Wikipedia:Deletion review

Skip to:

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archive
(purge cache)

WP:DRV

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes 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);
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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

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.	Click here 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= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2024 December 2}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	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=2024 December 2}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 December 2\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their 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.

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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 everyone. 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, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. 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 closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

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

Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
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.
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).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet 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

2 December 2024

Controversy over Baidu

I am a course instructor supervising students writing and translating articles here for 10+ years and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Wikipedia (zh:对百度的争议 - wikidata:Q10956638), perfectly normal for large companies - see Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at Baidu#Controversies. Now, the name should probably be Criticism of Baidu rather Controversy over Baidu (although we also have MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...), but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, WP:AFD could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a WP:TROUT and a refresher of policies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could the page be undeleted for non-admins to review? I don't see any reason that a page about controversies related to a company would automatically be considered an attack page, but I didn't see the content of this particular page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin could either temp undelete this or confirm it's an attack page that doesn't require undeletion, that would be fantastic. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G10 I don't need to see it, I've disagreed enough with Piotrus in deletion discussions over the years to know that he knows what is and isn't an attack page, so it can go to AfD if someone disagrees. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G10 assuming good faith that it is a faithful translation of the Chinese page, this shouldnt have been speedily deleted. If there are other concerns, send it to AfD and let the community decide if it should have a place here. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. After reviewing the deleted page, I completely understand the action of the deleting admin. The page is not like the other "Criticism of ____" pages mentioned by the appellant. It does not attempt to place these controversies in appropriate context or treat them encyclopedically. It's just a laundry list of negative content about the company, and it appears to be based on original research as the sources presented describe individual instances, not covering Baidu-related controversies as an overall topic. (As a translation, it has several significant defects as well.) I think there's probably some room for interpretation here; another admin might have reasonably decided this didn't meet the definition of an attack page, but given what's here (content that exists primarily to disparage...its subject) a G10 is definitely within discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This matches my thinking when I tagged the page for G10, including the "another admin might disagree" bit which is why I didn't use my own admin tools to push the delete button. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I do think that was a G10 within discretion. There are also salvageable parts, so a draft might be a good idea if it's allowed, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as is. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Dclemens1971 comments above. The fact it is a translation from the Chinese WP is irrelevant, the existence of an article in another language WP is not a guarantee there should be a similar article in the English WP. --John B123 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It sure looks like the only purpose of that page was to disparage its subject. --Here2rewrite (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

I would like to know if the page can be reinstated as draft since new sources presented in the discussion were ignored. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own close Just so we're on the same page here: This process is for contesting the closers' reading of the consensus of the discussion. It is not the closers responsibility to evaluate sources, but to gauge consensus, which I believe I did.

Your remark was there for a week without being replied to, so seemingly it was not found to be compelling by the other particpants.

Of the other comments in favor of keeping it, one made arguments not based in policy, one baldly stated that better sources exist and did not follow up on that when asked to, and one was self-identified as "weak".

Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to Draft and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually Blanked and Redirected, so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history to redirect, which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). Frank Anchor 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. Simple wikipedia article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Spanish article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, French article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Afrikaans article created by a globally-locked sock puppet, etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: it's here, where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Redirect without history deletion. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an alternative to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks to User:DrKay for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of gaming a title. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Redirect without history deletion While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2024

Mount Barker United SC

The credibility of this page relates to the Mt Barker United Soccer Club and it's history. The legitimacy of this page can be traced to Football South Australia Club Directory - https://www.footballsa.com.au/sites/ffsa/files/2024-11/Senior%20Elite%20Club%20Directory%20-%202024%20FINAL.pdf which shows Mt Barker United in the state league competition. Other sites include: https://fsa.dribl.com/fixtures?date_range=default&season=gld4EkGmW5&club=3pmvZMrmvJ&timezone=Australia%2FAdelaide and www.collegiatesoccerleague.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henge2024 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closing decision, the AFD asked for independent sources about the club, and that has not been provided or indicated here. We need more than sources that simply shows the club exists. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other pages for other clubs in the same league that have been around for a long time. I am not sure why this one is any different. What sources can I provide that back up that 1. the club exists. 2. The club competes in the league mentioned. This page is no different to say - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Adelaide_SC. I am happy to provide any information but I am confused as to what more information is needed. 180.150.112.23 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it exists and plays isn't what's of concern @Henge2024 (please remember to log in). WP:SIRS details the kind of sourcing needed. Other articles may also need assessment, but that doesn't mean this one should be retained until they are. Star Mississippi 14:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Unanimous consensus to delete. The sources brought up both in the AFD and the DRV are neither significant nor independent. I support recreation as a redirect to Football South Australia#State League 2 and would have voted that way had I participated in the AFD. Alas I did not, so I can not consider an “overturn to redirect” when that option was not brought up in the AFD.Frank Anchor 18:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close as no valid appeal has been made. Star Mississippi 22:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The only possible close. If this is an appeal based on WP:DRVPURPOSE3, information that was not considered in the AFD, then the appellant appears to be saying It Exists, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and should also be an argument to avoid in deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2024

User:Electrabytes04

I deleted this as WP:U5, a non-contributor's misuse of Wikipedia as a web host (external link added with the first edit from the account). The nomination and/or deletion have been questioned on my talk-page by Tamzin, so bringing this here for review/clarification. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this falls under the "Meh" category. I doubt many here would care enough about this either way. Seeing as the page was created less than a day earlier, I would have left it alone, and given the new user a chance to find their footing and figure out how things work around here, rather than greet them with a speedy deletion of their test userpage. That said, seeing as the user's only other edit was a rejected request to usurp their(?) old account name, which also had zero edits, I fear this editor might not be here to build an encyclopedia. Delete or delete not; there is no DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn U5 though I largely agree with OwenX’s opinion of “meh.” I don’t consider adding a personal GitHub account as using Wikipedia to be a web-host. Persons who think the user page is inappropriate can take this to MFD if desired. I commend Justlettersandnumbers for seeking clarification at DRV. Frank Anchor 18:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. To be clear, the current page is not what was deleted, but rather a transclusion of their global userpage. The deleted page said (paragraph breaks replaced with slashes) "Hello? / ... / Is.. Is this thing on?? / ( For now, this is all that's here ) : / https://github.com/electrabytes04/" That is a painfully normal userpage, and the only think JN&L and I seem to disagree on is the propriety of that GitHub link, but I still don't understand where in policy they're getting the idea that the link is inappropriate, when WP:UPYES goes out of its way to say that non-promotional links to personal sites are allowed. And by policy, anything allowed under UPYES is exempt from U5. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse after reading WP:U5, I think it applies here: little to no edits outside a user page, and the user page is unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. That's two for two. Good deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: There are four clauses, not two, the last being an exception for "adhering to Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?". What content do you see in the deleted text that does not adhere to that policy? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion. Pretty clear. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, whether something adheres to "what may I have in my user pages?" - WP:UPYES isn't exactly a list of things which are acceptable and unacceptable, is it? It's "you're broadly free to do what you wish." But if you're a clear non-contributor, as OwenX points out, there's nothing at all wrong with this deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the exact opposite of how the policy is written. If you want to remove the UPYES exception to U5, by all means, propose that. If you'd like to remove the bit of UPYES saying that non-promotional links to one's personal site are explicitly allowed (which you've intriguingly only quoted the latter half of, not that "may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion" means "may be summarily deleted" regardless), by all means, propose that. As both policies are currently written, however, a UPYES-compliant userpage is categorically exempt from U5, and a link to one's GitHub is UPYES-compliant. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. A userpage consisting solely of a link to a personal webpage, github or otherwise, is not explicitly UPYES-compliant per UPYES. This will be overturned on the assumption this was a new user who got bit (even if that may not be the case per OwenX), and I would not have deleted it myself, but I do not believe it's an obviously erroneous deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? If Tamzin's quote is correct, then it didn't solely of a link. There was additional text. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you referring to the full sentence here: You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language. However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion.? SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose technically I was referring to A userpage consisting solely of a link to a personal webpage, github or otherwise, is not explicitly UPYES-compliant, but essentially, yes. The link was not the only thing in the userpage, so the carveout about "may appear promotional" is not applicable. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply adding, in short, "for now, this is all that's here" shouldn't be the difference between keeping and deleting. It doesn't matter, though. I think this was quite acceptable, others don't, it'll get sorted. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - WP:DELETEOTHER says, among other things, user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material. I don't think we should be WP:BITING users who decide to introduce themselves with pages like this. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn as per Frank Anchor and Hatman31. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the linked github repository. If, as SportingFlyer suggests, this was an attempt at self-promotion, it was spectactularly inept. Not that self-promotion has anything to do with U5 anyway.
This page was harmless. Restore if the user wants it. I see nobody's bothered to speak to them except for the twinkle template generated by the obscenely-inaccurate G11 tagging of their userpage, not even to inform them of this review. On the other hand, they haven't edited at all since then either, and who can blame them. —Cryptic 05:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn per Robert McClenon etc. Somewhat of a WP:BITE failure. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Overturn due to WP:BITE SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh We have established editors seeing this differently. While I don't see grounds for an overturn, that probably means it's not suitable for a speedy as its YMMV territory. Advocate for restoration and if it's an issue down the road, it can go to MfD. Right now I think we'd see an N/C close since on one feels strongly. Star Mississippi 03:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh and overturn Yeah, this should go to MfD per all of the above, even if it's borderline. We're not overturning a discussion, just undoing a speedy here and sending it for discussion, so much lower bar. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2024

Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)

No consensus to delete, there were more editors opposing the deletion and even those who were on the fence regarding the current article were against WP:TNT. Multiple sources were provided that discuss this in great detail. The article was being improved with subpar sources being removed and reliable sources being added. Alaexis_¿question? 21:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Most of the Keep (or "Oppose") !votes were little more than disagreement with the nom. Not violating WP:FRINGE or NPOV are not, by themselves, a valid reason to keep an article, if sourcing does not support it. Most Delete views, on the other hand, were skillfully argued, and weren't refuted by the Keeps. Citing sources that merely quote Russian propaganda doesn't help with WP:RS. Once you discard the non-P&G-based !votes, you're left with a rough consensus to delete, which asilvering carefully explained in their closing rationale. Owen× ☎ 22:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't agree that the Delete votes were skillfully argued. They did not refute the main argument for keeping the article which was that are several RS that discuss this topic in detail. These are books published in the US and Europe by distinguished historians (Carlotta Gall, Thomas de Waal, Jim Hughes (academic), John B. Dunlop). If Wikipedia editors don't agree with them it doesn't make them unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it's the opposing editors who had policy based arguments (sources proving that the topic satisfies WP:GNG). Alaexis_¿question? 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - it is not a vote, but in any case, when you count the nom, there were not more opposes. As for the arguments - it looks like asilvering evaluated those correctly and made good points in the close rationale. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The close rationale simply said that the delete position has been significantly more persuasively argued. He did not engage with the arguments of those who opposed the deletion. Alaexis_¿question? 22:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not understanding why this wasn't merged to First Chechen War as suggested. I get this is a contentious topic, so it's all the more worthwhile to channel POV forks, if indeed this is one, into better curated NPOV articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was general agreement this should be deleted, and the refutation of the sources as unreliable was convincing. Will not be following this page, so no need to reply to me. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer's statement that the Delete statements were better argued is supported by many of the Keep or Oppose votes being I like it, and this was a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Northeastern United States wildfires

There weren’t a lot of outside contributions, but there were some, so WP:G5 was already sketchy. Plus, it was on a notable topic that leaves a bit of a gaping hole in Wikipedia if deleted. Thus, the speedy deletion should be overturned. 2600:4808:290:1040:B910:2DB:56CA:3C53 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason the deleting admin @Explicit: was not notified of this deletion review? The appellant is required to notify the deleting admin before starting a deletion review and, optionally, seek clarification on their talk page. Frank Anchor 21:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will neither endorse nor refute the G5 as I can not access the deleted page's history, though I am sure Explicit did their homework before deleting the page (I am not requesting a temp undeletion). Either way Endorse per Cryptic’s analysis of the page’s history. No significant contributions by anyone except the blocked user. However, recreation is allowed by any user in good standing since the deletion is due to the user who created it, and not due to its content. Frank Anchor 21:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC) [modified Frank Anchor 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Overturn G5. The article was indeed created by a now-banned sock - in draftspace. It was duly submitted to AfC the next day, accepted and moved to mainspace by Wikishovel - an experienced new page reviewer. Regardless of its author, once it passed AfC by an uninvolved reviewer in good standing, it no longer qualifies for G5. The author continued working on the article, now in mainspace, for another ten days before they were banned, at which point Wizzito incorrectly tagged it with G5, and Explicit hastily deleted it. TROUT the appellant for not giving Explicit a chance to correct his mistake before bringing this here. I see no point in recreating the article from scratch, seeing as we already have a version good enough to pass AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX, where is the policy that says drafts moved to mainspace in good faith by an uninvolved editor can't be deleted G5? Wikishovel (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not OwenX, but I'd say that have no substantial edits by others would not be met by something moved to mainspace by a different editor. That is, the act of mainspacing a draft should count as a substantial edit for G5 purposes. And I'd agree with that. Overturn G5. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 is not applicable as long as the sockpuppet successfully deceives the community into accepting their drafts? That's... a take. Andrew5 is not just blocked, but banned. WP:BMB applies to their sockpuppet contributions. ✗plicit 00:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a take I've heard of before, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all. Endorse G5 - an AfC accept isn't a "substantial edit". -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space is no different than anywhere else. If a sockpuppet successfully deceives the community into making substantial edits to a page created in mainspace, it's G5 immune as well. Nothing special about the AfC process here, and no particular reason to not take this through a full deletion discussion; arguing that G5 doesn't apply doesn't mean the article needs to stay, just that it shouldn't be summarily deleted if at least one good faith editor thought it meritorious enough to mainspace it from draft. If deceived, that editor can certainly say so, and should, at the ensuing deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. What I'm disagreeing with is your statement that the act of mainspacing a draft should count as a substantial edit for G5 purposes. It should not. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the merit of this position too, and don't hold my perspective particularly strongly. Rather, it's always been an outgrowth of "When in doubt, no CSD and go to XfD". As we have plenty of regulars here on both sides of the question, an RfC to settle it is certainly a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should've run this through afd first and kept it there. It would've been unambiguously G5able then. —Cryptic 04:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies if the AFD takes place before the sock is revealed. If it’s AFD’d after the sock is revealed, then G5 does not apply. 96.57.52.66 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that a reviewer accepting at AfC precludes G5, unless it is the reviewer appealing the G5. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is already onerous, many things to check, don’t add SPI of the draft’s author to that list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell if there were other edits to this article, but I strongly disagree that an article accepted at AfC would be immune from a G5 just on the basis that it was accepted. As an AfC reviewer I do not think accepting is a "substantial edit" but is more confirmation a draft is ready for mainspace. It's a click of a button, not an edit. Furthermore there is not necessarily any way of knowing if the creator was banned when you accept. Only overturn if other users have worked on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever decision we make here we should definitely codify it at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion itself - I can see the argument behind both sides here and it would be nice to have a consistent consensus to fall back on. Personally I would consider AfC acceptances substantive in most situations, but endorse this deletion nevertheless since Wikishovel's comment above makes it clear that they don't think their own edit counts as substantive which is sufficient to push the deletion over the line into acceptable territory.
I'm also highly skeptical of the nominator here, who has no other edits and is probably another Andrew5 sock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no significant edits to the deleted page other than by User:Coster85, and DRVs of G5s by ips and new users should be speedy rejected on principle anyway. Endorse. —Cryptic 01:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Is there ever any reason we should want IPs to start a DRV? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they've validly challenged deletions here which we've ended up overturning, plenty of times. Couple of them are linked from the last time you brought this up. But I don't think I've ever seen a successful challenge specifically of a G5 by one, and there's ample reason not to assume good faith in such a circumstance. —Cryptic 12:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously better at keeping track of things than I am. Since that July edit, how many meritorious--not necessarily sustained, but including those that were clearly good faith and raised a question not simply answered by a policy page--IP-rased DRVs have we had? Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity seems to lie in the current wording of that have no substantial edits by others. I read that as "substantial changes of content", rather than "substantial changes to the article" (like a change of namespace), and IIRC I made few if any changes to content. User:Pppery above is absolutely right to say this should be clarified at WP:CSD#G5, but I'd also ask editors to consider potential unintended consequences of a codified change. Declaring that a good faith change of namespace by an experienced reviewer counts on its own as "substantial edits" could be a fabulous Christmas gift of a loophole for the sockfarms. Any objections to me pinging some of the more active SPI and NPP admins, e.g. User:Girth Summit, User:Spicy, ~~User:Itzo~~ User:Izno, User:Bbb23, User:Jimfbleak, etc? I don't mean to canvas, but I suspect that they might have some strong opinions on this. Wikishovel (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections made, so pinging @Girth Summit, Spicy, Izno, Bbb23, and Jimfbleak: for comment. Wikishovel (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - If I accepted a draft by a banned user, I was conned, and wouldn't want to be responsible for allowing something to be sneaked in. If an IP editor appeals a G5, I am wary that it may BE the banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is; IP geolocates to Long Island and Andrew5 has a long, long history of IP hopping using public Wi-Fi in Long Island and NYC. He shows familiarity with WP processes that a new IP user usually doesn't. wizzito | say hello! 22:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI 96.57.52.66 also geolocates to Long Island and shows editing in weather articles, so it is also likely to be him. wizzito | say hello! 22:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can personally attest to making an update to the article on 2024-11-16 that Cryptic must not have realized when making the analysis. I forgot what I added but it was an update not just a minor typo fix. Therefore, my edit should exempt it from G5 even if the AFC acceptance did not. --96.57.52.66 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not obviously not subject to block or sanction when editing as an IP, are you? Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That IP did indeed make two edits (admin-only links) to the page before it was deleted. But both of those are nowhere near "substantial" as the community defines that term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: I have been deleting a few G5s of late that have been draft moves and those have made me twitch because of the line of interest. From a simple utility perspective I don't think it should be enough to stop a G5 - otherwise this is a substantial path of abuse. And there are many other G5 deletions of drafts and sandboxes moved by sock/UPE groups that would also be stopped by making G5 interpretation include moves. I don't think it's right to send them back to draft space either since that just leaves the sock creation to be moved again by another good or bad faith account. But the line in the policy is there and I think it's a valid argument to say a move is a substantial contribution.... None of this is a comment on this specific deletion. Izno (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping above. I do not agree with the notion that a draft passing AfC renders it ineligible for G5 deletion - I don't think that is in line with the letter or the spirit of the guidance. In considering a draft, the reviewer will likely make a few insubstantial fixes, but they seldom make anything that I would consider to be 'substantial edits'. In circumstances that I think are borderline, if for example the reviewer did significant work on the prose or sourcing, I might reach out to the reviewer and ask whether they consider their edits to be substantial, and whether they object to a G5 deletion - in my experience, reviewers are generally happy for it to be deleted when they learn the article was written by a sock, and I can only bring one occasion to mind when somebody told me that they considered their edits to be substantial and they wanted the article to be retained. Now, in this specific case, I see that Wikishovel did some minor touch-ups as they accepted the draft; 96.57.52.66 added two words, and replaced one word for another; AntiCompositeNumber used a tool to improve ref formatting, a bot dated a tag, Epicgenius wrote a four-word short description, SWinxy added an image - these are all routine gnoming edits that new articles tend to attract in short order. I do not consider any of them to be substantial, and I therefore endorse the deletion. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had the AfC reviewer been tricked into accepting a hoax or other content that doesn't belong here, I'd gladly endorse the deletion. But that is not the case. This is a well sourced, decently written article about a notable topic, available to us with zero effort at the click of the Undelete button. And yet, some here are seriously arguing to cut our nose off to WP:SPITE a sock. I understand the deterrence value of WP:DENY, but with all due respect, this is going too far in applying the letter of the law to no one's benefit. A bad actor left us a good gift. I see no reason to toss it in the bin just on principle. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of WP:BMB rather than WP:DENY. Wikishovel (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BMB instructs us to ban/block such disruptive editors even when they make good edits. We've already done that. BMB does not compel us to revert good edits, and it certainly doesn't force us to give up a good article based solely based on its author. The DENY essay recommends we do so, and G5 allows us to do so under certain conditions. But again, to what end? Who benefits from giving up this content? Owen× ☎ 20:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:OwenX, you seem ready to personally adopt the article. Why don’t you simply do so? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Banning policy#Proxying (policy, shortcut WP:PROXYING), Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. Although it is not documented in further detail there or under WP:G5, discussions such as WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77#G5 and WP:PROXYING (2020) indicate that an editor can declare that they are taking responsibility and thus avoid G5. In my opinion, the mechanism is that the declaring editor is considered to have made the banned user's edits, not that the declaration itself is "substantial". Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe and Flatscan: Sure, I'd gladly take complete responsibility for it per WP:PROXYING, if that's what it takes to get us a decent article on a notable topic. Seems like an easy win for all, doesn't it? Do I need to do anything beyond a dummy edit with a declaratory edit summary to that effect? I don't want to futz around with the content just for the sake of hitting some arbitrary "substantial editing" threshold. I did a quick check and found no obvious copyvio, but wouldn't mind an experienced copyvio patroller taking another look. If this approach is acceptable, I'll do that as soon as this DRV closes. Thank you for the suggestion! Owen× ☎ 14:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My on wiki time is still somewhat limited, but happy to help @OwenX. We should have an article on these fires and I'm aware of sections not yet covered that merit inclusion. Star Mississippi 14:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck. This is a topic about which we should have an article because the northeast does not have brushfires in November, and the bulk of them are not likely notable on their own. We have a lot of sockmasters in natural disaster areas, and because one beat the editing community to this draft, Wikipedia is worse off because the deletion was correct. That said, suggest someone start a stub on this topic. Star Mississippi 03:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. IPs don’t have good standing to comment on sockpuppetry. If you want to appeal a deletion, either log in or register. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow User:OwenX’s to take responsibility for the page and undelete it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the existence of a similar issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Handling_of_pages_requested_by_sockpuppets so the topic is definitely of broader concern. Linked this DRV there as well to avoid any concerns of canvassing. Star Mississippi 22:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion, but at the same time an editor in good standing who wants to recreate the article should be able to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfC is meant to pass things that will "probably" survive AfD, not even things they're pretty sure will survive. It's meant to be a light and basic sense check, and WP:AFCSTANDARDS is all warnings against declines. Treating AfC as a substantial contribution undercuts its purpose. CMD (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as requester - note that the IP geolocates to Hicksville, New York; a common location of the sockmaster WP:LTA/A5, who was the creator of this article. wizzito | say hello! 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment but I wish people would take Andrew's rapid IP hopping w/ public Wi-Fi more seriously. I've seen him participate in many on-wiki discussions (including at articles such as Thomas Matthew Crooks) w/o consequences or blocks, probably b/c of how hard he is to keep track of. wizzito | say hello! 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that scares me is that, if certain recent IPs blocked are correct, Andrew is currently doing college tours all over the U.S. as places such as Purdue University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and as such is likely to head to college next year. I fear that if he moves out to one of these places, he will have an entire university network and an entirely new city of public Wi-Fi connections to use for his own gain. wizzito | say hello! 22:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

Cannot see why this should be closed as no consensus. Only one editor opposed the delete with three in support of deletion. Okay, it was relisted with a request for further information, which was never given. However WP:NOTCATALOG is policy, and as this is article is clearly a catalog of releases for DVD reissues (established by precedent at a whole host of other deletion discussions detailed at the linked discussion), something is wrong if we allow the one oppose citing the guideline WP:NLIST to trump policy. --wooden superman 08:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I see a valid nomination, one P&G-based Keep !vote, and two Delete votes that have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, and were correctly WP:DISCARDed by the closer. A no-consensus close was the correct outcome. Owen× ☎ 11:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse only the nom and the lone keep !vote were supported by policies and guidelines. The two delete !votes were along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even of the keep !vote is (incorrectly) discarded because it only cites a guideline, it would leave just the single nom statement, which is not a WP:QUORUM to delete (as quorum refers to valid !votes, not just people showing up). I would not oppose a third relist or an immediate renomination, due to the lack of attendance and the question posted by asilvering in the second relist, which went unanswered. Frank Anchor 15:18, 26 November 2024
Endorse I don't think there was enough of a consensus WP:NOTCATALOG applied to get this deleted. Typically if something is NOT it doesn't matter if it otherwise meets our guidelines, so I think both the final relist rationale and the admin's comment about that relist are incorrect, but that doesn't change the overall result. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete in line with the consensus of the discussion. One keep and three deletes. It is for AFD to interpret and apply policies and guidelines to an individual situation. Failure to answer a question should not result in an XFD being resolved against those apparently expected to answer. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete per Stifle. I see a clear consensus to delete here, and the assertion that the list is inherently against WP:NOT is not worthy of being discounted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have relisted it, myself. Which I suppose is effectively an endorsement of the no-consensus close, but if it were the final relist, I'd have deleted. I suppose this boils down to don't overturn. -- asilvering (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - When the Delete voters didn't answer the relisting question, their Delete arguments have something of the nature of I don't like it. No Consensus is always an unsatisfying close, but that is because the lack of a consensus is unsatisfying, and the closer can't invent a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Without respect to the relisting timing, the non-nominator ~~keep~~ delete !votes did not articulate any policy-based deletion rationale and were appropriately discarded. More concerningly, we have people who want NOT to be a super-policy, when NOT is the most malleable and open to interpretation policy--or policy family, really--we have. When there's any tie or near-tie over whether NOT applies or not, not NOT should prevail. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems disingenuous to discount the two other "delete" !votes, when they make a valid point. If this was material created by the studio, then the nomination would not have been made. But as this list does not contain material produced by the studio, it is just a re-release catalog, and a valid reason to delete, not simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote as is being suggested by some editors here. --wooden superman 12:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline that links notability with original releases. "Delete because they don't produce any original content" is exactly the kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote that WP:DISCARD instructs us to ignore. Claiming otherwise because their !vote happens to coincide with yours is disingenuous and tendentious. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of films produced by a studio is not a catalogue. A list of films re-issued by a DVD company is a catalogue as they are not producing the films. WP:NOTCATALOG is policy. The two other delete !votes are in line with this. --wooden superman 14:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of films produced by a studio is not a catalogue. A list of films re-issued by a DVD company is a catalogue as they are not producing the films - can you point to the policy or guideline that makes this distinction, please? Owen× ☎ 14:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCATALOG: Listings to be avoided include [...] products. And WP:COMMONSENSE. --wooden superman 14:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So...a listing of products by a studio is not a catalog, but a listing of the same products by a DVD company is? This isn't "WP:COMMONSENSE", it's WP:TENDENTIOUS - an attempt to twist and creatively reinterpret policy so that it happens to coincide with the result you seek. The bottom line is, quote "WP:NOTCATALOG" as many times as you want, our P&G do not make any distinction between original releases and other releases. If you believe this makes no sense, start an RfC to change our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really don't understand how you're not getting that a catalog listing commercial DVD re-releases by a third party company is quite simply nothing more than a WP:CATALOG, and that a list of films created by a studio is something entirely different. No need to change the guidelines, they're already clear. --wooden superman 15:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A real catalog--I'm old enough to remember them--only includes things currently offered for sale, has prices, and instructions on how to purchase those products. NOTCATALOG does not necessarily presume all of those elements must be present, but you'll excuse me and others if we don't necessarily see a bare listing without any such elements as a catalog for NOTCATALOG purposes. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nominator doesn’t see why it is no consensus? The simplest and first reason is the too-brief AfD nomination. See advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25 November 2024

Ancient TL

This was an unfortunate AfD featuring wall-of-text comments, COI meatpuppets, and a generally poor signal-to-noise ratio. My metaphorical hat is off to the closer, OwenX, for tackling this. However, that said, I do think he missed some crucial signal amid the noise.

During the discussion, three of us !voted to keep on the basis that papers in the journal are cited frequently in reliable sources including Science and Nature. See [1] [2] [3] for specifics. These arguments were founded on Criterion #2 of the WP:NJOURNALS essay, according to which frequently cited journals would count as notable. In determining consensus, the closer discounted these !votes on the grounds that C2 requires frequent citations of the journal itself, not of papers in the journal. See their closing statement and this clarification for details. However, this subsequent discussion on the NJOURNALS talk page resulted in a unanimous consensus that that C2 is indeed satisfied by frequent citations of papers in a journal.

So putting aside the COI !keeps, there seems to be an even split among the P&G-based !votes, which doesn't look like a consensus to me. Botterweg (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: OwenX gave a detailed closing statement that says it all. (Disclosure: I was the nom of this AfD). --Randykitty (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, you have completely skipped over the very salient point that NJOURNALS is not a guideline and GNG is the requirement for this journal to have a standalone. Therefore it is completely irrelevant what anyone's interpretation of NJOURNALS criteria is when the subject demonstrably does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse (and I have mixed feelings) the NJOURNALS essay is indeed used as the basis for closing as keep when there's local consensus. In this AfD, nobody cited the issues with NJOURNALS as a reason to delete, so I don't think that's a factor in determining what the consensus was. Botterweg (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people cited the fact that GNG is not met, which, as an actual guideline, is what closers should be paying attention to over any essay. That this journal also doesn't meet the criteria of the essay (and there definitely is no indication that some articles getting hundreds or even thousands of citations elsewhere is enough for "frequently cited") is just further evidence against it being notable. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse to my knowledge showing citation counts would be, as Headbomb said, through things like impact factors, not just individual instances of citations. We're on thin ice with NJOURNALS as is, I see no need to push it further. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep there are two possibilities in a 5 keeps vs. 3 delete situation read as a deletion. In this case, it's pretty clear that the P&Gs with respect to journals are unsettled. In such a case, outcomes must be held to be descriptive: a delete is a supervote assuming that the folks arguing based on the currently recognized inclusion guidelines somehow trumps the numerical preponderance. Journals are a particularly thorny example, because notability doesn't work well for journals. The best journals are read and cited, but essentially never talked about. That's why notability is not, has never been, and will never be a core policy. It's a guideline, and to the extent that reasonably well-cited journals don't meet the GNG or an SNG, we obviously need another metric besides notability to measure inclusion. The Procrustean, if conventional. answer that journals don't fit well into our notability guidelines and thus should be excluded has everything backwards. Oh, and a no consensus might have been a better way to handle this, but I still believe that keep is the correct outcome based on the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in that discussion, the fact that a paper has been cited in Science or Nature is not an indication that the journal in which that paper appears is notable on en.wiki. Simply relitigating that discussion here as if it hasn't already been demolished is not bringing any additional light to the AfD. The point has been made, taken account and refuted. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm equally entitled to explain why I think it's suboptimal and doesn't serve the encyclopedia well. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For information, I was attempting to reply to the OP. I don't know why it appeared here, it might have been my ineptitude. You are entitled to your opinion, I was expressing mine about the OP using DRV to repeat points made in the AfD. JMWt (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it my have been my error in indenting an unbulleted comment that appeared to me to be a reply to me, in which case you have my sincerest apologies. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the keep !votes didn't even establish that this journal met any of the essay criteria either? Merely being cited in RS is not equivalent to "frequently cited", which necessarily has a higher threshold. And surely you're not giving any weight at all to the meatpuppet COI editors who offered zero P&G-based rationales......? That leaves 3 keep !votes, only one of which attempted to be based in any guideline, and their argument rested on a handful of one- or two-sentence passing mentions by non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When there's no relevant guideline, how can we demand !voters adhere to one to have their voices considered? Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevant guideline: GNG. The fact that most journals don't receive GNG coverage is a strong indication that they should not be covered as standalone articles, not that our guidelines aren't appropriate for them. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse At the end of the day, GNG applies here, and there's no evidence in the discussion we're able to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on this journal. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Evenly split discussion. Keep arguments of Botterweg and other established editors can not be discounted. There was no consensus around the question on notability. Deletes claimed near-total absence of independent sources, stating that there shouldn't be an article without them, which is fine. But then a participant brought a handful of independent sources which clearly support some basic statements, and some third-party sources had also been added to the article during the discussion.—Alalch E. 12:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E., but merely independent sources are not enough to establish notability, and not even the keep !voters claimed they were anything close to SIGCOV, which is what is required. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - Sometimes when a discussion is lengthy, tedious, and inconclusive, there really is No Consensus. A major part of the problem is that we don't have a useful guideline on journals, because the SNG is not an SNG because the G stands for Guideline and it is not a guideline. The absence of an applicable guideline, and the misfit between journals and the general notability guideline, make it difficult or impossible to reach consensus. The closer made an effort to tease out a consensus, but unintentionally wound up supervoting. The community has not provided AFD or DRV with useful guidance on journals, and so there is No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Are you saying that any lengthy AfD about a journal should be closed as "no consensus" because we don't have an SNG? That journal AfDs should be closed by nose-count? When there's no SNG, we fall back on the default GNG, which would have seen this AfD closed the exact same way. I went out of my way to give some weight to NJOURNALS per the Keeps, but stopped short of accepting a minority interpretation of a criterion that would essentially see almost all journals qualify as notable.

Yes, journal AfDs are tricky and often contentious, and community hasn't settled on an SNG. But that is no reason to retain them all under a sweeping "no consensus", as long as we have other guidelines that apply. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This close seemed like a correct reading of the consensus in that discussion to me. While I think OwenX may have a slightly unusual reading of C2, I don't think it changes the reading of consensus in the discussion, where most Delete voters disregarded the arguments around NJOURNALS C2. Suriname0 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée naval

Administrator asilvering relisted this "don't delete" discussion requesting more evaluation of sources for the subject to determine between keeping the article or merging into a related topic. The non-administrator closer seems to have ignored that comment and only counted the bolded comments when closing as "merge" without any more comments in the discussion. The closer did not respond when asked about it and has not edited in nearly two weeks. This discussion should be relisted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. The nominator makes a fair point that there were no further comments after the last relist, and a further relist might have teased some out, but there were no actual keep !votes on that discussion. The closest was my own, where I said I was leaning keep because I had found mentions (but not SIGCOV). I would have been persuadable to keep, but I could not find more sources myself, and my actual !vote was merge. Now the reason I think the merge close should be endorsed is this: the school sits within the Brest Naval Training Centre which also is home to the École de Maistrance and the École des Mousses. By merging these into a single article, we now have an article that is still poorly sourced, but is approaching a decent start class rather than a set of minimal unsourced stubs that had poorly machine translated names. On the back of this close I merged them all together into this article. Redirects exist so an interested reader will find their information need met, rather than finding a stub that tells them nothing. Overturning this close would mean demerger, and that would be a net negative to the encyclopaedia. I also presume that if the Lycée naval de Brest part of this article becomes more cleary notable in its own right, and the article section balloons as a result, then spinout is perfectly possible, and I marked the redirect as with possibilities and printworthy for that exact reason. Please also note that I renamed the Lycée naval to Lycée naval de Brest before merging under WP:MADRENAME. That is how it is known. You therefore need to view the history of the redirect at Lycée naval de Brest to see how the article looked prior to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would probably have read the lack of further input as "no opposition to merge" and gone with merge -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As noted, Asilvering had relisted to see if there were any other votes. When there weren't, a non-admin close of Merge was reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Mattdaviesfsic - When four of your AFD closes are taken to DRV at the same time, a lesson should be learned. When you resume editing, I suggest that your first task be to decide what the lesson should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a correct reading of a non-controversial discussion and suitable for a NAC. However, at the same time an AfD closed as merge should never be implicitly construed as a barrier to a spinout should more sourcing arise suitable to justify one. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Jclemens.—Alalch E. 13:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I agree that there could have been a relist, but with engaged (and interested) editors suggesting a merge, and no pushback from the original nominator, this is a very reasonable close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar (closed)

Zainal Arifin Mochtar – Re-closed by OwenX in his individual capacity as an uninvolved administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In a relisting comment, administrator Liz noted that the discussion should be closed as no consensus if there were no further comments. The closer, who is not an administrator, appears to have counted the bolded "keep" comments without reading the discussion nor the relisting comment, did not reply to inquiries on their talk page, and has not edited in nearly two weeks. Discussion has already been relisted twice and should be overturned to no consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - re-closed as no consensus, being an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity per WP:NACD. Ivanvector, you can relist or re-close BADNACs yourself, assuming you are uninvolved. No need to bring those to DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Stephen Barlow (conductor) (closed)

Stephen Barlow (conductor) – Relisted by OwenX in his individual capacity as an uninvolved administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closer failed to observe WP:RELIST and closed this discussion on the basis of a single comment. Closer did not adequately explain their close, did not respond to comment afterwards, and has not edited at all in about two weeks. This should be relisted to give time for additional comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I relisted the AfD as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD. Feel free to close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election

Not only was this a WP:BADNAC per criteria #2 (this is covered under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics), the close didn't explain why merge !votes were weighted more heavily that delete ones, especially given the technical considerations such as WP:TOOBIG. On a purely numerical basis, there were 18 !votes mentioning delete (14 of which were to just delete without merging), 15 !votes that mentioned merging (including an equal number of "merge or delete" and "merge or keep"), 9 !votes mentioning keeping, and 1 !vote specifically opposing merging. Since merging didn't have a strong numerical advantage over deleting, I have a hard time seeing a clear enough consensus to not have relisted instead of closing. An attempt was made to discuss this with the closer at User talk:Mattdaviesfsic#Recent non-admin closes at AFD, but the closer immediately stopped editing when that was posted and has not been active in the 11 days since. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this one honestly I think the thing to do is vacate the close entirely, and start a non-deletion discussion somewhere about splitting more lists out of that monster of an article. Enacting the close results in a 100+kB list being added back into an article that's already over half a megabyte; I said somewhere else that the resulting page would be in the top ten longest articles on Wikipedia by byte count, and I was already having problems loading the page on a gaming system that's less than a year old. More of the target article needs to be split off into companion articles and lists, not have more added back into it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this is a BADNAC, fair and true, and should be quickly vacated. I have no comment on what should happen here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn to no consensus~~ Relist. This is clear WP:BADNAC as there was nothing close to a consensus to merge, delete, or keep (or even to not keep with a delete/ATD split). These decisions are best handled by an administrator with significant experience closing AFD discussions. Relisting is an acceptable option as well, though I think it is unlikely any consensus will form based on the already high attendance. Frank Anchor 19:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC). There is possibly consensus building to not keep, with a delete/ATD split. In that case merge would be an appropriate close, though we are not there yet. The closure of this AFD, whether now or after another relist, would be best handled by an admin with significant closing experience. Frank Anchor 15:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. Agree that this is obviously a contentious close, but given that the merge appears to already be in progress, I'd be inclined to leave this one. Normal editing can sort out whether all of the content is worth merging or just some of it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This looks to me like a clear cut case of WP:BADNAC. There has been one try at merging already, but that one was reverted due to technical issues with size. Like @Ivanvector I am also having issues with the article loading without a merge of another large article, I am also on a Desktop Gaming PC. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, but definitely not to "no consensus" as there was a clear consensus against keeping the article as a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not overturn to no consensus which would serve the participants poorly where there was clear consensus that it should not be kept. The merge could be pragmatically upheld (the information would necessarily be pared back in a merge through editor decisions) or it could be overturned to delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate BADNAC but I am torn between merge, relist, and no consensus. Delete !voters ignore ATDs and the NOTNEWS arguments are simply tired and wrong, so there's clearly no consensus to delete, nor any policy-based way for such to develop with a relist. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose by admin as merge, as a formality, instead of vacating. The close is correct.—Alalch E. 12:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to not doing anything as well. —Alalch E. 15:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action. They say even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while, and apparently, even a BADNAC can land on the right outcome every so often. I agree that this should have been handled by an admin, and the call to vacate is justified and well anchored in policy. But if the only purpose of reclosing as Merge by an admin is to rebuke the well intentioned but inexperienced closer, we've already accomplished that right here at DRV. Which is a long way of saying, I second asilvering's "Eh". Owen× ☎ 13:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action I agree with OwenX and others that merge (or possibly redirect) are the only real options here, and merge/ATD had the most support. As Sirfurboy points out, there is no consensus to keep the article, and there is also no consensus to delete the information. How a merge is performed is an editing decision. I do agree that this should have been closed by an administrator. --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus as a bad non-admin close in a contentious topic. I am counting Keep or Merge as 0.5 votes each for Keep and for Merge, and Delete or Merge as 0.5 votes each for Delete or Merge. By my count, we have 5 votes for Keep, 9 votes for Merge, and 15 votes for Delete. Merge would have been a reasonable Alternative to Deletion except that the parent article is already too big, a point that was noted by some Keep and Delete voters. There really wasn't any consensus, and sometimes a discussion that is lengthy and inconclusive really should be closed as No Consensus, which is unsatisfying, but any other close would be worse. A Relist after 31 responses is worth considering, but is worth considering and dismissing. After some of the other sections of the parent article have been split off, a merge might be in order, but it then might also be apparent that this page is another subpage like those that were split off. Sometimes the best response to No Consensus is to wait a month or two, and this is probably such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The merger has been performed. See Special:PermanentLink/1259459012#International reactions. The content is commented out currently due to size limits, and it's up to editors to figure out how much to bring back, how to summarize, and whether to trim or spin off something else. There is no need to revise the AfD outcome. There was strong consensus that the stand-alone article should not exist. An administrator would not have closed this as no consensus. —Alalch E. 18:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to WP:PEIS and WP:BADNAC. I would additionally suggest that the article be re-instated, as there is precedent for having "international reaction" list articles. But as I am in the minority here, I will instead provide no comment on how the overturn should be handled. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a very clear consensus that this article should not exist as an independent article. Accordingly, do not overturn to no consensus. Technical limitations should not overrule content decisions. I would have preferred deletion but as between merge and keep/no consensus, the latter is clearly wrong. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions

21 November 2024

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png – Moved to FfD. (non-admin closure) Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I think this should not have been deleted as large non-free, but was actually a mislabeled PD-text file. I brought this up on the copyright discussion noticeboard and received little notice besides one concurrence from Aafi. I would like the original file (dated 04:12, 13 October 2024) restored at full resolution so it can be moved to Commons as {{PD-text}}. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text on the image is well above the threshold to be copyrightable. So is the portico logo in the upper left. Endorse. —Cryptic 23:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is on the Commons as a text logo: c:File:Internet Archive logo and wordmark.svg. I agree about the text. —Alalch E. 01:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the text on the image as it is in the most recent file is fairly long and copyrightable; however, I'm specifically requesting restoration of the first upload, which was a much simpler webpage that does not qualify for copyright. All four of the component logos are also text logos and on Commons already. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse per Cryptic~~. Restore as WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. The original 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was erroneously uploaded as a non-free work when it is in fact not copyrightable, and then it was replaced by successively more copyrightable files, as the outage notice was made progressively longer. The original notice is historically the most important, serves best as illustration, and the file should never have been "updated", which was an obvious editorial error caused by editors believing that Wikipedia should be "synchronized" with another website to deliver the latest notice from that website (???), when the image only serves to illustrate the historical event.—Alalch E. 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - There isn't any record of a deletion discussion or a deletion log. Is this a request to undelete a larger, higher-quality file? Also, if the purpose is to move the higher-quality image to Commons, is English Wikipedia Deletion Review even the right forum to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The revision with the full resolution 04:12, 13 October 2024 file was revision deleted subject to WP:F5: {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}, {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only. This was done correctly. —Alalch E. 01:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action. The image is clearly above the threshold of originality. Deletion of larger resolution versions was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you think passes the threshold of originality? The webpage text is extremely simple and I can't imagine a court even considering a claim to copyright over a standard "we apologize for the inconvenience" message. The text logos are already on Commons, so I feel like the community there has already made a determination that they are not copyrightable. As it is the low-resolution image is not useful for its intended purpose as it is too low-resolution to read the text. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send to FfD as there is a reasonably articulated challenge to the speedy F5 deletion of the requested revision, which may or may not have the same copyright issues as later version(s). Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send to FfD per Jclemens. It does appear to be above the threshold of originality, but I'm not expert and worth discussing. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 November 2024

Mission Swaraj – Speedy IAR endorse since nom/creator has been blocked. While we have established editors arguing that the G11 wasn't correct, no one is arguing that they'd argue to keep this at AfD, nor that they see a case for notability. We don't need to spend a further five days here, nor seven days of the community's time to arrive at the same outcome. If an established editor believes this should be retained, happy to provide in draft for post election and related improvement. Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I would like to say that the deletion of this was unjustifible that it happned WITH OUT AN PROPER DEBATE and even the talk page was deleted I only have 1 question? why? I request for the talk page to be renstated and the flow debate to continue (it is to note no proper consisnes was reached) before the deletion of the article and again request the talk page to be renstated with also the article for the time being ( out of context - I swear if there is a loophole allowing this I don't even know what I will do to myself anyone likes cats here?) Sarim Wani (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected a spelling mistake in the article title given in this DRV submission. Thincat (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a G11 deletion, which does not require debate if it was unambiguous. Non-admins can't see the text, so an undeletion for review purposes would be welcome... but I'd say that about 75% of G11 deletions are sustained by the peanut gallery here, so an undeletion for review purposes doesn't mean you have a basis for complaint. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. This isn't as bad as this user's version of Jairam Kumar Mahato (also at DRV) was, and I think I'd have neither deleted nor declined this, but I'll endorse it now that someone with a thicker skin pushed the button. —Cryptic 23:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Endorse G11. Even if described somewhat neutrally a particular party's initiative is per se promotional, and so even without wanton puffery, I see it as being sufficiently promotional that a deletion discussion was not needed. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens given that In this context, "unambiguous" means that the deletion was clear and straightforward, without any room for doubt or confusion. Essentially, it indicates that the content in question was obviously promotional or inappropriate, making the decision to delete it a clear-cut one.

if this the meaning of "unambiguous" here then:

this point should be clear that the deletion was not "unambiguous" and certainly had rooms of doubt. The following deletion was not justified without a proper debate Sarim Wani (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 and Send to AFD. If I had seen this at AFC, I would have declined it for failure to show notability, and probably for tone, but I would not have rejected it or taggedit for G11. If I had seen this at AFD, I would have written a source analysis if I had time or found time. If this is sent to AFD, I will write a source analysis. In my opinion, it reads like a draft on a non-notable organization, rather than an advertisement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will restate that speedy deletions should be non-contentious, and contentious nominations for speedy deletion should be sent to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11, send to AfD. Definitely promotional in tone (and non-encyclopedic) but I don’t think it could be described as unambiguous advertising. If the topic were notable (I doubt it is) I think a neutral article could be written on it, so it’s not a case for G11. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify I would like to clarify this that the subject is notable (I had provided proof in the talk page) :)
- Comment I have edited the article please let me know if there is still some promotional tone in it :)

Clarify You all are open to edit it :)

Sarim Wani (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment obviously I'm not going to take part otherwise, given that I requested the G11, but just to point out that the subject of this article relates to an ongoing election campaign, which IMO makes it particularly promotional, in the WP:SOAPBOX sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I would have G11'd that as well: exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten if it were notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please tell me where the "promotional" material is I am edting it (open to edit for anyone)
User:Sarim Wani/Mission Swaraj - Wikipedia will be waiting for you're response! Sarim Wani (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify I believe that I have already heavily re-weitten the artice and believe it is now not in a "promotional tone" User:Sarim Wani/Mission Swaraj - Wikipedia
Sarim Wani (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11. While some content is promotional in nature,it is not exclusively promotional in nature. I don’t think this subject is notable and the article probably wouldn’t have any chance at AFD, but the G11 deletion is not correct. Frank Anchor 14:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a distinct level of regret, overturn G11 and list at AfD. This has little chance of surviving at AfD, and for that reason overturning here only to likely delete in 7 days time feels like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. However, this doesn't quite meet G11 criteria and I think achieving a final resolution via AfD based on community consensus might be better for everyone so that this issue can be put to bed. Any AfD will need to be closely monitored by uninvolved administrators to ensure it stays on track. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Like Cryptic, I probably wouldn't have G11'ed it myself, but I'm glad someone else did. Sending it to AfD is a waste of participants' time. Now that the deleted content and sources are visible to all, we can exercise a form of certiorari, and adjudicate both the DRV and the presumptive AfD together. Even those here calling to overturn the G11 seem to agree that the article will most likely fail AfD. Sending it to AfD will not only waste time there, but the appellant's record makes it clear it'll end right back in DRV afterwards. The more I see from this appellant, the more convinced I am that we will not get a well sourced, NPOV article from them. Older versions of their User page make it clear they are here to promote, not to build an encyclopedia. I'm a big believer in due process, but not every POV-pusher needs a soapbox here. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I wrote my remarks, the applicant has been blocked indefinitely. If they remain blocked, I can get on board with this viewpoint. My perspective was I felt this issue wasn't going to go away unless the community spoke at AfD clearly to bin this content. But, without the editor pushing the cart along the path, we may be able to get away with not wasting the seven days at AfD. I'm easy with either now, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list per Daniel. Owen's not wrong, but.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Appellant has been indefinitely blocked per discussion at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still think G11 was not appropriate here, but given the appellant's block and the near-certainty of deletion once it goes to AfD, I wouldn't object to an WP:IAR outcome to let the G11 stand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 November 2024

Alexander Tetelbaum

I ask you to consider restoring the page "Alexander Tetelbaum" as being deleted without fair justification by Diannaa.

Initially, the reason for deletion was that the page had infringed Amazon copyrights. Namely, had an image and text about the book "Executive Director". The page never had this staff--only a reference to the book.

Later, Diannaa changed the reason and stated the similarities between the page and Amazon's Author BIO. Yes, the two BIO's are similar and it must be expected--if they had been different it would mean that one of them or both are incorrect. Also, this BIO is not the property of Amazon and got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia.

Also, Dianna questioned notability. Alexander Tetelbaum was the founding President of the first Jewish University in Ukraine, the author of 20 books, and dozens more achievements.

It took 5 seconds to delete the page and now Dianna suggested resubmitting the page--and this is 40-50 hours of work. There is also a difference in that the original page was created in 2007 vs. a possible new one.

This does not look right when one person can make such decisions and constantly change the reason for deletion. In case of resubmission, it can be also rejected taking into account that we are not happy with how Dianna handled this issue and we are afraid of retaliation.

I honestly do not see any serious arguments to remove the page with 17 history, fully true, and all facts are supported by multiple references. I do not want to speculate, but the page was deleted soon after Dr. Tetelbaum published his book "Executive Director" which had some criticism of Wikipedia. Also, he recently published a joke on X and Truth websites where Wikipedia was mentioned among other organizations.

To conclude, I ask you to restore the page and if you see any issues, we will fix them. Thanks for your consideration.

Respectfully, Natalie Heroux (nheroux) Nheroux (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor couldn't figure out how to post here, so I have copied the above from my talk page at her request. Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't check the old version, but copyright violation is one of if not the most serious reason to delete a page on Wikipedia, and Diannaa is one of the most experienced users here with dealing with copyvios. If the person is notable, there is nothing preventing you from starting a new version which does not copy text from anywhere else - and yes, it could be rejected for various reasons, but not liking the content is not one of those reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nheroux appears to have misunderstood some of the things that I did. The deletion was triggered by a report at CopyPatrol for the book "Executive Director" Book, where all the content was a match for content present at Amazon. After redirecting this to the author article Alexander Tetelbaum I noticed that everything in the author's article was a match for content present at Amazon as well. Since Amazon's webpages are not archived in the Wayback Machine there's no way to confirm whether or the content at Amazon was copied from Wikipedia or the other way around. So absent that proof, I decided that the author's article should be deleted as well. I never changed the reason for deletion; I noted from the start that the article was a match for the content at Amazon, noting "foundational copyvio, copied from Amazon" in my deletion rationale. I suggested that a new article could be started in draftspace. Diannaa (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but you are welcome to start a draft in your own words, using independent reliable sourcing about Tetelbaum. Star Mississippi 01:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a matter of taking copyright seriously, even when no one else on the Internet takes copyright seriously, and of trusting the judgment of an experienced copyright administrator. I have multiple comments:
- - I doubt that the material was copied from Wikipedia to Amazon. If it was originally on Wikipedia, it should not have been. It is written in an Amazon style. It looks more likely that it was copied from Amazon to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not allow that.
  - I find the claim that it will take 40-50 hours to write a biography of a living person to be lacking in plausibility, even if there was a large amount of information beyond the Amazon blurb that was deleted.
  - If the appellant was the original author of the article, why didn't she keep a copy on her computer? I find pleas that an author needs the deleted Wikipedia article in order to start a new article unpersuasive. In 2024, large amounts of solid-state storage are cheap. I don't know why authors don't have copies.
  - The deleting administrator refers to the Wayback Machine, and says that Amazon is not archived. But Wikipedia is archived. Even if the author forgot to keep a copy, doesn't the Wayback Machine have a copy? It is a copyright-infringing copy, but that is a legal detail, and it can be rewritten from.
  - Notability is not mentioned in the deletion log. It is not necessary to argue that Tetelbaum is biographically notable.
  - The appellant has already been asked about an association with Tetelbaum, which is a conflict of interest, and does not appear to have answered the question.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The only relevant appeal for copyvio deletion is "It wasn't a copyvio, and here's why." This doesn't accomplish that. Jclemens (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and enjoin the appellant from editing this topic, broadly construed. The appellant created the page three times. The first two were essentially identical, while the third was a stub she expanded over the years to the version that was deleted last month as a copyvio. Statements such as, this is 40-50 hours of work and the two BIO's are similar and it must be expected--if they had been different it would mean that one of them or both are incorrect make it clear she is not here to copyedit, but to copy-paste. Her declared inability to write a bio that isn't a verbatim duplicate of the one published on Amazon tells us all we need to know. Her failure to respond to the question about COI, the aspersions cast against the deleting admin, the disruptive edits on her Talk page, her use of the first-person plural pronoun when talking about her edits, and the Tetelbaum-centric contribution history paint a clear picture. The only article we can expect from this SPA is a duplicate of the one that was deleted. I'd welcome a draft from an unrelated, experienced editor, but for the WP:TENDENTIOUS appellant, a topic ban would be appropriate. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - Deletion Review is a content forum. I agree with the criticism by User:OwenX of the conduct of the appellant, but what should we (DRV) do other than endorse the G12? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closer, if an admin, can choose to action both pieces based on feedback from participants. Star Mississippi 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nheroux has now stated on her talk page that she is the daughter of the subject of the article. She mentions that the content at Amazon also originated with her (no surprise there) and that's why they match. She thought if she removed it from Amazon there would not longer be a copyright issue (which is not true; that ship has sailed) but has agreed to my suggestion to instead start a new Wikipedia article on her father, rewriting with new content in draftspace. I have no comment on the still to-be-determined issue of notability. Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Educating this editor on the proper way to do this seems like a win all the way around. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nheroux wrote: this BIO … got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia.

That’s good enough for us to accept that it is not a simple copyright infringement. It is, however, a WP:COI issue. COI authors are required to not write into mainspace directly.
Undelete to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification is not intended for articles that are more than 90 days old. WP:DRAFTNO. So I am opposed to this idea. Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing a piece of that RFC, @Diannaa. Consensus can be behind the draftification. Personally I think starting fresh would be easier if the editor really does intend to make a compliant article but that's also draft space so distinction without a difference unless you're opposed to giving her the material. Star Mississippi 14:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She already has the material, so refusing to give her a copy seems a little bureaucratic. So I am not opposed to giving her the material, but I don't see the point of doing so. Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a copyvio, it makes more sense to restore the article to mainspace rather than move it to draftspace. Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Diannaa here, I don't see the point of draftifying this if it's a copyvio where the author already has the original material. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI editors are required to use AfC to write articles. Draftification is retrospectively correcting their mistake. If the page is ok, an AfC reviewer will approve it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I have no preference where she creates the article. I just thought draft space would be easier for a relatively inexperienced editor without the threat of an AfD hanging over her article development. Star Mississippi 16:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa, you are referring to unilateral draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the G12 deletion. WP:G12 is not met, there is no unambiguous copyright violation. Send to XfD to resolve any doubt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at some of the deleted revisions, and I do see it to be a copyright. Are you suggesting @Nheroux release the text for use, or otherwise that it's not a copyright violation? Star Mississippi 02:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see an *unambiguous* copyright violation? There’s a claim that Nheroux published it all on Wikipedia first (thus released the text under the GFDL), making the Amazon copyright claim invalid, or at least generating enough ambiguity for it to go to XfD as an apparent copyright violation.

If you are sure, then email the deleted page to her, that is allowed.

In either case, Heroux is a coauthor on a for profit book with Alexander Tetelbaum, and that is a clear connection establishing a WP:COI, and Heroux is not allowed to write on Tetlbaum in mainspace, she must either use draftspace and AfC, or talk page suggestions.

I think the copyright violation is ambiguous enough to justify an XfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Justifiable suspicion but the suggested scenario of this content proliferating from Wikipedia onto Amazon is very plausible, and the deleted article (accessed via the Wayback Machine) does resemble a legitimate Wikipedia article, and copied content often doesn't. Editors should look at this and figure it out in an AfD.—Alalch E. 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...or rather, at WP:CP —Alalch E. 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article was created on 25 February 2007, and he didn't start publishing books through Amazon until 2017 or so, so I have no reason to think Nheroux's claim that the profile got into Amazon about 15 years later than was published in Wikipedia isn't correct. At a minimum there's enough ambiguity to send it to a discussion (which would be at WP:CP, not AfD). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The author is working on a new version in her sandbox. User:Nheroux/sandbox-- Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 November 2024

2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)

2024 Duki coal mine attack – Closing early as the applicant has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. Socks don't have standing at this venue. Per a couple of comments below, there is some level of support for allowing recreation as a draft (Draft:2024 Duki coal mine attack), and if any established good-faith editor wishes to do that, they can find the content of the article in the history behind the redirect. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE.

Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:

"Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."

Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak endorse~~ Restore/allow recreation First, AfDs frequently result in outcomes that are short of deletion, such as merges or redirects. Second, I agree with you on the WP:GEOBIAS. However, I'm not voting to overturn for two reasons: first, consensus was generally against keeping by a 2:1 margin, and second, it's difficult to distinguish this from an event which doesn't qualify for its own page, because WP:LASTING was not clearly met. I don't think it's that far away from a keep, though, and it can be merged into the target article and spun off again if additional coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met? — Mister Banker (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. "Enduring" is often the key word in deletion discussions for articles about temporal events. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated to "restore/allow recreation." There's nothing wrong with the AfD, but I'm satisfied there's been enough continued coverage that this no longer fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E. 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. Frank Anchor 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to clarify how the article was poorly sourced? — Mister Banker (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly do so if this were AfD. But this is DRV, where we are asked to review consensus among AfD participants, not to rerun the AfD. Owen× ☎ 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. Frank Anchor 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Mister Banker - What is the right forum for redirect discussions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the article's talkpage. This attack has also received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, thus merits an article. (see: ANI, DAWN) — Mister Banker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think those articles clear the continued coverage issue, and would vote to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Nominator's statement Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met[4] makes it clear to me that they do not understand that routine events like this do not have or get enduring coverage, AFD is often the venue where the consensus for merging/redirection emerges so the closer was correct in redirecting this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse - Appellant has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but ...
- Allow Submission of Draft by a good-standing editor for review, using additional sources listed above. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2024	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2023	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	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

v t e 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 The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles 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 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	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 General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, 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 Wiki markup
Media Category Templates