2019[edit]

13 June 2019[edit]

Catherine S. Snodgrass[edit]

Catherine S. Snodgrass (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

please refer to notable major news articles:,> SnodMJMO1234! (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • neither of those are about the subject, the first doesn't even list her name. -- (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of ACM-W Celebrations (closed)[edit]

File:Montmartre_pitchal.jpg (closed)[edit]

10 June 2019[edit]

Ruth Koleva[edit]

Ruth Koleva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello. In my opinion this article should be brought back, because it was wrongfully deleted for lack of notability. She is a notable musician in Bulgaria. The nominator and the delete supporters haven't looked up for local sources. If you search for her name in Bulgarian (Рут Колева), multiple links for interviews, TV appearances and etc. can be seen. The other argument in the deletion discussion was the lack of notability and reliable sources for her awards, which I tried to add prior to the deletion. Most of them are BG Radio Awards, considered a high achievement and the only nationally televised pop music award show in the country. Thank you. Quickfingers (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, could you provide the best three or four sources for her that help to meet WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation I'm not convinced all of the sources presented above pass WP:GNG, but some of them do, and - Bulgaria's national radio - has article coverage of her dating back to 2011. While I'm not entirely convinced, this has more to do with my inability to read Bulgarian than anything else, combined with my understanding of how Balkan-area sources can be reviewed at AfD. Whether this gets restored or restored to draft space I have no opinion on. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • New sources appear to be enough to meet WP:N. Actually, old sources seem good enough honestly. But yeah, allow recreation. Might still be sent back to AfD. Hobit (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Clear deletion result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Koleva(Singer) reviewing similar sources.
Quickfingers was asked for the best three or four sources, and failed. See WP:THREE. Not six.
Sources are all, or mostly, Russian. Where is the article on the Russian wikipedia? Maybe I got the language wrong? I know foreign sources are OK, but a foreign single, deleted at AfD, with no article on native language Wikipedia for source, that is a big negative flag.
Do not allow recreation unless without unambiguous presentation of WP:THREE (not six) quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: It's clearly noted she's Bulgarian in the DRV statement. You're looking for [1]. Also, I know it's not the only reason you weren't convinced, but I don't think it's fair to chide someone for providing six sources in good faith even if only asked for three or four. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah sorry. I think was I was grumpy. bg:Рут Колева. I’ll look again later. And yes, it’s not fair to chide the individual for the common problem that newcomers thing more sources is better. Offering more sources just makes it harder for reviewers. Two good sources are enough. If the best three are not, no number of additional weaker sources will make the difference. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It's tedious to review six foreign language sources using google translate. Please, WP:THREE, not more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Leave deleted. If you want to try, I encourage a userspace or draftspace draft that must go through AfC before returning to mainspace. The sources look borderline. bg:Рут Колева reads like a CV, and would likely be deleted here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The sources look too promotional, and look non-independent of the subject, and so do not attest WP:Notability. There may be independent third party coverage that can be found, it does not have to be comprehensive coverage, but it must be someone independent, from a distance, writing something, multiple sentences, qualitative about the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Bulgarian National Radio and Television, state-funded outlets and the two most watched private TV networks in the country, bTV and Nova TV are not credible? I only linked Actualno, because the better source is locked behind a registation wall. The Jazz.FM article is just a review of her album. Quickfingers (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"Credible" is not the test. The more likely the point of failure is that the source is "promotional", or more specifically, not independent of the subject or her agent. I suggest that you write a draft stub using the three best sources that qualify for the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Is the filer requesting to overturn the deletion, or to resubmit in draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse if the issue is whether to overturn or sustain. The Delete conclusion was a valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

9 June 2019[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The votes before relist were:

  • Subst and delete
  • Delete after replacement
  • Keep until replacement
  • SPEEDY CLOSE ("is a wrapper since creation" and the IP proposed it itself for substitution)

It was closed as delete [2].

Later a DRV was started (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#2019 February 22), the nominator claimed he found new information and requested re-opening (=relist). In the DRV one user asked what that new information would be, but got no answer. Another endorsed the deletion. And some others supported relist. It was closed as relist, even if the proof for validity of the DRV has not been presented.

It was relisted: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April_6#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality. After relisting only one extra vote was made, which semi-voted keep referring to the DRV (In light of the DRV discussion, I think it's clear this template should be kept), but contrary to that claim, in the DRV no user voted keep. No more comments were made so the votes stood at 3(4):1. Surprisingly the closing was done as "no consensus". To me it seems the result would be "Replace (subst:) and (then) delete". Of course replacement should be done with care. But calling template data from {{infobox settlement}} has been done before, e.g. Amsterdam calls Dutch municipality templates (Category:Netherlands data templates). Pppery mentioned the example of Belgium in his DRV deletion endorse: "Endorse there is nothing that needs changing here; there is clearly consensus to not use a wrapper infobox, and it seems like there is consensus to continue to use the data subtemplates. Those two outcomes are not incompatible, as data subtemplates can be passed directly to the infobox, see Template:Metadata Population BE for an example.". This would also address the concerns in the pre-relist comment by Apalsola: "However, I still think that the information should not be stored directly on the page.". TerraCyprus (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Zackmann08, Pppery, Pigsonthewing, Apalsola, Pudeo, and Uanfala: - pinging participants of the first discussion and the discussion after relist. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Today I separated all data from the infobox, the replacement could now be done similar to how data is handled for the municipalities in the Netherlands. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to replace and delete due to the complete lack of any argument against the "pass data from templates as parameters to {{Infobox settlement}}" approach that I talked about in the first DRV, even among those who argue the template should be kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Close as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. In the first DRV, I said, Templates are a highly technical area ... I can't see how it hurts to let the people who actually understand the technology talk about it for another week. Apparently, there wasn't much interest in talking about it at WP:TfD. That's unfortunate, but the bottom line is 1) You can't keep coming back to DRV until you get the result you want, and 2) As I said before, this is largely a technical decision which requires specialized knowledge of how templates are used and constructed. If TfD is unable to come to agreement, it's not reasonable to expect that DRV, which is made up of people who are (for the most part) not template experts, can do a better job. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    RoySmith : FUD. WP:DRVPURPOSE: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;" - that is what happened. One bogus oppose vote, nothing more, still "no consensus". (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • TerraCyprus I think it would be more productive to spend 7 days on a new Tfd (as I mentioned you could do so on my talk page), likely getting a consensus for subst and delete, rather than spending 7 days at DRV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Galobtter it would have been more productive if you would not have messed it up in the first place or at least would have changed after TerraCyprus contacted you. The vote was clear, only one opposer, still you decided to call it "no consensus". (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There does seem to be a consensus to get rid of the template and replace it with something else, but no particular consensus on what that something should be. In particular I don't see a consensus for substing and deleting it afterwards. The OP seems to have counted everybody who wanted to replace the template as supporting the subst outcome, but I don't see that in the discussion. Hut 8.5 21:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The initial vote was clearly for subst/replace. The first DRV may or may not have met the criteria of WP:DRVPURPOSE (Pigsonthewing asked for details but got no response) but resulted in relist. In the discussion after the relist no-one explained why subst/replace should not be implemented. Technical details of the subst/replace had to be solved before implementation, but that is up to the implementers of the outcome subst/delete and that didn't seem to be too complicated. TerraCyprus even has proven that outsourcing the data into pure data-storage templates is possible. That means the initial vote has to be respected. Replacement through Subst:itution should be done, followed by deletion. (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Indigo (Chris Brown album)[edit]

Indigo (Chris Brown album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was moved into draftspace (to Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album)) and the mainspace page fully protected a day ago by JJMC89, which was excessive and unnecessary. As I said at the draft talk page: The article is well sourced by news sources, has a release date, cover and track list. It clearly meets WP:NALBUMS with flying colours. Anyone can see that. The article has grown since it was nominated for deletion in early May (when most users commented), more details have been revealed and sources added. This should not have been drafted again when it has been expanded and improved and not in the same quality it was in when it was decided to draftify it, and I do not think JJMC89 was justified in moving this back into draftspace a day ago when it was still being worked on by a number of users.

There are plenty of news sources out there on this. There is just a sample of these on the article. We are keeping an album in draftspace for something that will be released in under three weeks that plenty of users will be searching for, there is lots of confirmation and coverage on. I in no way agree that it was a good decision to move back into draftspace. Ss112 01:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Regardless of the merits of the move the indefinite creation protection is definitely a bad idea. The album hasn't been released yet but an album by a musician this well known will certainly be notable when released, which will happen in a few weeks. The AfD commenters generally agreed with this and the AfD certainly can't be used to prevent creation of the article indefinitely. Hut 8.5 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    I only intend it to be temporary but chose indefinite to avoid having to cleanup the history again when someone would recreate it on expiration instead of moving the draft. I've already done history merges/splits on this twice within a week. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I suggest we just move the draft to mainspace then. By the time this discussion closes it'll be less than two weeks until the album is released, at which point it will be notable. The Delete comments in the AfD are no longer valid or will be no longer valid very soon, most of them relate to the fact that the existence of the album or the release date hadn't been confirmed, that doesn't appear to be the case any more. I don't see much point in spending effort quibbling about notability just to block the creation of the article for the next week or two and prevent history merges. Hut 8.5 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Since nothing had been added since the AfD close at the time of my move and protection that impacts notability, Ss112 seems to be arguing that the original AfD was flawed and/or closed incorrectly as notability would then have been established before the discussion was closed. Release dates, covers, and track lists don't contribute to notability (or any other criteria for having an article), so why keep repeating it, Ss112? — JJMC89(T·C) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @JJMC89: Per WP:FUTUREALBUM. There is enough notability. I have said that as well. I kept repeating that there is now a confirmed title, track list and cover because some of the users who originally commented didn't think there was enough confirmation of any of those details. You are just delaying the inevitable by continuing to refuse this. Ss112 05:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's inevitable that the album will be notable once released. I suggest people get on with creating and expanding the article rather than arguing over process for process' sake. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

6 June 2019[edit]

Outline of natural language processing[edit]

Outline of natural language processing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nominator and delete supporters appeared to lack an understanding of what an outline is. I have not seen the page, so I do not know what is on it, but I ask you, how can a list of links violate WP:NOR? Outlines are helpful resources that may aid readers and editors to find articles in specific and sometimes broad topic areas. I ask that the AfD decision be overturned and, if necessary, the page moved to Draftspace, so that it may be reviewed. Regards, GUYWAN ( t · c ) 20:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment from closer: "so that it may be reviewed"? What do you call a 7 day AfD debate if not a close review of the article? --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Another question: I'm puzzled. As far as I can see, you never edited this article, nor did you participate in the AfD. What prompted you to take this to DRV 6 weeks after it was deleted (and without discussing it first with me, I might add)? --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never seen the page, I have no idea what's going on here either, but I agree with the nominator. A list of Wikipedia articles organised as an outline for navigational purposes cannot be WP:OR. It's possible this outline should have been deleted on other grounds, but are we really going to require an outside source to show that a Wikipedia article is on a specific topic? SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn The close adequately judged consensus, but there's no way that's WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 16:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I've tempundeleted this. I'm frankly befuddled by the discussion. One of the recurring themes in the comments is that this is WP:OR. I don't see that at all. It's largely a curated collection of links, with some text to give it background. How is that OR? There's another comment, Delete as a shadow article. I don't even know what that means. Another commenter called it link-spamming. That's a term I reserve to SEO. Surely nobobody's claiming this is some attempt to drive NLP traffic to some external site? Yet another person said, This is not a subject that has been independently the object ... of outside sources. Huh? Natural language processing is one of the major topics of research in computer science. How somebody can say it's not the object of outside sources is truly mind-boggling.
Most of this appears to be part of a larger war against outlines and portals in general. The most cogent remark in the entire discussion was, all outline of pages are contentless link collections that duplicate the topic. Link farms are so 1995. That may, in fact, be true. We have better technology today to navigate large bodies of information (and, ironically enough, Natural language processing is one of them). But, if you're going to argue that outlines are obsolete, make that argument in an RFC to ban all outlines. I doubt that RFC will get any traction, however. We've got lists, categories, portals, outlines, DAB pages, and probably a few other navigation tools I can't recall offhand. Many of those overlap in functionality, and I personally think several of them are obsolete. But, current consensus is that they're all useful in their own way. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
PS, to be fair to the closer, Overturn usually means, The closer made an error, but in this case, what it really means is, The whole discussion was off in the weeds. I can't really blame the closer for doing the best he could with what he had to work with. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I've thought long and hard about whether I wish to disagree with Sporting and Roy, both of whom I respect. I especially thought hard given that this deletion seems at least partly driven by the frustration editors at the time were experiencing with Transhumanist at the time, which while understandable manifested in some less than great ways. However, I just can't find a PAG basis for overturning a clear AfD consensus. The existence of outlines, at least as I track it at WP:OUTLINES seems to have no explicit community support behind its creation or existence, unlike Portals which is a namespace and had a well discussed RfC reaffirming its existence in 2018. There are no real criteria, let alone community endorsed criteria, that I can find which define what is and isn't appropriate to have in outline form. Discussions handwave towards lists at points so perhaps it's some version of LISTN? If so my personal opinion would have been that this outline demonstrates notability as the topic is discussed as a set with some regularity. However, I didn't show up to that AfD and cast a !vote. And at least a couple of !voters did address the concept of notability rather than just merely comment on the fact that it's unreferenced. Our encyclopedia would be worse off without outlines, and unlike Portals they do seem to get real traffic (e.g. 18k+ views for Outline of India & 8k+ for Outline of human anatomy) so we shouldn't make a practice of deleting them all but I think some !voters applied criteria, such as they poorly are, and the closer fairly judged that consensus and implemented it. The person filing this appeal (who really should have discussed with closing sysop first) suggests that no one understood the purpose of what outlines were. This seem clearly true but says more about our lack of agreement about what they should be, not a failure on the !voters part to apply PAG or the closer to discern consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a bunch of history on the topic of outlines, and it appears as if this could be the next great deletion debate following the whole portals debacle, but it's not as if this is a project without any explicit community support. Here's a RfC from 2011 which ended in no consensus, but ended in a consensus for defining what an outline is in the alternative proposal: [3]. Also see [4]. And I understand nominating the outline after the deletion discussion here, but an outline's notability doesn't have anything to do with its Wikiproject's viability. Perhaps we are at a point where we need to look closely at outlines, but consensus has been for years outline articles don't invalidate WP:OR, even if the consensus has been made through custom. I'd be willing to listen to an argument this specific outline article violates WP:OR, but it was not clearly made in the deletion discussion, and it's not obvious on its face. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks I looked through OUTLINES archive and if that RfC was posted there I'd missed it. It's a shame that criteria was never clearly incorporated into OUTLINE. Indeed while there are sections of what Outlines are and aren't those sections' information doesn't correspond as well as I'd like to the RfC. While the RfC was closed as no consensus for closing down OUTLINES I'd suggest consensus was probably closer to against that and thus an endorsement of their existence. As such we now have substantial new information, which would justify a DRV in the first place, and more weight needs to be given to SmC and Transhuman's keep !votes and much less (or perhaps no) weight given to the OR delete !votes (including the nomination). This lands us in either No Consensus or Keep territory and as such I'm convinced to Overturn with no prejudice to renomination now that we all know what we should be discussing. Alternatively a well publicized RfC could establish consensus behind eliminating outline articles as a type of Wikipedia article but that's beyond the scope of a single AfD/DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn I'm glad this DRV nomination has been made and I think in this case to properly review the AFD discussion required the article itself to also be reviewed. Until I saw the undeleted article I was utterly bemused by the AFD. I have found it very hard to spot any policy-based or guideline-based argument for deletion or even a coherent justification for deletion outside our guidelines. And, unfortunately, some of the contributors have not even tried to hide their antipathy towards the creator of this article. The only aspect of WP:OR that might be relevant is WP:SYNTH but I can't see what conclusion is being reached improperly. I certainly think it can reasonably be argued that the article is sadly deficient in references (and sometimes lack of references can mislead reviewers into thinking there has been "original research"). "Random", "spam", "shadow", "functional gradient", "unruly listing". The arguments look so poor to me they should have been disregarded. There was one good keep argument so that could have carried the day or the thing could have been relisted with advice that participants should advance relevant arguments. Thincat (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse the close as an accurate rough consensus call for the discussion. Note that participants are not constrained to argue standard policy rationales, most deletion guidelines and policies are mere predictors of what AfD will do. The authority to delete comes from the consensus of the participants. That said, the consensus was only “rough”, there being opposition, and here the nominator of this DRV raises significant new argument, so Support resisting the AfD, and recommend better advertising of the AfD, WP:CENT for sure. WP:Outlines are similar to Portals, and a better participated discussion is highly desirable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Resistance is futile! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn the arguments offered for deletion are either explicitly arguments against outlines in general or arguments which would lead to the deletion of basically every outline on Wikipedia if adopted. There does seem to be a general consensus that outlines are OK, at least some of the time, so these arguments ought to be downweighted per WP:LOCALCON. As with RoySmith above I can't really blame the closer here, the problem is that the entire discussion is misguided. Hut 8.5 16:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn with optional relist. At thevery least, thereiwas no consensus to delete, and if the delte arguments were to be accepted as even relevant, the appropriate close would have been No Consensus. But they were not relevant. This was an Outline of a subject, a special type of WP artic;le intended for purposes of overview and navigation. The requirement for having one is that hte topic by so complex that such an outline is needed, and that we have sufficient articles that an outline is possible. The concept need not meet GNG any more than othr navigational devices meet GNG: what needs to meet notability are the individual linked articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn without prejudice to a new nomination that is based on matters relevant to the specific outline and without any of the completely unnecessary ad hominems. I could have seen a no consensus closure, or a keep closure but I disagree that there was a consensus to delete this outline. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

5 June 2019[edit]

4 June 2019[edit]

3 June 2019[edit]

1 June 2019[edit]

31 May 2019[edit]


Archives, by year and month
Year 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