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.

Purpose[edit]

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.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Discuss the matter with the closing editor and try to resolve it with them first. If you and the closer cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review. See § Purpose.
  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]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please 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.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

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

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

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:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2019 March 20}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

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 March 20}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 March 20|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]

20 March 2019[edit]

19 March 2019[edit]

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users[edit]

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I contested the speedy deletion, and the page was restored. Another admin has speedily deleted it without addressing the reasons for contesting its deletion and has thus far not responded to my attempts to communicate with them. If it is the consensus of the community that this page, which is in user space, should not exist, then that's okay, but I would like for consensus to actually be established before a deletion occurs. At the very least, it shouldn't have been speedily deleted without a consensus being built. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Overturn CSD. WP:G4 requires that the page be substantially identical to the deleted version, and that it is not a user space copy. This fails both of those. I can't see any reason why somebody wants to maintain this list, but I also can't see any reason to object to it. And, even if somebody does have a good reason to object to it, take it to WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead is identical except for paragraph breaks. The idea that you can claim a list is nonidentical in substance because, while you don't include any of the entries that were on the deleted version, you link to an offsite archive of the deleted version, is patently absurd. And while G4 exempts material moved to userspace for explicit improvement, listing "newer bans" is not an improvement in the context of the discussion at MFD. This isn't even a close call. Endorse. —Cryptic 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee, where the consensus was to place Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee under the sole discretion of

    "of any Arbitrator or Clerk. — xaosflux Talk 03:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)".

As ArbCom has purview over all banned users (note that Wikipedia:Clean start excludes clean starts for blocked or banned users), that decision should apply to all lists of Banned Users. Other's maintaining live lists of banned users are too much of a privacy problem, and no random user should have good reason to maintain this negative list (cf WP:POLEMIC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Or is it a WP:LTA matter? compare Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The intent here is obviously to maintain, in some form, a list of banned users. The community said very clearly it did not want that in a series of MFDs. Normally userfying stuff that was in project space is fine, but this case is an obvious exception as we have a pre-existing consensus that this material should not be hosted on Wikipedia at all, and that discussion was clearly cited in the deletion log. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Cryptic, Beeblebrox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee etc. -- Begoon 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - This seems to be a straightforwardly-valid G4 speedy deletion. The community legitimately decided to delete the log of banned users as harmful, so continuing to maintain it in one's userspace would seem to directly betray the community's intent, and is undoubtedly an improper use of the userspace anyway per WP:POLEMIC. So, the argument that it's "in my userspace" is not valid. Secondly, the argument that "it should be discussed" is not valid either. The whole point of CSD is that they're uncontentious "quick fail" criteria for pages, and do not require "discussion". If the CSD applies, which it does in this case, then there is nothing more to discuss. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Banned users are people too, even if their editing puts them at odds with the creation of an encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close was a correct interpretation of the MfD and a correct reading of community norms. Maintaining lists of bad people provides no benefit for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't endorse a speedy deletion enforcing a MfD that old. Also, I can't agree with the fallacy that deleting this stuff off the encyclopaedia is in any way helpful. The practical effect of deletions like this is to drive discussion about Wikipedia's governance and procedures off-wiki.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

18 March 2019[edit]

17 March 2019[edit]

Talos the Untamed[edit]

Talos the Untamed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was taken to AFD before the release of the film and concluded as a merge. I have since added a few sources, and I will note that there are many more about both the film and comics version of the character on a simple Google search. This should be overturned to Keep, although I am not disputing the original close, only noting that it has not been invalidated. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC2A:AD59:8F97:77DE (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse I believe this should have been closed by an administrator. The close was accurate, though, and I do not believe the merged content could stand alone at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 06:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AfD result looks fine, alll participants were happy with a merge outcome and this is the sort of uncontentious cose which non-admins are allowed to do. Regarding the question of whether the merge should be undone, in theory this is something to be discussed at the relevant article talk pages (although in practice there may not be many people watching that discussion). I am a bit dubious about having an article on a fictional character whose only claim to fame is appearing as a secondary character in a high profile film. Detailed discussion of the character's portrayal in that film is normally done in the article about the film and the rest of the OP's version was only sourced to comic books. Hut 8.5 19:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good close. The merge and redirect should until there is a consensus at the target talkpage to reverse the decision. Do not come to DRV to reverse old merge decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In general I do not believe non-sysops should be closing any AfD except SNOW keeps. There was basically consensus among participants so maybe it's an exception but maybe not. I will note, as I don't have the article watchlisted, that I don't see any substantial change in notability from when I made the nom even with the release of the film. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Often I will agree, but in this case the AfD should have been speedy closed due to lacking a delete rationale. AfD is not for proposed merges. Remind User:Barkeep49 of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Struck after reviewing the article history and reverted redirection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: What do BEFORE and ATD have with any of this? The topic is not notable. I know this because I conducted a BEFORE in addition to looking at the sourcing that was present in the article. However, because I believe in AtD I attempted to implement a redirect. When challenged I went to a community process to establish its notability (or not). The community agreed with me the topic was not notable but also agreed with me that there was a suitable AtD. BEFORE and AtD were thus fully honored. What you really seem to be saying is that AfD is not a place to use to make non-notable topics into a redirect. Because it's late I where I live I'm not going to find more recent examples but will simply reuse this from the last time I was challenged about the appropriateness of using AfD to have community consensus for redirect as a proposed outcome, the point of which was later agreed to by the sysop who had challenged me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
BEFORE requires you to consider merge/redirect targets. You obviously found at least one. WP:ATD requires you to redirect, not delete, unless you have a compelling reason that would justify deletion of the history behind the redirect. If you were challenged in making the redirect, that is a good reason for AfD, but, the onus is on you to mention it in the AfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_72#Has_AFD_become_"Articles_for_Discussion"_?. Ping User:Masem, to ask if there is confusion in the advice being given. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You were right to use AfD to enforce the disputed merge and redirect, but please mention the dispute in the AfD nomination. Some regularly check the history, but it is very helpful to mention it when so relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

15 March 2019[edit]

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes[edit]

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarcho Syn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Lib Soc (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Darwinism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Roma Indep (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/SAC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Taste (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/UBX War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Clearly inappropriate speedy deletions. Previously restored through this venue, see here. These are also transcluded on many userpages. Discussed here. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing a speedy criteria stated as a reason for the deletion. And I don't see how waiting for MfD would be harmful--these have been around for years I believe. overturn for now, but I'm open to the idea that there may be an applicable speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn the rest of these deletions by me. As a Quaker I find the sentiments expressed in the No Gun Ctl and SAC templates totally abhorrent. However as a Wikipedian I say that since both these templates are used by several users, they should be allowed to remain. It simply does not matter who created them.
Same principle goes for all the others. I have not restored Anarcho Syn, Lib Soc and No Darwinism because my deletion of these was done in response to speedy tags placed by Legacypac. All the others I deleted without anyone else's suggestion.
I have left Taste, UBX War and Userboxes deleted because they are only minimally used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Several of the deletions cited U5, which I don't think is actually unreasonable. The author has 153 contributions, all to user or user talk space and almost entirely to userboxes, particularly those associated with contentious political or philosophical views. I suspect that a lot of them were created to make a point about Wikipedia's stances on userboxes, which were controversial at the time. If an editor made only this type of edit now and didn't make any attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia then I think they would probably be deleted under U5 and that wouldn't be questioned. Yes, they were discussed at DRV in 2006, but that might as well be ancient history now, the deletion policy has changed since and the discussion was about whether they met criterion T1 (which was repealed ages ago). I'd be happy with restoring any that someone wants to claim as long as they are moved into that person's userspace. Hut 8.5 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. There may be a need to discuss these, but that should be at MfD , not here. Speedy is for use in uncontestable deletions, not for those which "may not be actually unreasonable", which is much to low a criterion. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn Unless my detective work is mistaken, these all survived their most recent deletion discussion. So, speedy deletion is not allowed except where WP:CSD explicitly makes an exception. None of the exceptions apply here. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Leave deleted I tagged a few U5 because the user had zero controbutions outside their own userspace and no interest in developing Wikipedia. Crating a Nazi userbox is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. It is a good example of using wikipedia to host stuff no one needs or wants. U5 is used for a lot more possibily useful but unused random pages then these "userboxes" no one is using or needs. Legacypac (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I recommend an RfC on userboxes for social-political expression vs editors’ declaration of biases vs POLEMIC. XfD and DRV are ill-suited for developing community consensus. It has been a very long time since the userbox wars, there is no rush. In the status quo, there is nothing wrong with User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl on a userpage, and tranclusion of userboxes is probably better than a proliferation of altered substed userboxes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Overturn all, not speediable, very far from IAR justifiable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Grudging overturn. These userboxen don't help us build an encyclopedia, so I agree they should be deleted. I also don't think the prohibition against CSD for pages that have survived XfD should have force if the XfD was 13 years ago. And, looking at TMoT's contributions, it's pretty obvious they are/were a WP:SOCK. But, the real bottom line on CSD is that it should be for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that this has generated controversy should be enough to overturn. There's no rush. After all this time, a week at XfD won't hurt. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

14 March 2019[edit]

ThinkMarkets[edit]

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

Following the review of ThinkMarkets page, I would like to share with you another source https://www.cricketworld.com/glenn-mc-grath-partners-with-thinkmarkets-to-promote-cricket-and-female-empowerment/55423.htm. ThinkMarkets is a licensed and regulated broker in UK and Australia. ThinkMarkets' Financial Conduct Authority information is listed on their website https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000aRiH0AAK

References: https://www.sportindustry.biz/news/industry-shorts-purple-sport-thinkmarkets-fitbodo-lta http://www.cityam.com/270300/amir-khan-interview-british-boxer-his-last-fights-before https://techfinancials.co.za/2019/03/04/uk-online-brokerage-firm-thinkmarkets-awarded-sa-trading-licence/ https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/thinkmarkets-integrates-trade-interceptor-core-offering/ https://www.afr.com/technology/online-trading-broker-thinkmarkets-targets-100-million-listing-20180626-h11wcj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddendigits (talkcontribs) 15:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Relist at AfD. Allegations of WP:UPE aside, the AfD was pretty marginal. Other than the nom, only one person commented. Closing a 2-user AfD as delete isn't strictly against the rules, but I don't like doing that. I would have relisted it. There's ostensibly better sourcing now, so my recommendation is to restore it and immediately bring it back to AfD, where the new sources can be evaluated properly. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist per RoySmith. No comment on whether it will be kept after the relist or not. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist needed more discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What's changed since the last two times you asked for this to be reviewed a month and a half and a month ago, using substantially similar (and in some cases identical) refs? —Cryptic 00:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have provided two new references, also, Thinkmarkets has been operating for nearly a decade, the Retail foreign exchange trading market grew significantly post 2008 financial crisis as investors explored alternate products, the traditional asset classes like; bonds, equities and real estate were on 10-year lows and the nature and structure of currency derivatives meant investors could hedge and speculate on the volatile and liquid products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddendigits (talkcontribs) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

13 March 2019[edit]

French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports[edit]

French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This redirect, which is a made-up translation of the name of a French organisation, was closed as 'Keep'. Despite a relisting, there was only one objection to my nomination. The objection rested on a mistaken assumption that a reader would use the made-up translation as a route to the article, which is patently a very weak argument, since the translation does not exist anywhere in the literature. The closer incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep. As "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", I have attempted to simply renominate and refute the earlier objection. However, the original closer has now objected to my renomination and closed that as a "Speedy keep", I'd like to see the issue debated properly, and I request that the decision be overturned. RexxS (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The translation is as made up as all translations are. It is a literal translation, and is also what a user would find if they inputted the French name into Google Translate. The statement that the translation does not exist anywhere in literature is also false. This specific translation has been used in both books, academic journals, and various other online sources. This redirect is a plausible search phrase and useful to users. MarkZusab (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, the reason that your second RfD was closed as "speedy keep" was due to you nominating the redirect for discussion less than 24 hours after the previous discussion closed. The closer of the first RfD did not "incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep". One person said it should be deleted and one person said it should be kept. The first discussion was not closed as a consensus to keep, but as no consensus. MarkZusab (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I have struck out text above after learning that Travix had gone back and changed the result of deletion discussion. I had been going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Translations that are commonly used are not regarded as "made-up" in the way that this one is. It's not a literal translation. If you input the French name into Google translate, you don't get "French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports"; you get "French Federation of Studies and Underwater Sports", so your assertion is wrong. You are technically correct that the phrase does exist on the web, but leaving out mentions on Wikipedia, there are 412 Google hits. Compare that with 63,800 Ghits for "Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins" and 1,520,000 for "FFESSM" - which is what any English reader would use to search. the redirect is clearly not a plausible search phrase and the redirect is worthless, as well as a magnet for well-meaning gnomes to move the correctly-titled article to a made-up translated name.
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense says that renomination in order to discuss the unresolved issues is more sensible than jumping through hoops here. The closer clearly did assess the strength of the sole objection incorrectly in reaching his decision to keep.
You need to check the history before asserting "The first discussion was not closed as keep, but as no consensus." I'm not stupid and I'm not lying. The discussion was closed as Keep, but Travix changed the close after telling me to go to DRV and while I was composing the DRV. --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, I was unaware that Tavix was going back and changing the results of deletion discussion with possible malicious intent. I was going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see where that "possible malicious intent" comes from. As far as I can see from Tavix' talk page, he changed his close apparently as a conciliatory gesture. – Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
RexxS' comment gave me the impression that Tavix had changed the result of the discussion while RexxS was in the process of creating this DRV with an intent to deceive people reading the original comment by RexxS. After looking at the discussion on Tavix' talk page, I agree with you that it appears to have been a conciliatory gesture. MarkZusab (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse this and the following one. The bar for deleting redirects is usually quite high: to get deleted, a redirect needs to be either misleading, or getting in the way of searches, or just plain silly (like having a series of implausible typos). Conversely, it's easy to find reasons to keep a redirect: if it's useful at least to some people and it aids in searches. Even if this name weren't present in sources, it would have been an easy keep: we can't assume all readers will know the exact title of a foreign organisation, or that they will know the native name of that organisation. English translations like that would be quite plausible even without exactly following the wording of the native name. And also, if one of the premises of the nomination is correct – that editors might be tempted to move the article over the redirect – then this is a clear indication that the redirect is plausible, and its existence will actually prevent editors without advanced permissions from making such a move. Yes, at the time the discussion was closed, it hadn't received a lot of participation, so if you, RexxS, had simply asked the closer to reopen it to give you the opportunity to advance your argument, chances are that might have been granted. But even then it's very difficult to imagine the discussion arriving anywhere other than "keep". – Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    The problem with these redirects is that they are creating an artificial neologism. WP:NEO warns us ""Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English." Over 99.9% of Google hits are for the actual French/Spanish names or their common abbreviations (FFESSM/FEDAS). Those abbreviations are the obvious search terms, and we don't need to have a redirect for searches like "French underwater federation" to find our article.
    I don't agree that going to the closer and asking for a re-open would have been successful, judging by the response when I actually did that. Is it a good use of my time to argue with the closer to re-open the discussion, and then have to make the same argument again in the RfD? Surely, a simple renomination is the least bureaucratic and most efficient way to debate the pints I was able to raise? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's less hassle to leave these useless redirects and clean up the consequent recurring problems every time they happen, than to try to explain that the redirects are a net negative to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    We're not talking about articles for neologisms, but about a redirect from a plausible translation that's also actually attested in sources (as MarkZusab's links demonstrate). If this name is not commonly used, then that's an argument for not mentioning it in the article (or for mentionining it with less prominence), not against the redirect. There are widely used classses of redirects that are less "correct" than this one (from misnomers, or wrongly disambiguated titles, or misspellings, to name a few). And again, simply asking the closer to reopen is quite likely to work, but ignoring the close, immediately opening a new discussion (without notifying anyone involved) and, after the inevitable speedy keep, posting an indignant message to the closer, is much less so. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yet I am talking about neologisms for article titles. What you seem to be missing is that the very presence of such a redirect is an invitation for the article to be moved to the title of the redirect. How many times are you willing to see other editors have to clean up after that before you understand the issue? Simply asking the closer to reopen is not at all likely to work, no matter how many times you suggest it. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Just to confirm, simply asking me to reopen the discussion was going to work until you decided to ignore the close and immediately opened a new discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse, redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    They are, but editors' time isn't. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Then why are you wasting it on two of the most pointless discussions I've seen at deletion review? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    Certainly because he believes he is saving (lots more of) future editor time, no? - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse No consensus is a reasonable close. Could've have relisted again, sure, but after 2.5 weeks, there's a law of diminishing returns; nobody else opined and we already relist enough. The change from keep->no consensus makes this a clear endorse, in my mind. ~ Amory (utc) 14:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Clearly no consensus. Relisted once, which is also reasonable. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I was going to close this as SNOW Endorse (which I suggest somebody else should do), but wanted to say some things. First, this is a waste of time. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. The idea that you want to delete one because maybe somebody in the future might take that as an invitation to move the article is just plain silly. Wikipedia is a huge project. In all huge projects, trivial little issues will come up all the time. If every single one was litigated to this extent, we'd never get anything done. Don't sweat the small stuff, concentrate on the main mission. I also want to give a very small minnow to Tavix for this edit. If you want to update your close, better to strikeout the previous material rather than remove it entirely. That leads to less confusion, of the sort we've seen here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
PS, if you're really worried about what somebody might do to the redirect in the future, ask for it to be protected. I don't think that's necessary, but it would be a more reasonable way to achieve your goal. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's good advice to use strike when updating the close. I had realized I should have done that when reading the exchange between RexxS and MarkZusab. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's probably self-evident that I endorse both of these closes. I'd just like to add that the idea that these redirects could encourage editors to move the articles to those titles is wildly spurious. If the redirects were deleted, any autoconfirmed user could move the pages to those titles. As such—given that they're redirects with page history—an administrator needs to be involved. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
or a page mover if they do a round-robin move. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is really far from being a plausible search term, folks. To me, it looks like a clear example of WP:RFD#DELETE ground 8. Surely anyone who has the French to translate the very specific title so accurately would just look it up in French?—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, somebody might have been reading this book, seen "French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports" mentioned in the text, and wanted more information. Or this website or this one, or read this paper which gives the abstract in both English and French, and was working off the English version. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes of course: it could have been machine-translated.—S Marshall T/C 01:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I doubt any of those I cited above were machine translations. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse the (second) closing. Though I would have voted to delete, with the discussion as was (one nomination, one objection), closing as no consensus is just fine - Nabla (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities[edit]

Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This redirect, which is a made-up translation of the name of a Spanish organisation, was closed as 'Keep'. Despite a relisting, there was only one objection to my nomination. The objection rested on a mistaken assumption that a reader would use the made-up translation as a route to the article, which is patently a very weak argument, since the translation does not exist anywhere in the literature. The closer incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep. As "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", I have attempted to simply renominate and refute the earlier objection. However, the original closer has now objected to my renomination and closed that as a "Speedy keep", I'd like to see the issue debated properly, and I request that the decision be overturned. RexxS (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The translation is as made up as all translations are. It is a literal translation, and is also what a user would find if they inputted the Spanish name into Google Translate. The statement that the translation does not exist anywhere in literature is also false. This specific translation has been used in various online sources and newspapers. This redirect is a plausible search phrase and useful to users. MarkZusab (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Evidence of use in online sources and newspapers: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Many more can be found with a simple Google search. MarkZusab (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, the reason that your second RfD was closed as "speedy keep" was due to you nominating the redirect for discussion less than 24 hours after the previous discussion closed. The closer of the first RfD did not "incorrectly assessed the strength of that argument in reaching his decision to keep". One person said it should be deleted and one person said it should be kept. The first discussion was not closed as a consensus to keep, but as no consensus. MarkZusab (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I have struck out text above after learning that Tavix had gone back and changed the result of deletion discussion. I had been going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Translations that are commonly used are not regarded as "made-up" in the way that this one is. You are technically correct that the phrase does exist on the web, but leaving out mentions on Wikipedia, there are 234 Google hits. Compare that with 29,600 Ghits for "Federación Española de Actividades Subacuáticas" and 293,000 for "FEDAS" - which is what any English reader would use to search. the redirect is clearly not a plausible search phrase and the redirect is worthless, as well as a magnet for well-meaning gnomes to move the correctly-titled article to a made-up translated name.
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense says that renomination in order to discuss the unresolved issues is more sensible than jumping through hoops here. The closer clearly did assess the strength of the sole objection incorrectly in reaching his decision to keep.
You need to check the history before asserting "The first discussion was not closed as keep, but as no consensus." I'm not stupid and I'm not lying. The discussion was closed as Keep, but Travix changed the close after telling me to go to DRV and while I was composing the DRV. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, I was unaware that Tavix was going back and changing the results of deletion discussion with possible malicious intent. I was going off of the most recent edit to the closing discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

12 March 2019[edit]

Project Pegasus (closed)[edit]

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (closed)[edit]

11 March 2019[edit]

10 March 2019[edit]

9 March 2019[edit]

8 March 2019[edit]

7 March 2019[edit]

Archive[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