Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion Review)
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 May 23}}</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 May 23}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 May 23|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]

23 May 2019[edit]

22 May 2019[edit]

Shuchir Suri[edit]

Shuchir Suri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Article Shuchir Suri was neutral and completely based on the reliable sources which are fair enough as per Wikipedia Policy. There was no promotional word in Article and also there was a Criticism Section added which shows that the Article was completely neutral, not promotional Article. Being an experienced Wikipedian, I also don't understand why this article was deleted. By respecting Wikipedia Policy, I strongly believe that each and every detail should be checked before deleting an article as many editors have worked for each article. some time reviewer also makes the mistakes. (( My best understanding of what Radadiyageet attempted to raise at 16:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) ... Please note I am instating a DRV raised by Radadiyageet incorrectly on this page (see history) and cleared by a BOT Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Requesting temp undelete. If Radadiyageet wishes at this point that this DRV should not continue I am most happy also to go with that decision at this point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - This appeal doesn't state a reason based on purpose of DRV, because it appears to be an effort to re-argue the original merits of the article, rather than any error on the part of the closer. However, if the filer is claiming an error by the closer, either Delete or No Consensus would have been valid closes, so the Delete can be sustained. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse a correct reading of the discussion. I'm not even sure no consensus is a viable outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse (Please note I assume I am the filer). My minor grumblings would be I dont have a temp undelete and the closer did not give an explanation). I note Radadiyageet has been active but has neither supported nor withdrawn this filing. I observe there appeared to be no attempt to discuss the outcome with the closer before rather a message to closer indicating a DRV had been raised and an attempt to do the same. I tend to agree broadly with RCs' reasoning of the closer action above. I also noted when partaking of a notification to those involved in the AfD there had been canvasing for the keep !vote in the final round. I cannot comment on this example in particular but on glance of scans of Radadiyageet's other works I have concerns about failure to understand WP:RS in particular interviews and press releases; this is particularly important if relying on non English language sources and particularly non Latin alphabet sources where trans-title and language parameters are not being utilitised; and a failure to clearly present the WP:THREE best sources by the AfD defendants. I also note concerns about arguably possible WP:COI and promotionalism within other articles but I cannot viewpoint this here due to no temp undelete. Given unsurprising overwhelming endorsement so far and lack of participation by Radadiyageet I withdraw my call for a temp undelete. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I apologise for hijacking this discussion, but since we're in grumbling mode, I'd like to grumble about the quality of the AfD discussion. It was relisted with the comment, "This needs a more detailed discussion of the sources to see if any of them satisfies WP:GNG". What that means is the relisting admin looked at the existing discussion and decided there wasn't enough there to make a valid close. He left explicit instructions for what kind of future discussions would make it possible for the next admin to come along to do a better job. Sadly, that didn't happen. We got three almost meaningless comments. All of which failed to discuss the sources, as requested in the relist.

    So, for people who participate in these discussions, the strongest argument (on either side) you can make is to list some sources, and go through each one explaining how it supports or doesn't support WP:N. Now you have the secret to winning AfDs. Go forth and argue with strength. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Could we get a temp undelete please? Based purely on the discussion and not looking at the article, this should have been an NC outcome IMO. The arguments for keeping and deletion were both poor and there wasn't a clear numeric consensus either. So unless the sources were clearly great or horrible, this really should have been an NC outcome. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse, and neither relist was necessary. Sourcing is not not not the only valid reason to delete an article; being irreparably promotional - which this was, despite the "Criticism" section which was really a coatrack for PR damage control - is another, even if it's not quite horrible enough for an administrator to speedy G11 on sight. —Cryptic 15:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Irvoas (closed)[edit]

20 May 2019[edit]

K2 Intelligence[edit]

K2 Intelligence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

hi, found this after reading a lot of pages. So, this page was speedy deleted G-11 something that says promotion which leads to the tone of content. I believe I carefully checked the tone and tried to cover all the instructions in the guidelines but it was deleted. If there were problem areas it was better if the page was edited or allowed me to clean up the problem areas. I believe the subject is notable and willing to edit the promotional factor if any but I am unable too find the page. The person who placed a speedy delete seems like a person who is software engineer and may not have a close look at the references. Please guide thanks Sandy Fluffy (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I haven't seen the original, but this appeal is difficult to read, and it appears that the author is having difficulty with English. I would advise the author to request assistance at the Teahouse in editing a draft in draft space rather than pursue this here. Have you tried discussing with either the tagging New Page Patrol reviewer, User:creffett, or the deleting administrator, User:Justlettersandnumbers? It appears that this page was originally nominated as G11 and A7, and was deleted as G11 and G12, copyright violation, so it seems unlikely that the page will be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like a pretty marginal case for G11 to me, and the G12 URL seems to point to the wrong place (I'm not seeing any duplication of that news article). The lead section seems to be at least partially copied from their about page, but I'm not sure about the rest of the page, and if not all of the substantial content is copyrighted it isn't G12 eligible either. I'm reserving judgement on whether it meets the criteria for inclusion, but it might be better to have draftified or listed it at AfD. Alpha3031 (tc) 04:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The only thing lifted from that article is the second 2013 entry, about Thacher. On the other hand, several of the other referenced timeline entries (the other 2013, the 2015, the second 2016, the first 2018) are also lifted verbatim from their references, and much of the lede is taken from K2's site. —Cryptic 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Close as failing sniff test. The appeal above and the text of the deleted article, while ostensibly from the same account, are clearly not written by the same person. Sentence structure, diction, and grammar show radically differing mastery of English. I'm not sure what's going on, but it's obvious we're being played. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I am unable to understand a few things said above. If there were issues it hardly takes a minute for someone to correct it and I believe that is the reason why we are here. I can resubmit the page for an expert to check and guide me where I can improve the text. How to get that page back?? Also, 2 people above made fun of my English, its sad that people in the world's largest community are making fun of someone's weakness. I got that proofreaded from someone and then finalized. And I think you read an article then take out something from it that needs to written and cited. Sandy Fluffy (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - First, User:Sandy Fluffy - I am not making fun of your English, but only advising you that because you are having difficulty with it you should ask for help. If you think that is being made fun of, then that further makes me think that, second, a competency block is in order, or, third, we may have a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Robert McClenon that's what I am asking, I am asking for help. Yes you said get assistance but no one provided that and took further the English thing. You mentioned above that you haven't seen the original, I have the text should I post it for you to review? I didn't mean to offend you at all. I was trying to reach out to a person but I saw that he is busy in deleting pages and hardly able to give a positive reply to anyone, so if a more experienced user like you can help me please do. Consider me as your student. Should I put the original page back on or is there any system of retrieving the old page? Sandy Fluffy (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

16 May 2019[edit]

Draft:Fellowship_of_Friends (closed)[edit]

Badnam Song (closed)[edit]

Kelly Meighen (closed)[edit]

Recent discussions[edit]

15 May 2019[edit]

14 May 2019[edit]

11 May 2019[edit]

10 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