THC Science

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

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
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);
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);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
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.

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

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.
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


1.	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= }} ~~~~
2.	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= }} ~~~~
3.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2020 November 7}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
5.	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=2020 November 7}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2020 November 7\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

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.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted

*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~

*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~

*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~

*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~

*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~

*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~

*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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

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

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.)

Speedy closes

It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.

Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

7 November 2020

Joey Primiani

It's been nine years. This person is much more likely to be notable today than he was nine years ago. I request, at the very least, a removal of the indefinite create protection. I'm posting this here as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Joey_Primiani, since it seems that this is the only place to overturn an AFD.

I have no connection with this article other than that I activated the indefinite create protection, back when I was still an administrator, to reinforce the outcome of the AFD. I have no time to write a new article but I'm hoping others will, as a lot has happened since we deleted this page so long ago. Thanks, —Soap— 19:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I've come to DRV, when I have prepared a brand new or heavily revised version of an article that had been deleted years previously. I was generally told that the old AFD were "stale", and it was a waste of time for DRV to conclude with an opinion on them. I was generally told to move the drafts to article space, where they could take their chances.

Whoever started Draft:Joey Primiani, which has been deleted as an abandoned draft six times in the last two years, would not have been able to move the new version to article space, so it can stand or fall on its merits, due to page protection that is eight years old.

So let's remove the page protection, and restore Draft:Joey Primiani. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Unprotect, obviously.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

David Kellogg

I'd like to request userification. Talk page too, please.

I came across the AFD, and it concerned me. One justification in the nomination seemed to be that David Kellogg, director of two Hollywood movies, had more famous namesakes, and since they didn't have articles he shouldn't either. I think that is a bad argument for deletion. Rather its an argument for looking into the namesakes to see what kind of coverage they merit.

I think the nominator overlooked the significance of the rest of Kellogg's career, as a successful director of commercial and music video. He won several awards, and, contrary to what the AFD claimed, they were in his name.

Ridley Scott, Tony Scott and David Fincher are famous film directors now, but they were successful directors of commercials and music videos, first. Kellogg would be the counter-example, the successful commercial and music video director who tried directing feature films and went back to what he did best.

I don't know whether I want to make the effort to prepare a David Kellogg version 2.0 ready to move into article space. But I'd like to look at version 1.0. If I am not ready to move an improved version to article space, in one month, I'll put a G7 on it.

I think policy would allow me to put any version of a David Kellogg article that wasn't subject to a {{G4}} into article space, but if anyone here says they want a heads-up, first, I'll do that.

FWIW Kellogg has been a film Professor, for the last decade. While that falls far short of WP:ACADEMIC, I think it was a mistake to not at least mention it in the AFD.

FWIW, I did try to contact the closing admin before coming here. They seem to be on a break. Geo Swan (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide the best three sources on him you are aware of? Hobit (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Duoyunxuan

The [1] I created was speedy deleted. This is a misunderstanding. Because it is as important as Rong Bao Zhai. Duoyunxuan and Rong Bao Zhai are equivalent to Sotheby's and Christie's in the West. Please review the references below:

China's commerce department has identified the Duoyunxuan as the first auction companies established and the time-honored brand in Chinese mainland.
Artnet, an international professional art website, introduces the Duoyunxuan;
The Duoyunxuan is introduced in the Encyclopedia of China.

So this article should be restored. --Jujiang (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that I've reformatted this in Special:Diff/987458810. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Eh. Probably depends on the content of the page at the time as to whether an A7 was warranted. There may well be enough here (at a glance) to go to AfD at least, but I think it's quite unlikely to survive. And I find it slightly strange that it seemingly doesn't have a listing on Baidu Baike or zhwiki. But is it worth a listing? Probably. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The entire prose content was "'''Duoyunxuan''' ({{zh|t=朵雲軒|s=朵云轩}}}}, Studio of Glorious Treasures) is an old [[stationery]], [[calligraphy]] and [[painting]] shop in [[Shanghai]], China. It is located in Nanjing East Road in Shanghai. It was founded in 1900 (26th year of the [[Guangxu]] reign in the [[Qing dynasty]]).<ref>[http://www.duoyunxuan.com/getDyx_about.do 上海朵云轩拍卖公司简介]</ref>" —Cryptic 05:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the original content mention the importance of this article.--Wolfch (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
There is an article 朵云轩 in baibu.--Wolfch (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment It is perfectly possible to have a valid WP:A7 deletion of a (poorly written) article on a notable or even highly notable topic. This looks to be the case here. English Wikipedia requires references and, at the very least, an indication of importance. A prior A7 speedy deletion in no way prejudices the creation of a suitable article. Thincat (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thincat: The speedy deletion is not because it is poorly written, but because it says "promotion". Can this article be recreated in AfD? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The speedy deletion A7 mentioned "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I think it is suitable for the previous content.--Wolfch (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Duoyunxuan has twice been deleted, not because it was promotional but because it "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject".[2] Judging by the text quoted by Cryptic above I think that was a valid claim. Have other articles been created on this topic which may have been promotional? And, by the way, a promotional article will indeed have been poorly written from a Wikipedia point of view. You do not recreate articles through AfD. Wait for this discussion to be closed and you will be told what may then happen. Thincat (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. (In fact, the above three references are enough to prove its importance and significance.) --Jujiang (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thincat are you suggesting good faith contributors tag poorly written articles with an {{A7}} - even when they realize the underlying topic of the articles were unquestionably notable? That surprises me. Shouldn't any non-BLP article, that was poorly-written, be subject to an alternative to deletion, like editorial tags? If the underlying topic is notable, surely deletion should be the last resort?
I am going to ping the deleting administrators, @Anthony Bradbury and Amortias:. Perhaps they could ping to original tag placers? Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a sign of the most notable of topics that they are first tagged (and sometimes deleted) as A7![3] Thincat (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Wolfch noted the chinese wikipedia has an article on this topic. Thanks! I tried looking at the google translation of the entry in the Encyclopedia of China Jujiang mentioned above, and google translation the article from the Chinese wikipedia. Neither are fully coherent. Near as I can determine it is a 120 year old organization, that now has official Government of China backing, to support traditional Chinese arts, like traditional Chinese calligraphy.
If I understood the translation I would be amazed to see a well-written article on this topic that wasn't easily recognized as notable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment Deleting admin here. The article in its entirety described it as an old stationary shop and made no references or claims of meeting WP:NOTE or any other notability criteria. The tagging editor has been around longer than I have and im confident in their (and my) judgement in this case and A7 was what appeared to be a reasonable criteria for deletion. Without additional work i cant see this would survive at AFD either. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan - I wouldnt be adverse to this being drafed if requested. Amortias (T)(C) 20:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

- Calligraphy is not an important field of endeavor in the Anglosphere. Steve Jobs studied Calligraphy, and it is said that the influence of looking for beauty in communication played a very influential role in the development of the Macintosh, and later Apple products. But he may be the only person notably influenced by Calligraphy, in the West.
- Without claiming to be an expert in China, it is my understanding that Calligraphy is an enormously more important in China, for a variety of reasons. So, no matter how much you respect the original tagger, he or she likely made a huge mistake for writing off Duoyunxuan as just a stationary store. I await their weighing in here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If we click on the website of Duoyunxuan[4], we can see that it includes Chinese paintings, calligraphy, ceramics, furniture and many other types of arts and crafts. The size and importance of Duoyunxuan in China is equivalent to that of Sotheby's and Christie's in the West. --Jujiang (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine. Create an article that either has sources that approach the requirements of WP:N or make some claim of importance. Without that, it can be deleted by an admin under WP:CSD#A7. My understanding is that the article, as it existed, was basically a line or two. Just do it again, but with a bit more. Hobit (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Amortias: Do I have to wait for the discussion here to end when I recreate the draft? --Jujiang (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

1 November 2020

Template:Licht

I'm asking that this close be overturned, or at least reopened and relisted, as the close does not appear to address the rationale for deletion (which includes "[the navbox {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}] contains all of the links in the nominated template"), nor points raised in discussion (in particular, "there is not a single article using {{Licht}} which is not also using {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}"). TfD is not a vote, and the two (only) keep comments amount to no more than "I like it" (expressed as "I don't like the alternative"). The closer has declined my request to reconsider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Closer comment: Discussion on my talk. My view is as I say there. I've closed a good number of TfD discussions at this point, and none without evaluating the arguments, regardless of the vote tally. Course, like all other closers at TfD, I don't see the need to write paragraphs for every close I make, although I do it often enough (probably more than the average closer, tbh), especially in cases where I think it would increase confidence in the close, provide helpful advice to editors, or for less clear outcomes. So really I can only refer back to the answer I gave at my talk, and in addition reference various portions of WP:NAVBOX for the PAG-based support of the keep arguments (which asserted that the template provides good navigational value), whilst the deletion argument is not supported by the same guideline. Hence I see no reason to wholly discredit the keep arguments, which is what would be required to achieve the "delete" result requested here. I will also note that I did relist it for further comments initially, so this discussion was already open for two weeks. Further, the achieved quorum is not atypical in the context of navbox TfDs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Endorse. A navbox listing 11 articles serves a very different purpose from a broader one listing more than 200 articles, so the rationale for deletion is unpersuasive, and the "Keep" closure was correct given that no one other than the nominator voted for deletion. I don't understand why this was brought to DRV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Endorse I regularly close TfDs and would have made the same call if I were to close this. The only somewhat reasonable alternative here would be to relist it, but given that there already was a relist, noone has supported the proposal except for the nominator and no new arguments for deletion have been introduced since the relist I would not do so. In fact Primefac reverted an attempted relist here the day before the close. --Trialpears (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Endorse. The nominator here will be well aware that deletion review is used to address issues of failure to follow deletion process, not merely because they disagree with the outcome. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Endorse, but I don't think the chiding of the nom above is appropriate - this was a non-admin close (though those are common at TfD) with minimal participation (also common at TfD) so if the nom thinks the closer didn't weigh the !keep arguments properly we can have a look. I don't think this is the case, though: the general rule is The template is redundant to a better-designed template, and the !voters disagreed with that, and the !voters didn't misapply policy. SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Endorse. The deletion nomination wasn’t persuading anyone. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

31 October 2020

Sérgio Trindade

I created this page, which had been previously deleted following a deletion discussion in April as "Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or other notability criteria; references are to death". I would object that this is rather questionable; besides being part of the panel that was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Trindade held various positions of importance within UN commissions and there are several references to him before his death, such as instance https://polarconnection.org/profiles-advisory-bo/sergio-c-trindade/ or http://webtv.un.org/watch/world-chronicle-253-sergio-trindade-centre-for-science-and-technology-for-development/5762415228001/?term= or https://www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary/asset/2121/2121041/ or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-45670-1_2 or https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1326570 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9RsPPGD69I.. I do not know how was the old, deleted page (not made by me) and if it was less detailed than the one I created; however, the new page I created was deleted in a few hours through speedy deletion, without a new discussion. Pesqara (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a temporary undelete? The sources above aren't great, but the question is if G4 applies. And on top of that, I've got to say if this guy isn't notable, something is probably wrong with our notability guidelines. PhD from MIT, served on the IPCC (which won a Nobel while he was on it I think), and a member of Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment I think. I'm struggling to find sources that would meet our guidelines for a biography, ... Hobit (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- As you know, our guidelines require that article subjects be discussed in reliable secondary sources, so just because you think someone should be notable based on their résumé doesn't mean they would necessarily be notable. That being said, I'd also like an undelete. There were a couple sources presented in the AfD too. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  - yep. I suspect we aren't going to get there, but that makes me sad. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    - No reason why you can't look for sources to get the article over the line though :) SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
      - Already had. Wasn't much that wasn't linked above. A few short obituaries, but that's it. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Overturn the G4. I haven't seen the deleted article, only the temporarily undeleted one, but the temporarily undeleted one should at least be restored unless there is another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Endorse After looking at both versions, the articles are substantially identical enough that WP:G4 is the correct result. The biggest difference is the newer version does have more sources, but the AfD was pretty clear in its result. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a completely ridiculous outcome. We're keeping articles about people who played twenty minutes in a professional sports match, but we're deleting articles about Nobel Prize winners who're on the board of the IPCC? That's insane. Overturn and restore because, in the context of the other decisions we make, that AfD reached an utterly unreasonable result.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm hoping for a WP:IAR keep if a listed as an AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)typos fixed that made this impossible to read. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, technically, from 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, s incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: 'X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.'" This is an English-language blurb - looks like he was the coordinating author on a chapter of a report from 2000. Not trying to minimise anything, but almost all of hits were his obituary and the rest of the hits didn't appear independent. This would explain why he didn't have anyone try to start an article until he unfortunately passed away. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  - He would be a co-ordinating author within the meaning of that article, and not just a contributor or scientist who was involved with the report.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    - With all respect, I just want to make sure you read that correctly - the full blurb says IPCC as an organisation won the Nobel, not any of the associated individuals. Your response to me makes it seem like you are adding an additional category "above" scientist, which does not appear to be the case. If this is restored, we need to make absolutely clear he did not win the Nobel prize. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
      - The award was for "efforts to build up and disseminate... knowledge about man-made climate change." The IPCC is an organization, so it's made of pieces of paper and polite legal fictions. It didn't build up and disseminate knowledge. People did that. It only remains to identify which people.
        The IPCC has a lot of authors: there are literally thousands. It's clearly disingenuous to describe each of them as a Nobel Prize laureate. The most senior level of author is "lead author" or "co-ordinating author". I accept that there are more than 400 such people. But if it's not them who won half the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC, then nobody did.—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
        That's a correct statement, as long as "nobody" refers to people and not the organisation - "nobody" won half of that award. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
weak overturn speedy probably won't make it at AfD, but enough new sources (and new text ) to make it worth discussing and to not be a G4. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Overturn - Deleted on notability grounds, and new article presented additional, significant sources, so a G4 speedy deletion is obviously indefensible. Really, a complete no brainer. Wily D 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Overturn the speedy deletion, which may be technically defensible procedurally, but has led to a problematic result. Someone could start a new AfD if desired, though I'd frankly prefer that they wouldn't: applying my own simple metric for deletion, the encyclopedia is of better quality with the inclusion of this article than without it. Note that if there's an "endorse" result here, then the formally proper procedure would be to DRV the orginal AfD with a view to relisting it. That would take weeks of bureaucracy to get us to the same place, so it shouldn't be required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not necessary. The G4 isn't procedureally defensible, and was already well on it's way to be overturned here on it's on merits; so there's no need to overturn the original AfD (whether it was correctly decided or not, it's no longer relevant). Wily D 13:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Overturn the speedy and agree with NYB that this is an article whose content belongs on the encyclopedia. At AfD it would probably be a weak keep, but have to imagine there are enough sources to get there. StarM 23:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
No objection to overturning, sorry I caused a kerfuffle with the G4 nomination. I doubt it will pass at AfD, but clearly there is enough contention here that it warrants discussion. I agree with NYB that closing this --> DRV would bureaucracy for the sake for bureaucracy. VQuakr (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It was a clear and defensible G4 in my mind, so no need to apologise - a bit of variance though so may be best for an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	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

Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics Milestones The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R Creation Help Vital articles Today's articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Editor assistance Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education New pages patrol General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Books Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories and indexes and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Contents

Purpose

Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review

Commenting in a deletion review

Temporary undeletion

Closing reviews

Speedy closes

Active discussions

7 November 2020

Joey Primiani

David Kellogg

Duoyunxuan

1 November 2020

Template:Licht

31 October 2020

Sérgio Trindade

Recent discussions

29 October 2020

No personal attacks (closed)

28 October 2020

Wilbert Wynnberg (closed)

27 October 2020

25 October 2020

Burn it All (closed)

24 October 2020

19 October 2020

Society of Cinematographers (closed)

Archive

Leave a Reply