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]

Instructions[edit]

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]

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

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

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

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]

12 April 2019[edit]

11 April 2019[edit]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah[edit]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah was recently appointed President & CEO for one of the nation's largest refugee resettlement agencies, Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service (/Lutheran_Immigration_and_Refugee_Service). She is the first non-Lutheran to hold this position. Her work in the White House as Policy Director to Michelle Obama and Senior Advisor at the State Department under Secretary Clinton makes her a notable figure in the political sense. 216.59.110.18 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• The agency in question has an article at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which I think the proposer was trying to link. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• First, the OP made no attempt to discuss this with me before opening this discussion. That said, after reviewing the AfD I am satisfied that there was a clear consensus against keeping the article. The only division was on the question of whether to delete or redirect the article. Assuming a viable argument for redirection and suitable target, and in the absence of a clear consensus one way or the other, redirection is my default close. I stand by my close of this AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Given the sources in the AfD and that discussion, I find the whole thing unsatisfactory. Let's look at the sources. [1] is an amazing source. What the hell are we doing deleting an article with a source like that? [2] is from the Washington Post and has her as the focus. [3] is a bit more "run of the mill" and covers a single event, but still. [4] is a nice overview of her wedding etc. which has significant biographical information. Yes, she probably doesn't meet WP:POL. But some of this coverage isn't about her running for office. And the Marie Claire article, while focused on her candidacy, is in-depth and serious. But yeah, the !voters in the AfD clearly didn't feel the article belonged. So weak endorse of what I view as a consensus that seems at odds with WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Considering her new role at LIRS, I think this shifts the argument from whether she is a notable politician to whether she is a relevant influential figure in a subject area that is front and center for the public consciousness: immigration policy. Based on some of recent coverage I've seen from her, that answer is a clear yes. I say restore it. Naman.nepal (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Close looks fine to me, so that's a endorse, but the "recently appointed" bits make me think this is more a "allow recreation or not" DRV than a "overturn the close or endorse" DRV. The AfD is fairly recent. I'll probably have a look at the sources available tomorrow before saying anything, but it's probably easiest just to pass it through as a draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see any need for this to go through deletion review. The deletion discussion was closed as "redirect" and the history kept, so if more sources and information have come to light since then it should be possible for anyone to revert the redirect and add this new stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the sources all come from before the AfD close. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• • • I've found one source that was published a month after the close. It looks like if there's anything else about the refugee resettlement agency may be after the close as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• I agree this doesn't really have anything to do with the DRV (I voted in the first deletion discussion) and would recommend restoring this to a draft if new sources can be demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation It might not have been necessary to ask here first, but it is not ab as idea, for it prevents an over-hastey speedy deletion without it being relaized there is additional information. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse but Allow Re-Creation with review of draft, as stated by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

10 April 2019[edit]

Draft:Aqua Security[edit]

Draft:Aqua Security (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article underwent speedy deletion due to G11. As noted in my user page I have a COI as an employee of Aqua Security. However, I believe the article I authored is written from a neutral point of view, it does not promote or advertise Aqua Security's services. It describes the company and its products, its integrations which are a key part of the solution, and establishes notability, for example mentioned by Gartner as a central container security product and recognized by the World Economic Forum as a technology pioneer. The content is based on numerous reputable sources including O'Reilly, InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and Microsoft. I should note that the article included more information - additional integrations, open source software authored by Aqua Security, and a company timeline, which I think are valid and non-promotional, and I'd like the editors to consider reinstating some or all of the deleted info. Hedgehog10 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse the deleted version was promotional, and if you can't see that I suspect you may be too close to the subject to be objective. The draft described the subject in promotional language ("Aqua protects applications from development to test and deployment", "The Aqua Container Security Platform aims to make container security easy") and most of the content consisted of the "popular container technologies" and "popular developer tools" supported by the subject, along with a list of awards they've received and nice sounding things they've done. Hut 8.5 18:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, that's basically too promotional. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh. At this point, the draft has been recreated in exactly the same state as the version I deleted under G11. I could G11 it again, but since we're already here at DRV, let's just waste a week of everybody's time on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse I think sometimes WP:G11 can be overdone and applied to articles that could be reduced to (acceptable) stubs. In this case I can't see how it could be rewritten to be acceptable. My only positive thought is that if someone could achieve this then neither WP:G11 nor WP:G4 would apply. Thincat (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse- as noted above, this is an advertising brochure and probably could not be written in a non-promotional manner based on the available sources. Reyk _YO! 09:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, I think I understand the concerns. I reduced the article and removed all language that seems to be promotional or advertorial. Is this better? Hedgehog10 13:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog10 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse - To answer the question as to whether it is better, I would not tag the revised draft as G11 but would not accept it at AFC. I would note that it is written from the company's point of view without any significant third-party coverage and that it reads like a corporate information sheet (not containing puffery, but still a corporate fact sheet). Robert McClenon (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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. https://www.antyradio.pl/Muzyka/Duperele/Rosyjska-orkiestra-wykonala-cover-Du-Hast-Rammsteina-30544 (In Polish) https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/BergamoSenzaConfini/con-rock-e-classicaconquisto-la-russia_1280623_11/ (News website in Italian) http://www.bergamopost.it/chi-e/dal-conservatorio-donizetti-russia-sold-out-lorchestra-rock/ (News website in Italian) http://businesspskov.ru/rdosug/concert/148246.html (News website in Russian) https://utro.ru/culture/2019/03/05/1392500.shtml (News website in Russian)

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)

8 April 2019[edit]

7 April 2019[edit]

2019 Kashmir airstrikes[edit]

2019 Kashmir airstrikes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Indian air intrusion has an article i.e. 2019 Balakot airstrike but the article on retaliatory Pakistani airstrikes has been deleted. The highest point in the recent India-Pakistan tension i.e. the aerial dogfight, was a direct result of the Pakistani airstrikes which is why it deserves an article and it must be restored. Otherwise, this is just a blatant case of WP:BIAS. How is an article that's titled border skirmishes, being considered as a parent article of one regarding an airstrike that lead to an aerial dogfight which resulted in a confirmed downing of a fighter jet and capture of its pilot? If India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2019) is so much of a parent article, how about 2019 Balakot airstrike be meted with the same treatment? 110.93.250.2 (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn A10 as a plausible redirect. If there are content issues, it can be listed at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm absolutely unconvinced by the OP's other-stuff-exists argument, and I don't have an opinion either way on the deleted content, but I can agree with this - this title should have been at most redirected, not speedy deleted. Overturn. —Cryptic 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn per @Cryptic:'s reasoning, on both counts. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn and Redirect Poorly stated case, but it appears that the issue is whether to reverse an A10 and change it to a Redirect. That is a clear case of Redirects are Cheap. A redirect is often better than an A10. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

6 April 2019[edit]

Dagger (zine)[edit]

Dagger (zine) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two delete votes, and two keep votes resulting in no-consensus. NorthPark1417 (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There were 3 delete, 1 keep, and 1 weak keep !votes. (Some history: This was re-created immediately after a previous AfD was closed as "delete" and while a previous DRV was still ongoing.) --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - per the thread here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse, as AfD nom. Other than NorthPark1417 (the article's author), the only person arguing to keep was User:Ricksanchez. I certainly don't intend to dissuade new editors from taking part in AfDs, but with a grand total of 162 edits, I suspect they have limited experience evaluating articles. In any case, they wrote, ... if NorthPark1417 could give us a list of what has been updated and why those new updates increase notability, I am in favor. If NorthPark1417 cannot or does not, I will change my status to delete. The requested list of updates was never provided. Unfortunately, User:Ricksanchez never returned to the AfD, so we can't know for sure what they would have done. I'm pinging him to clarify his intentions one way or another. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse There is consensus in the first AfD that available sources were insufficient to establish notability and in the second that the concerns in the first AfD were not addressed. Unless the best three sources are significantly better than what was available the AfDers at the time, relitigating this is pointless, and having a 5th discussion next week won't change the result from what ut was a month ago. Strongly suggest that the nominator pass their best sources through a review process before trying to recreate a page on the subject, and also suggest that maybe Tim Hinely is the better topic to write an article on, as suggested in both AfDs. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• There are 2 delete and 2 keep. It is no-consensus. Additional sources were added, including ones from notable industry journalists and musicians. The two nominators of the deletion are at the forefront of the discussions, in the AfD, the user talk discussion, and here as well. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Note that the article Tim Hinely has been created with most of the material on the zine merged into it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd. NorthPark1417, this is the second time you've opened a DRV, then not had the patience to wait for it to be completed before running off and re-creating the article. When you open a DRV, you are requesting that your fellow editors invest time to evaluate your request. It is disrespectful of their efforts to not wait for them to finish their job. By just creating new articles, all you do is generate more work for other people. Please don't do that. It is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. This is a collaborative project. The way to be productive is to work with your fellow editors to advance the goals of the encyclopedia, not to win battles by tiring out the opposition. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've taken a closer look at Tim Hinely. It is virtually identical to the deleted Dagger (zine). The changes largely consist of swapping the order of some sections. The Bibliographies are almost identical. Rather than delete it myself, I've tagged it for WP:G4 to get a second opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• As the closing administrator I've given my opinion in User_talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#WP:Articles for deletion/Dagger (zine) (2nd nomination). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - Unfortunately, this appears to be a case of vexatious litigation, including using an off-again-on-again approach to deletion review. We may need some sodium chloride. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• A redirect to Blurt (magazine)#Tim Hinely serves to fill the red links, from articles that use Dagger and Tim Hinely. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

5 April 2019[edit]

Cape May Brewing Company[edit]

Cape May Brewing Company (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Adequate reliable sourcing proving notability. There were four deletes in the AFD; one said the article read like an advertisement, and three claim that it doesn't pass WP:NORG. However, there were sources from around the country and state. There were 35 references when the article was deleted, five more than when the AFD started. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. The nom doesn't meet WP:DRVPURPOSE, but I took a look anyway. There's only two arguments to keep, neither of which impress me. One points out that WP:AUD is met, however, AUD is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement. The other points out that Notability asserted well enough, but that's an argument against WP:A7, nothing more. I also looked at WP:THREE of the sources mentioned in the AFD. Forbes is just a passing mention. It's about the NJ Brewer's Association, and uses a few quotes from the subject's CEO. Also, forbes.com contributor pieces are often given less weight per WP:PUS#News media. The NBC Los Angeles piece is minor coverage of what's essentially a publicity stunt by the brewery, with quotes from the brewery's sales rep. And NJ Dept of Agriculture is just a directory listing. Reading the article itself, I agree that it's promotional, and I probably would have WP:G11'd it had I seen it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is there any material in the article that can be kept? Surely the sources at least establish notability, being the 3rd largest brewery in New Jersey. The fact that a small brewery is able to get a publicity stunt in publications around the world shows some notability for the brewery, likewise that the brewery was the only one to be part of the Jersey Fresh program. Surely the fact that the head of this brewery leading the NJ Brewer's Association also lends notability to the brewery that he helped create. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment from AfD closer. I am somewhat dismayed that there was no attempt to discuss this before I received the DRV notice on my talk page, the more so since the nom is a sysop themselves who should know better. RoySmith did an excellent job at summarizing the AfD and I don't think I have anything to add to that right now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was surprised the AFD was closed and the article deleted already. I wasn't sure whether the appropriate place to discuss would be on your user page, or a deletion review, so pardon for not knowing better. I responded to each of the deletion comments, asking how it felt like an advertisement, and I got nothing. I was disappointed by the quick nature of the deletion process, especially because I've worked on and off the article since 2014. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Quick?? It was relisted and the debate ran for 2 weeks. Aren't you familiar with how AfD works? When I hover my cursor over your username, it says "sysop"... And before you go to any noticeboard, it is always more polite to contact somebody first on their talk page. Not that I would have told you anything different than what RoySmith already said, but that's besides the point. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've been on Wikipedia since 2005, yep I'm familiar with AfD. I wouldn't have gone to the noticeboard, I thought that this was the proper place to take a deletion review, considering that I disagreed with the nature of the comments, namely how it felt like an advertisement, and how the many 35 sources in the article established notability. I would've assume that collectively, the 35 sources and the content provided were enough for the article to not be deleted. I don't mean to go all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article for Cape May Brewing Company was longer than any other independent New Jersey brewery (save maybe Flying Fish Brewing). Since you're familiar with the article as the AfD closer, I was curious, is there anything salvageable in the article? I'd like to keep working on the article and republish it, but I want to do it properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• It was closed "delete" because of a lack of notability. WIthout notability it's not salveagable, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Third-largest brewery in the state isn't notable? Awards from around the country? I dispute the assertion that the 35 sources (minus the self-references/blog posts) don't make it notable. If that doesn't, then what sort of sourcing would it need to be notable enough? This is my first brewery I've written on - normally I just write about hurricanes (hence my user name), but I wanted to branch out on the largest brewery in my area. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The answer to, what sort of sourcing would it need to be notable enough?, is WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• keep - article seems nice. Local sources would be normal for a local brewery? Maybe involving more editors or userfication with another editor. Disclaimer: I am new to delete discussion and trying to learn to evaluate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparebug (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vidyutblogger. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Hi Sparebug. I'm afraid that you're in the wrong place. This is not a deletion discussion and we don't !vote "keep" or "delete" here. This is a deletion review to determine whether the consensus was correctly determined in a previous deletion discussion. Please read the guidelines that I have linked in the previous sentence. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse - I would have !voted Delete, but that isn't important. Closer used reasonable judgment. This appears to be a request to revote. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – I can't see the deleted page, so I'm not sure if these sources were already in the article and considered by AfD voters and the closer, but from the AfD discussion, it seems there was too much focus on AUD and local/national coverage, and there wasn't discussion of some of the potential SIGCOV out there. Food & Wine magazine (national media) did a story when Cape May Brewery won a 2017 "Best Beer in America" award [5], as did New Jersey statewide media NJ.com (regional media) [6]. Other examples of regional-media coverage: [7] [8] [9]. I don't know if industry media "counts" but why not? I do not believe this is pay-to-play promotional coverage: [10] [11] [12] County/sub-regional: [13] [14] Local: [15] [16] [17]. I don't know if any of these are "new" or grounds to recreate post-deletion or relist for consideration, hence I'm not !voting, just bringing it to editors' attention in case these sources were "missed". Leviv ich 17:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of those sources look like they are likely pay-to-play to me (njbiz for example), but food and wine, nj.com and a few others look pretty good. An article can be written here. It sounds like the one that was here was too promotional. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Friends[edit]

Portal:Friends (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Three deletes and three keeps. One of the keeps was an unsubstantiated "Meets WP:POG. This should have been closed by an Admin as "no consensus" or relisted or even left for more votes before closing. A bad NAC close, sorry to say. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Closer's note: I am counting the comment by Espresso Addict as a keep vote. Then the !votes are more like 4 keeps, 1 delete and 1 weak delete. The argument "Meets POG" is only as unsubstantiated as your statement "Individual TV shows should not have portals." This could also have been closed as "no consensus" but that does not make much of a difference than a "keep" closure. SD0001 (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Then you can't count because the nominator's voice counts too (that is three deletes) and User:Espresso Addict (an Admin) is perfectly capable of voting if they wanted to. There is a big difference between no consensus and keep in these portal debates. "Meets POG" without explanation is not helpful because all kinds of things that don't meet POG have been claimed to meet POG lately. TV shows don't need portals is an opinion based on POG (broad scope required) that drives toward setting precedent. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• endorse though NC would have been within discretion also. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

*Endorse as being a valid conclusion when Keep outnumbered Delete, although I think that No Consensus would have been better. (I !voted Delete. Legacypac and I are critical of portals.) The mention that this was a NAC is a red herring; it isn't invalidated for that reason. Legacypac: You don't need to select every portal as a hill to die on. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As I stated, this was a split decision - Keep and Delete were equal at three each, but the closer claims otherwise, which show this was a BADNAC. A relist would have been much better, or NC. This user is pretty inexperienced in MfD. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse as within discretion. However, I have to note that I would have closed this as NC. I would probably not have relisted this, as the discussion seems to have ended a few days before the close. I also note that WP:NAC explicitly states "A non-admin closure is not appropriate (if) [...] The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." It would have been better not to NAC close this but leave this to an admin. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn BADNAC. Non-admins don’t get to enjoy admin discretion, they have not been vetted for understanding consensus and policy, allowing this sort of thing opens XfD up to supervoting games and a deterioration of respect afforded to the processes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC) prior involvement: I try to ignore Portal fuss at MfD
• Overturn per SmokeyJoe and my reasoning above. --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Void close and relist. Obvious WP:BADNAC. Relist this and leave it to an admin to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per WP:BADNAC; kind of a textbook example of "close call", "several valid outcomes", and "likely to be controversial". Even if it wasn't a NAC, I don't think there is keep consensus based on this discussion. Two keep !votes cited WP:POG without further rationale (IMO "no rule excludes this" = "per PAGs" = "per POG"); the third had rationale. That's balanced against two delete !votes with rationales and a third delete !vote that said the other delete !votes had better rationales than the keep !votes. So there are reasoned arguments on both sides. It could be relisted or closed as no consensus, but I don't think there's consensus for keep (or delete) with such an even split in numbers and arguments. (A margin of one or two !votes is not much in any discussion.) Given that this nomination received five !votes and a comment and had not been relisted yet, relisting would be preferable to a no consensus close, as it may get more participation. Leviv ich 03:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist - The last few arguments have persuaded me that this should have been Relisted. XFDs that appear to be No Consensus after one week are normally relisted, and that would have been more appropriate than Keep. Since interest in portal deletions has been recently increasing, a Relist is very likely to get a better consensus. If this had already been relisted once, it would be a judgment call between Keep and No Consensus, but Relist is the better judgment call here, and would have been the better judgment call. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

4 April 2019[edit]

Lady Rose Gilman[edit]

Lady Rose Gilman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was recreated successfully with more information. This admin deleted it again on a whim without any discussion. I wanted to, at least, have access to its contents before this surprising deletion. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Request temporary undeletion, and restoration of revisions before the AfD for comparison purposes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: I already made this request for deletion. I don't know if it will work, at least for retrieving the history. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have undeleted the current and previous versions of the page for this review. The last instance of the page was up for a year before tagging by user:DrKay and then deletion by User:Justlettersandnumbers. So it looks like the review should be on whether a G4 delete is justified. If this is closed as endorse, then the page should be redeleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion with caveats. Looking at the diff, there are only 3 added sentences about rather routine coverage, so I think the deletion is sufficently justified — there's very little chance of the article remaining if we relisted it at AfD. However, I do think it's worthwhile to consider what to do with the content. Redirection was not considered at the original AfD as an alternative, and seeing as there's already an appropriate mention that can be targeted, and in that case whether the article should be kept in history becomes a matter of weighing the usefulness of the current content against the trouble of keeping it — it's not much of either, really. I don't think it's worth bringing the matter back to AfD for a full 7 days to clarify that small point, but overall I'd say keep deleted, but allow redirect (either with history or without) and allow a copy to userify/draftify. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It's an almost exact recreation as shown by the diff between the previously deleted version and the new article[18]. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: And why must it be complete deletion? If the article does not have sufficient content to survive on its own, why not redirect it to Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester? It is much easier to manage. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the article does not prevent creation of a redirect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Maybe, I'm not into the details of that. What I know is that last evening, when the article was deleted, I didn't have access to the history, so I couldn't use any of that content. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "Anotherwikipedianuser" re-created the article virtually identically, and must be aware that he or she did so. Indeed, it was so closely identical that he or she must have had a copy of the original article. The reasons for deletion apply just as much now as they did at the time of the deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Like I explained to User:Justlettersandnumbers, I don't remember 100% sure how I did it, but I think I got access to at least most of the content via Wayback Machine and worked my way from there. Now, even with Wayback Machine, it would be harder to reconstruct the article. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I tagged the article for speedy deletion because it was the same as the deleted version, and therefore met the G4 criterion. The coverage of her in the press is no more substantial now than it was at the time of deletion, when she failed to meet notability requirements. I have no objection to a redirect. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure how many different discussions there have to be about this (my talk, WP:REFUND, now here), but no matter. Here's (most of) what I wrote earlier: "Just to be clear: I have no interest in the topic, nor opinion on the article. I deleted it because it was nominated for speedy deletion as G4 by DrKay, and because that nomination seemed valid. The page was not restored (as far as I can determine), but re-created with the identical text as before (still not clear how that was done). I'm happy for anybody restore it and start a new AfD". Anotherwikipedianuser, the page was not deleted "on a whim", but under a valid criterion for speedy deletion, in accordance with policy; of course, whether or not I applied that criterion correctly is open to discussion. Anyway, you might perhaps strike that phrase (but I'll live even if you don't). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I admit it wasn't fair to say that you deleted the article "on a whim". As I couldn't have access to the article's history, I didn't know that it was User:DrKay who nominated the article for deletion, and not you. Anyway, I apologise to you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Living British minor royals? Surely the answer is merge to somewhere?? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Rose Gilman completely failed to address the BEFORE requirement to consider merge options. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Create a redirect to Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester#Issue. Not sure if the history should be available. It is royals’ personal information tracking, no secondary source commentary, and some inaccurate commentary on the retrospectivity of the gender changes to the law of succession. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - By way of explanation, I recently accepted a draft on a minor member of the British royal family, and had it taken to AFD and deleted. I have learned that there are no consistent rules about minor members of the British royal family. We don't need to third-guess the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but allow a redirect to Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Query on the endorses - I agree with the general trend for "endorse, add a redirect" - but are these interpreted in DRV as "treat it as if the AfD had been a redirect" or "delete it again, then add a redirect"? In effect, would the material now be accessible via page history? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To be honest, it doesn't make much difference to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorsing deletion means it should be deleted. Whether anyone then wishes to create a redirect is entirely up to them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• • I don't think it makes much difference either way, since WP:REFUNDs are available to draftspace, userspace, or emailed to the user so it can be used elsewhere. I don't think the difference is significant enough to relist such an old discussion, and reclosing it as redirect or not really only makes a difference in whether a REFUND is needed. Redirect and delete are pretty much the same "not keep" at AfD, except when seriously problematic content like attack pages or copyvios are involved (in which case you have to "delete and redirect" or "delete") which is not the case here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Request temporary undeletion and have the article go through an AFD. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

3 April 2019[edit]

Vidyut Kale (closed)[edit]

Marketing operations management (closed)[edit]

Love You Two (closed)[edit]

1 April 2019[edit]

Archive[edit]