Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 administrator who deleted the page/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 April 25}}</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 April 25}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 April 25|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]

25 April 2019[edit]

24 April 2019[edit]

Template:Use ymd dates[edit]

Template:Use ymd dates (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted on 2011-12-18 even though there was no consensus (2011-12-07 voting: 2 keep, 1 delete), nominated only a couple of months after a prior XfD was closed by the same admin as a "no consensus" (2011-09-08 voting: 7 keep + 2 strong keep = 9 total keep; 4 delete — doesn't seem like "no consensus" to me); deleted again on 2017-01-01 under WP:CSD § G4.

As for the rationale, whilst it may have been true that ISO 8601 dates may have been uncommon in English in 2011, I think it is very common nowadays in 2019, especially in International English and in open-source software-related articles where English is often used as a lingua franca amongst participants from all around the world. Recently (in the last couple of weeks), the Template:Use mdy dates and Template:Use dmy dates templates have started being used by the Template:Cite web et al for formatting the dates used in the references; I think this makes it necessary to have the full collection of acceptable date formats that could be specified for use when dmy or mdy don't cut it. Additionally, just as an example, nowadays, ISO 8601 is the standard way of expressing dates on websites by Government Canada, e.g., see, (Date modified: 2019-04-24), and in news lists like on,… etc. MureninC (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • endorse deletion, the prior discussion was for three templates, including the very commonly used dmy and mdy dates templates, so I don't think you can extrapolate. the follow up discussion on 7 December 2011 had 5 participants, with The Evil IP address/Frietjes !voting to delete, Thumperward saying that the template "is probably actually harmful" which equates to delete in my reading, and Nsaa/ !voting to keep. so, that would be 3 delete + 2 keep, not the count indicated above. finally, and most importantly, MOS:DATE lists what is acceptable in prose. you should probably have that changed first if we are going to start saying that ymd is generally acceptable. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    You mention MOS:DATES is required to be changed first, but it already lists "2007-04-15" as being acceptable. Am I missing something? Also, I don't understand why you equate thumperward comment to a delete vote, when they explicitly didn't vote as such, especially as they wrongly suggest that this format wouldn't be familiar to most readers, which simply isn't the case and conflicts with MOS:DATES today, as ISO 8601 is very common nowadays. Additionally, the original nomination by The Evil IP address mentions that ISO 8601 format is, in fact, acceptable in References, but right now there's no template to enforce this, whereas the other two templates are automatically picked-up to format the citations in references as of a few weeks ago, and I think there must be one for ISO-8601 as well, to allow proper choice and consistency as per MOS:DATES. MureninC (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    MOS:DATE says that there is "No equivalent for general use" and that ymd is only to be used in refs, tables, and infoboxes. which means, it is not acceptable in prose. and, Thumperward doesn't bold votes to encourage the closer to read the comments and not simply count votes. saying that a template "is probably actually harmful" means it should be deleted. if you want a template for enforcing ymd in references, and not in prose, then that would be called {{use ymd dates in references}}. editors may find Template:Use dmy dates#Usage informative where it states the "dmy and mdy templates have almost always been used to indicate date styles in the body of the articles". since ymd is not acceptable for the body of articles, having a non-reference-specific ymd template would be harmful. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • comment: the new support in cs1|2 does allow for ymd publication and access-/archive-dates ({{use xxx dates|cs1-dates=yy}}) but this directive is problematic for the general case where dates in a citation are ranges of any type or have month / season precision (commonly used by journals and magazines). This is why that 'feature' is not documented. cs1|2 does not convert those dates to numeric form because MOS:DATES does not support YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD. In cs1|2, access-/archive-dates are never ranges and are required to have day-precision; publication dates can be any of the accepted date types. Still, because MOS:DATES allows YYYY-MM-DD in citations, cs1|2 will attempt to comply with the |cs1-dates=yy directive. You can also explicitly set |df=ymd-all to do the same thing on an individual cs1|2 template basis (with the same conversion limitations). — Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion, per Frietjes. User scripts for semi-automatic maintenance of dates do indeed call and write {{Use XXX dates}}} templates. Although there is a general tolerance for yymmdddd dates within the reference sections (and their use is independent of the existence or otherwise of those templates), en.wp is not big-endian, and MOSNUM does not approve of the use of yymmdddd dates in the body of articles. There is therefore no reason to use this template anywhere. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it shouldn't have been deleted in 2011 - should have been a no consensus. I haven't familiarised myself much with whether there's a need for this, but I have absolutely no problem with recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

23 April 2019[edit]

Tom Del Beccaro[edit]

Tom Del Beccaro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:BEFORE did not appear to have been conducted. I have found several articles that give the subject significant coverage, including the Sacramento Bee, KNTV hosting an article written by the Associated Press, Mercury News, KFMB-AM, etc. While most of the coverage about the subject revolves around the 2016 United States Senate election in California, that means the subject at least falls under WP:BLP1E, and as such per WP:POLOUTCOMES, should be preserved as a redirect to 2016 United States Senate election in California#Republican Party. Subject also has received some coverage as the CA GOP Chairman, and has written for Forbes, and Fox Business. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I closed the AfD as delete simply because nobody expressed any desire to keep the article and all the arguments looked well reasoned and within policy; I wouldn't judge an argument simply on who made it per se but I've seen E.M.Gregory consistently talk a good argument over numerous AfD nominations, often as "keep", so I'm not surprised to see a "delete" !vote from him gathers consensus. I can't really put it much simpler than that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for User:RightCowLeftCoast about purpose of this DRV. Was this an error by the closer, an error by the nominator (which is not in the scope of DRV), or significant new information? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Allow re-creation in Draft Space if the issue is new information. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse if the issue is an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon:The closure Ritchie333 looks like they followed consensus, which is fine. That said I am presenting new information that was not mentioned in the AfD. Additionally, I have no way of knowing what was in the previous article, to see whether it contains content which shows that the subject is notable beyond BLP1E. And yes, IMHO the nominator made an error.
Apologies in advance, I have not been involved in AfD in quiet some time, so I maybe a bit rusty.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarification - Then my recommendation is to allow re-creation in draft space followed by review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse A lightly attended AfD, but one where the consensus was clear, and I don't see any articles presented here which talk about him significantly outside from his candidacy. Running for office does not entitle you to a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I'm confused about the arguments citing WP:BLP1E and WP:POLOUTCOMES, as both of those argue for deletion. There's no new information presented here; just more routine coverage of the same thing. A google search for Tom Del Beccaro senate yields 46,600 results. Adding a date restriction of 2017 to the present gives 62 results. Nuff said. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse perfectly valid close and I think any attempt a recreation would need to have more than just coverage of the 2016 Senate race. Unelected candidates for office are not usually notable unless they have some other source of notability. In this particular election the candidates from both parties all competed in a single primary and the top two proceeded to the general election, and the subject came fifth, behind two other Republicans. I don't think there's any point in restoring the article to turn it into a redirect to the election given that the subject didn't play a huge role in it and the deleted article barely even mentions the election (it was mostly about the subject's role as the chair of the California Republican Party). Hut 8.5 21:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Persian Medium Fiona (closed)[edit]

22 April 2019[edit]

Gradeup (closed)[edit]

Jayanta Roy[edit]

Jayanta Roy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In 2017 a page on the topic was created by a different user which was deleted after discussion as the artist was not notable according to wikipedia guidline that time. But now the artist is notable and I have recreated the page which is speedy deleted under WP:G4. WP:G4 says clearly "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"...And this recreated page is not substantially identical to the deleted version and the reason for the deletion no longer applies. So WP:G4 deletion doesn't go with this one .This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources (The Asian Age, News18-CNN News, The Deccan Chronicle) that are independent of the subject. So it passes WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV.'O Bandhobi'(a song composed and written by the artist) has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it WP:NALBUM.So, that song itseft passes notability and thats why he has the credit for writing lyrics and music for a notable composition. So, the topic passes WP:COMPOSER. I have been unable to convince the (re)deleter. Thats why here I want review from uninvolved administrators and request undeletion of the recreated page. Davidwarner (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I offered to move the text to Draft space as the new version is so obviously promotional, but the creator was not satisfied with that and continues to insist that it contains no promotional wording. I tried to explain that the references he has included do not demonstrate notability but I don't think he understands. Deb (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Draftify. Technically, this isn't a valid WP:G4, but WP:G11 would be perfectly justified and the nom would have been well advised to accept Deb's offer. Wording like, "brilliant academic career", "huge appreciations", and "massive popularity" are what G11 is made for. I suppose an argument to Overturn G4 and reclose as G11 would be justified, but that would just be a waste of electrons and excessive WP:WIKILAWYERING. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment.@RoySmith I am ready to change those wordings which can be any kind of praising. Thanks. Davidwarner (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The filing editor hasn't addressed the questions that have been raised over the last few months about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Draftify, but only if the issues as to conflict of interest are properly labeled. Articles for Creation should not be used as a device for finding an other parent to approve undisclosed paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Robert McClenon "brilliant academic career", "huge appreciations", and "massive popularity" - use of these words always don't imply conflict of interest. I regularly try to input new articles to wikipedia if I find a new topic notable enough to get into wikipedia. I believe these wording issues or other issues can be solved easily by discussion or by help of admins and other users rather than biting newcomers or random deleting. And the way it was convinced to me by RoySmith I'd like to work on the article so that it doesn't make anyone's promotion.Davidwarner (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Davidwarner - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to be familiar enough with the guideline against biting newcomers to use it as a cudgel in your own defense, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough that you are no longer a newcomer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - That is a very interesting hand wave that fails to answer the question of conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @Robert McClenon Regular bias of language may remain without COI. While writing article, the belief (created from studying different sources ) sometimes leads to unintentional bias. Anyways, keeping aside burdens of reasonings, I am neither involved in any paid editing nor any promotional activity. Davidwarner (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would counsel User:Davidwarner to read through WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would request @Deb to draftify it.Davidwarner (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Okay, done. @Davidwarner Please don't move to article space until independent review has been carried out. Deb (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Are there any new sources? They have been alluded to, but I don’t see any linked. My own searches turn up false hits and nothing impressive on the artist. Therefore, the leaning “Endorse”. AfC is an option, but I don’t foresee this person getting back to mainspace, not without WP:THREE sources, which should be presented without the verbiage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

17 April 2019[edit]

16 April 2019[edit]

Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen[edit]

Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm taking the extraordinary step of raising a DRV for a set of WP:G5 and consequent WP:G8 speedy deletions without discussing with the deleting admins first. This is because multiple deletions and multiple admins are involved, so it would unnecessarily burden someone's talk page if I tried to have this centralised discussion in user talk space.

This morning, I found that a series of piped links on ching bo leung have turned red. On further investigation I found this locus of events:

Here's the problem: Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen is a valid subtopic fork with valid interwikis (d:Q24885820). Because this article stayed at this location for a month, various redirects from common names to Job's tears (a related plant) have been retargeted to Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen in the meantime. The bulk deletion of redirects created a bunch of redlinks, many of which are no longer traceable because they were performed by other admins under WP:G8 despite the fact that the redirects used to point to another article that still exists.

I propose the following plan of action, which potentially requires server-side technical support:

  1. Restore Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen as a valid article (and maybe move to the more common name Chinese pearl barley).
  2. Perform an audit of deleted redirects that pointed to Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen and restore them.
  3. Perform a thorough audit of redirects that have been deleted by WP:G5 or WP:G8 in relation to the Yujeo SPI. If any of those redirects pointed to a different article in the past and any of those target articles still exist, restore each redirect to its most recent extant target.

--Deryck C. 14:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ping also User:Plantdrew who tagged some of Yujeo's redirects. Deryck C. 14:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ping also User:DannyS712 who tagged Yi mai for speedy. Do you remember what other redirects you have tagged for deletion as a result of the same SPI case? Deryck C. 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
List of relevant redirects that have been deleted from DannyS712's batch: Yi mai, Yulmu, Hatomugi, Hato mugi.
User:Cabayi/CSD_log#April_2019 includes a list of redirects created by Yujeo which have been speedied. Deryck C. 17:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ping User:Cabayi who tagged most of Yujeo's creations for WP:G5. Deryck C. 10:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • These pages are creations of a globally locked, banned at user. If there is a spectrum of abusive, in this case cross-wiki abusive, socking, this one lies on the more evil end. Although I know a G5ed article can be resurrected based on a bona fide user saying that the article is productive, this one sticks in my craw a bit more than usual for the reasons I've just stated. On the merits, however, Deryck no doubt knows more than I do about whether this article and related pages should be restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't remember the details of the content of the deleted article, but it struck me as a bit of a headache. Sources that talk about Job's tears as a food plant often don't specify a variety, although presumably var. ma-yuen is what is being discussed. IIRC, there was a merge discussion in progress on the talk page. I'm not convinced that a separate article on the edible variety is necessary. However, if there were redirects referring to the food plant that previously pointed to Job's tears that were retargeted (probably by me) to Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen and then deleted following deletion of that article, they should be restored. Plantdrew (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I shall happily defer to your advice on whether var ma-yuen should have a separate article from Job's tears. But in both options we need to search for the deleted redirects and check each deleted redirect manually to see if they should be restored. As a simplified criterion, I would suggest that any redirect that either had incoming links or had been edited by a human editor other than Yujeo should be restored. Deryck C. 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. Just leaving aside for the moment, if I may, the matter of a discretionary "resurrection", were the articles deleted under G5 created by Yujeo before or after their block 1 April 2019[2] or before or after the block of the sockmaster, 6 February 2019?[3]. WP:G5 only applies to creations after the creator has been blocked but it makes sense to me to also apply it back to when the sockmaster was blocked, if they were, because we have decided they were the same person. Does some policy say that somewhere? To Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen (and others), were there any substantial edits by others? Thincat (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I may have been thinking of a move discussion rather than a merger discussion (although I kind of think there may have been both). At any rate, there was a move request made on March 16th, so the article existed before then. Plantdrew (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Thincat: Well, one clearly cannot create an article using an account that's already blocked, so WP:G5 applies to creations by a sock account while the sockmaster account is blocked. I can confirm from the deleted page history that Yujeo created Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen after Brett Cox was blocked. Deryck C. 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think I got a bit tangled up. From a DRV perspective the G5s were (probably) valid and (some of?) the G8s as well. But all that is water under the bridge. A while back 500 articles were recklessly moved to draft space leading to at least 130 redirects being G8 deleted by one admin (we hoped it was onl;y one). See User talk:Malcolmxl5/Archive 10#Deleted redirects. Maybe, hopefully, User:Anthony Bradbury (not Anthony Appleyard) deleted all of this lot. Thincat (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of the Brett Cox block date, it is Nov 6, 2018 when this sockfarm was found. Bbb23 later discovered that Brett was the oldest existing sock, so the casename was moved to that. (I don't much care about whether this should be live again or not.) — regards, Revi 18:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
And one factual correction for Deryck's initial statement; I only nominated this article in discussion for G5, not everything he created. I exclusively use Twinkle for CSD on enwiki, and User:-revi/CSD log confirms this. — regards, Revi 18:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (closed)[edit]

14 April 2019[edit]

Kst (software) (closed)[edit]

Draft:Lee Dae-hwi (closed)[edit]

Geometry of roots of real polynomials[edit]

Geometry of roots of real polynomials (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted but the nominator said content was merged into Quadratic equation#Graphical solution (see merge here[7]). The closing admin should have denied the consensus and redirected the page, merged the page, or listed every contributor of the merged content by a dummy edit. See also: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia Christian75 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Overturn I added mathematical content to the page in question and made relevant comments on its talk page iirc. Deletion has removed all record of this good faith activity which was in no way controversial or otherwise requiring suppression. There's more to be done with this topic but deletion like this is disruptive because it discourages good faith activity and forces editors to rely upon their memory. Such disruption is contrary to WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". And it appears that the closer made the deletion decision based upon their own opinion of the matter -- a blatant supervote. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Whatever leads you to believe Xymmax was in doubt? —Cryptic 15:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Andrew Davidson: This doesn't detract from your argument at all, but I don't see any edits from you on this article. I can't see the talk page history though. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
        • That was many years ago, when I used a different account name. For example, in this edit, I added a long list of relevant sources and such material would helpful for further work. Andrew D. (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out the irony of Andrew opposing copyright infringement when it's his copyright being infringed upon.[8] Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this is overturned in some way and there is a redirect to preserve edit history, then the target of the redirect at Geometry of roots of real polynomials should be algebraic geometry or something similar. The content of the article was that of Quadratic equation#Graphical solution, but the title did not reflect that. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Having not read the deleted article, I don't know what article the redirect should be to. As noted in the AFD, the title suggests roots on the complex plane. That's intermediate algebra. I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college, but that is high school math. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The deleted article suggested roots on the complex plane, but the title does not suggest anything about the complex plane. The polynomials can have any number of variables (just one polynomial in two variables would give an plane algebraic curve) and there could be more than one polynomial equation (i.e. a system of polynomial equations). "The geometry of roots of polynomials" is pretty much the definition of algebraic geometry. Indeed, if we consider complex roots then it is classical algebraic geometry (covered in the algebraic geometry article). If we consider only real roots then it is real algebraic geometry. Since only the field of polynomial coefficients is specified in the title (and not the field of definition of the roots), the redirect should point to just algebraic geometry. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is any need for restoration to preserve edit history. Despite the edit summary the edit cited above does not appear to have actually copied any material from the deleted article. Instead it's a different treatment of the some of the same subject matter, with rewritten text. If you do want to redirect it somewhere then Algebraic geometry is probably best, since although Quadratic equation covers some of the subject matter of the deleted page the scope of the title of the deleted page is all polynomials rather than just quadratics. Hut 8.5 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn attribution is a legal requirement if the content is used, so nominators and deleters are contributing to copyright infringement if the writer's names are removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The content hasn't been used though. Hut 8.5 22:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The history of the article has been temporarily undeleted for the purpose of this deletion review.. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    • It seems pretty clear looking at the article pre-deletion that none of the material was really copied over to Quadratic equation#Graphical solution, except perhaps the example in the image that is currently attributed to Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) anyways. Otherwise it's a rewrite of the same mathematical content.
      It is interesting to see now that there was previous AfD for the article that was never mentioned in the most recent one (although the old article title was mentioned). That part of the history is not terribly relevant now though, as no content was preserved from the article then so none of that history needs to be preserved. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse An accurate reading of consensus, and no merge attribution needed per the final comment in the discussion by D.Lazard. Cheers to DGG for the temp undelete. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn: apply merged templates; possibly redirect as above or elsewhere (e.g. Polynomial). D.Lazard indicated on summary on 14 February he had indicated a merge process from Geometry of roots of real polynomials. The established practice is WP:MERGETEXT and if that procedure was performed we would not be here. I also observe D.Lazard who was also the AfD nom. mentioned the merge and used the word merge at the AfD but did not explicitly mention they were the person who performed that merge not provide an explicit diff pointer to the merge. While none of this wrong it leaves D.Lazard slightly open the concern the purpose may have been to concern his purpose may have been remove others content in preference to own content. We must WP:AGF this is not the case and no attempt have been made to do that covertly; I would have preferred that information explicitly mentioned on the AfD. Unless this was a clear later WP:CFORK the unattributed discard of work has implications and issues. Surprising evidence for proof for copy violations can reside in the audit trail of old revisions. So I am with both Andrew Davidson and Graeme Bartlett. There is little issue in overturning and ensuring best practice, there can be dangers in endorsement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This accusation of bad faith is a personal attack. Also this editor accuses me of pushing "my own content" against other's content. Moreover, These accusations are based on a blatant deformation of what I have written. I have clearly established that no text has been merged, and thus that the procedure WP:MERGETEXT does no apply, and this has been confirmed by the closing administrator. Also, the end of the post contains an accusation of possible copyvio. This is simply not acceptable. D.Lazard (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am trying to say those actions leave you vunerable to an accusation of bad faith ... not that I am accusing you of bad faith. But as my wife often says to me it is not what you say but how you say it ... or something like that. I am fundamentally suggesting contest including previous references and sources that can possibly be re-used elsewhere may be lost. Please accept by apologies for any offence etc. etc. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect and restore history. I haven't examined the AfD in full, but the general rule is that we prefer a redirect to delete if there's a reasonable redirect target and there's no good reason to hide the history (i.e. problems with WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc). That no actual text was copied (I haven't examined this myself; I'm going on the analysis of others, above) just means we're not obligated to redirect to comply with licensing requirements. It doesn't mean we're obligated not to redirect, and WP:CHEAP argues that we should. Unclear why this is such a point of contention; it seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't see that the nom had contacted the deleting admin before opening this DRV. My guess is if they had, this could have all been settled a lot faster and with less drama. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
PS, There's several plausible redirect targets mentioned above. I have no opinion about which is the best. Pick one. It can always be changed later, by anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"We prefer a redirect to delete": I agree for titles that are not confusing and not ambiguous. But the AfD discussion shows clearly that the title may have several interpretations. So, whichever a reader is searching, there is a good probability that the redirect leads it to the wrong article, and, in this case a redirect must be avoided. D.Lazard (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, that's a reasonable argument, and re-reading WP:R#DELETE, especially item 2 ("The redirect might cause confusion"), I've come to agree. I've struck my comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If there is no reasonable redirect available where substantial page history can be retained I believe restoring the page history of Geometry of roots of real polynomials to the talk page of Quadratic equation keeps is an alternative way retaining the page history I believe. That might satisfy everybody.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

13 April 2019[edit]

12 April 2019[edit]

11 April 2019[edit]

10 April 2019[edit]

Draft:Aqua Security (closed)[edit]

Concord Orchestra[edit]

Concord Orchestra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have got more information to add to the article and more sources. Dariakupila (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion as an accurate determination of policy-based consensus at the discussion. If, Dariakupila, you have some independent reliable sources with significant coverage it will be possible to recreate this, but the only way that you're likely to get your desired outcome would be to list the sources here. The ticket sellers, videos and images that you linked in the AFD discussion don't meet any of the requirements of independent, reliable, and significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Phil Bridger. Thank you for your reply. Here is the list of the sources from the third party.

I have taken the liberty of reformatting the above list for readability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have also a couple of questions. The videos from the concerts of Concord Orchestra with the artists mentioned in the article - Michel Legrand or Ken Hensley for example - should I add them as well? There are also the interview videos and reports on TV (Russia) - should I list them?

I have mentioned the ticket sellers, videos and images in the AFD discussion to demonstrate that the orchestra is active. There is also an article about Concord Orchestra in Russian and plans to translate it in Italian. If it helps. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse the closure. The proponent is a single-purpose account; do they have a conflict of interest? Any review of a re-created article or a draft should compare the draft or new article to the deleted article. If they are substantially the same, it is a G4 or Reject of the draft with possible SALTing. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Strongly advise newcomer editors to get experience by adding content to existing articles before attempting to write new articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an article on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Quoting from there: "Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out." I have listed the facts about the orchestra in a neutral tone, people are looking it up - why am I doing wrong? Also I have seen articles in English with the sources in foreign languages - is it not allowed? And why no-one is answering my questions? Dariakupila (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Draftify. If Dariakupila wants to work on this, I see no reason to not let them. That's what draft is for. This started out in draftspace. It is unfortunate that it got promoted to mainspace before it was ready, but I can't really blame User:Kvng; it passes the draft promotion decision tree. AfC is meant to be a rough filter, and errs on the side of being too permissive. As for sources in foreign languages, yes, they are allowed, per WP:NONENG. But, you need to recognize that most reviewers here only read English, so reviewing articles which rely on non-English sources can be complicated. The automated translation services help, but they're not perfect. Review by native speakers of the source language is always preferable. So, once this is back in draft space (assuming that's where this ends up), you might want to solicit Russian, Polish, and/or Italian speakers (see WP:Translators available) to help with the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse WP:NCORP is a high hurdle these days and it is now clear that it is unlikely to be cleared by this subject at this time. WP:BITE would actually be better respected by not dragging this out any further. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Bradv mentions WP:NORG (a WP:NCORP alias) in their deletion nomination. The orchestra is music organization so either or both could apply I guess. ~Kvng (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This looks to me as if the sources presented above are just about enough to allow recreation. My Polish is fluent (I've been using it most days for over 40 years), I have an A level in Russian (but it's rather rusty because I passed it 43 years ago), and I know a little Italian (enough to get the gist of what the sources are saying). The sources all have this orchestra as their subject, and have several paragraphs of coverage each. The one in Polish is from Antyradio, the ones in Italian are from L'Eco di Bergamo and Bergamo Post, which looks like a reliable source, and the ones in Russian from Business Pskov, which appears to be a reliable source serving Pskov Oblast, and the rather more dodgy-looking Utro, which seems to be a publication published in Moscow that specialises in news about Ukraine (and Crimea in a separate section) from a very pro-Russian POV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I offered my !vote before the requester insulted me on my talk page (and they insulted me because they don't like my !vote), so that my !vote is not affected by annoyance at their trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Robert McClenon, I apologise if my comment on your page looks like trolling. Dariakupila (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Phil Bridger, thank you for taking time and going carefully through the sources. Dariakupila (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Question that should be answered by the filer before this DRV closes:
      • Does the filer have any conflict of interest such as an affiliation with the orchestra?
      • If the question is not answered by the time that this DRV closes, I suggest that the closer consider it to be a tacit acknowledgement of undisclosed paid editing.
      • The comments on my talk page do have the nature of trolling, which does not mean that the poster is or is not a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not object to allowing re-creation in draft space if the appropriate disclosure if any is made.
  • Answer
      • I am not paid by the orchestra for this article.
      • Robert McClenon, I apologise again for inappropriate behaviour and I will choose my words carefully in the future. I do not want to be taken for a troll neither I aim to insult or upset anybody. Dariakupila (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dariakupila:, I hate to sound cynical, but you didn't quite answer Robert McClenon's question. The question was if you had any conflict of interest. Your answer was that you are not paid for the article, but COI can include relationships other than being paid. Do you have any relationship with the orchestra of any kind? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith:, I have been to their concert, I liked it. I've seen their videos online and I follow what they are up to. So yes I have interest in them. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. For what it's worth, I don't consider any of that a WP:COI. A COI would have been something like, "I'm a member of the orchestra", or even, "I have a relative who's a member of the orchestra", either of which makes "I am not paid by the orchestra for this article." a true statement, but still not full disclosure. My apologies for pushing this point, but we have a lot of COI editing and one learns to get sensitive to detecting it. And, once I get suspicious, anything which looks like an evasive answer just makes me more suspicious, which is why I pressed you for a more detailed response. I stand by my earlier comment; as this currently stands, the sourcing isn't good enough for mainspace, and it should be moved back to draftspace for further work finding better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith:, thank you for the explanation. Appreciate it. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse – the sources just aren't sufficient to pass WP:ORG (or WP:MUSIC for that matter). No amount of editing it in draftspace is going to solve that, per WP:NEXIST. – bradv🍁 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
To clarify my drafify !vote, I'm not suggesting that editing will fix anything. I'm suggesting that this needs better sourcing and moving it back to draftspace will allow time for it to be found. If it turns out that better sourcing can't be found, because it doesn't exist, then eventually it'll time out of draft and get WP:G13'd. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Draft-space really isn't for things that might become notable one day. – bradv🍁 03:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Why do you consider the sources listed above to be insufficient? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
From the google auto-translation, this looks like a good source. It's certainly in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV, and sure looks like it's independent. I'm unable to form an opinion on the overall quality of the source; I can't tell if this is a major national publication, or just local. Nor can I tell if it's just a blog post or if there's editorial control behind it. In the US, a ".biz" domain name usually means a crappy source, but I have no idea of that's true worldwide. But, it's certainly a start and enough to justify keeping this in draft space for further improvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This looks like a reliable source serving Tver Oblast. Similar in acceptability to the two sources in Italian and the one in Russian serving Pskov Oblast listed above, as a regional publication rather than a national or local one. It adds a little to my conviction that we should allow recreation, but I'm rather confused by your characterisation of this one as a good source, but not the first four of those listed near the top of this discussion. Those are just as good or, in the case of Antyradio, better, because that is a national publication. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger thank you for the thorough analysis of the sources! The discussion seems to be drying up a little. What is going to happen to my article? To begin with I could replace all the "dodgy-looking" sources with reliable ones. Dariakupila (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith, thank you for checking out the source! is a regional publication as mentioned above by Phil Bridger. As for a "biz" domain, I guess it comes from the name of the newspaper the website is based on - "Afanasy-business", they concentrate on daily business news. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Draftify/Allow recreation per sources presented. feminist (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


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