Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review

Administrator instructions

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

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (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.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

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

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2021 March 7}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 March 7}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 March 7|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by 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. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

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

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





Active discussions

7 March 2021

6 March 2021

Eastern Syria Insurgency (closed)

4 March 2021

File:U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Kenneth Alan Howery credentials presentation, November 2019.jpg

File:U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Kenneth Alan Howery credentials presentation, November 2019.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This was originally marked for deletion because it "does not add to the understanding" of the relevant article text. This assertion is incorrect, as the photo does in fact add visual value and understanding to the "presented his credentials" text, which is a vague term of art that doesn't by itself make clear that the article subject met the King of Sweden in person (versus presented the credentials virtually, through an aide, etc.), shook the King's hand, that the event took place in a formal setting, etc. This is especially important in the diplomatic context, where interpersonal relationships are critical, and visuals--including the image in question--provide invaluable context about the depth and nature of those relationships. The file clearly satisfies the WP:NFCC#1 policy for these reasons. Another user separately commented "there may well be a PD-USgovt photo of the event," an assumption without any supporting evidence that my research has determined to be false, as only the only photographer present at the event was the Royal Court photographer who took the image in question; no media or USG photos exist. Therefore the file meets the WP:NFCC#8 policy as well. GijsVisser (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not fond of how FfD works, but I feel like the result is correct here. I think it would be fair to say that any contextual significance can be managed in a single sentence. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Reply: @Hobit: – you can't possible capture all of the nuance of the photo in a single sentence -- and especially without injecting bias/opinion into it. Did the King look happy to meet the Ambassador? Was he smiling? Did his handshake look strong? Was the Ambassador flustered? These are all questions a reader can only answer for themselves with the benefit of the photo. And again, in a diplomatic context, this is a highly significant moment that is very worthy of a photo. GijsVisser (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    Always the case, for sure. A picture worth a 1000 words and all that. If you'd like to point me at the picture, I can take a look. But unless there is something really special that's relevant to the article, the words seem like they'd be enough. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    It's currently the second image here, captioned "Ambassador Kenneth Alan Howery is received...". —Cryptic 05:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don’t see the image as having any value beyond mere illustration that the ambassador was greeted by the king in the throne room. Including non-free content like this is not desirable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse The FfD discussion was light, but wasn't clearly erroneous. NFCC exists for a reason, and three uninvolved users all came to the conclusion this was in violation. I haven't seen the image in context, but the rationale makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I think the FFD came to the right conclusion here. The image is of the subject shaking hands with the King of Sweden, with both of them in formal dress. The image itself wasn't the subject of any sourced commentary in the article and doesn't convey anything which can't be conveyed through text. The fact that this was an in person ceremony could definitely be conveyed through text: "he presented his credentials in a formal ceremony to the King of Sweden..." I don't really see how this picture of two men shaking hands tells us anything useful about Swedish-American relations either. Hut 8.5 08:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The FFD discussion has come to the right conclusion. The free image File:Ambassador Ken Howery Swearing-In.jpg is more than sufficient to illustrate the article and the removal of the fair-use image we are discussing in no way detracts from readers' understanding of the article. I am not necessarily convinced on the NFCC1 point, but NFCC8 is clearly not met. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. GijsVisser (talk ·contribs), I strongly recommend that you try having this discussion with the deleting admin first, before coming here to argue that something is being done wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I haven't seen the deleted image, but the discussion at FFD makes clear that the issue is non-free content, and the close properly reflects the consensus at FFD, which was about non-free content. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Teja Tanikella

Teja Tanikella (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article is true description whose reality can be found more by searching online. The details are true and legit. Please kindly undelete it. I also added the sources. Thanks. TejaTanikella (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse it doesn't matter if something is true, it matters if it is notable. The discussion was correctly closed, and a quick source review shows no reversible error. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse considering none of the people calling for deletion were disputing the truthfulness of the article and were instead arguing that the article didn’t meet the standard of WP:N this request doesn’t address the actual case made for deletion.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a valid closure and the right closure of the deletion discussion. Verifiability (and truth) of an article are necessary but not sufficient conditions to keep the article. Notability is also required, and was the issue in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow Creation of Draft, but reviewer will decline or reject draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - the close was valid and reflected consensus. I would not oppose a draft recreation but it must be forced to go through WP:AfC, in my opinion. Not least because it is an autobiography. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I would discourage trying to recreate it at AfC or anywhere else until the individual becomes much more notable . If it goes to AfC the likelihood is that it will be declined, because it seems obvious that notability is not yet present, DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse — Deleted due to a lack of notability, not verifiability/accuracy, furthermore consensus is quite clear. — csc-1 06:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum

Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I have revised this page many times and tried my best to apply and follow all the Wikipedia requiremnts. By no mean I wanted to advertise anything. I am just writing about a great group who does lots of research and conferences in the field of architeure. I am not sure why my article was deleted. I have tried to used other pages as reference and my article is very similar to them. They are published and my page is deleted. Please let me know what i can do to have my article published. I really appreciate if you undelete it so I can start revising it and contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing there but an announcement of an event, and a series of statements sourced solely to the ACSF's own publications and website. If this group is notable, why are there no articles about it in the architectural press? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • overturn This was not extremely promotional in tone. Just a couple of adjectives used as puffery. Sure the whole purpose of it being there might be to advertise the forum. But that is why AFC checks it through. Since it is only a draft, I would say restore it and get rid of "renowned" and "inspired". The lack of good references is not a reason to delete, but to decline. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy restore as a reasonable dispute of a G11 in draftspace. If someone wants to talk about it, have the conversation. Use it’s talk page, or MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore as not extremely promotional, a chance to rewrite is reasonable. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Keep deleted per Cryptic below as it seems that all versions derive from a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore to draft space because speedy deletions in general and G11 are for unambiguous cases, and there seems to be reasonable doubt by reasonable editors. If the event does not satisfy event notability, a reviewer will decline it, or reject it in an unambiguous case. If other editors think it is blatant G11 spam, they can nominate it for MFD, citing its promotional content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The first revision's a copyvio of this. Though I've only skimmed later revisions, they seem to have improved on it incrementally rather than rewriting wholesale, making it a derivative work. Keep deleted. —Cryptic 06:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore (non-copyvio revisions) to draftspace, to allow a chance to fix/rewrite it to meet our policies. — csc-1 06:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • restore non copy-vio. I consider them notable , and if a proper article is written I will accept it. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse since it doesn't appear there's a non-copyright violation to revert to, per the comments above. SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

1 March 2021

Macro Recordings

Macro Recordings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as "redirect", as I determined that to be the consensus, particularly after several longstanding editors suggested it as a second choice after "delete". However, Planetdust has objected to this, and I don't think we're going to reach agreement on my talk page, so I am bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! The outcome should've been no consensus, since there were substantiated positions for all possible outcomes (keep, redirect, delete). "Redirect" is not a good compromise since the article redirected to is not quite a meaningful substitute (one artist / part-owner of the record label). I.e. information on industry awards, links between other notable artists etc will be lost to Wikipedia. I believe it's clear that the wholesale removal of (notable & well sourced) information is of quite a different nature than keeping it against the strong feelings of a few activist editors.
It has been pointed out by another editor and myself that the delete / redirect votes were given before or while oddly ignoring new independent reliable sources, proving notability & specifically addressing the label in depth, added to the article while the discussion was still on. Despite this and taking pretty much all objections to sources into account, the "longstanding editors" just kept claiming without any evidence that there are only primary or promotional sources – unfortunately this helped in creating a perception that this was a discussion with WP:NPV in mind. This should have raised a red flag to the closing editor.
Thus, I believe the decision should have been to implement the steps applicable to "no consensus", which is the category specifically addressing cases such as this one – WP:CLOSEAFD. Thanks! Planetdust (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:IDHT, there was a clear consensus. Creating a relevant section on Goldmann page is all that's required. Note, probable COI user also appears to have employed a sock in an attempt to skew consensus. Additionally, it appears[1] Stefan Goldmann, Macro label co-owner, is the son of Friedrich Goldmann. This extended spat with Jerome Kohl points to a WP:COI with respect to the articles Marco records, Stefan Goldmann, Friedrich Goldmann, and Villa Kamogawa. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: There are 2 users, Acousmana & Doomsdayer520, acting in concert and consistently manipulating and diverting the discussion, not shying away from character assaults aimed at another editor and I. They are also jointly targeting another article which I started.[1] There, deletion was started by Acousmana – note the blatant misrepresentation of the state of sourcing and other editor's statements by Doomsdayer520. Just as above: not the merit of the topic or the sources was the focus, but deletion no matter what. Note how even here Acousmana is unable to engage with the statement that ample sourcing has been provided (so I've had an "extended spat" with a troll years ago – how's this an argument for deletion of anything?). It is eye-popping that "clear consensus" is claimed when this could serve as a textbook example of what consensus doesn't look like. Planetdust (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Jerome Kohl was a "troll"? Interesting. I stand by the WP:COI assertion, can present further evidence if required. Macro content has been moved to the Goldmann article. This is a good outcome considering deletion was equally valid. Acousmana (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Planetdust, the deceased Jerome Kohl was a valued and beloved editor. Call him a "troll" again and I will block you with immediate effect. Tread lightly. El_C 10:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse No consensus doesn't seem like a viable close here, as the delete !votes substantially stronger in both number and argument. I think the nominator is incorrect about the substantiated position for "keep" votes as well. Therefore, the closer's option was to delete or redirect, and since there was a viable redirect target, ATD seems like the correct response here. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I was going to have a go at trying to make an argument for "keep", because there's evidence this is a fairly important German label that has had cultural impact, but I just don't have the time right now. The presented rationales are much stronger for "delete" than for "keep", and I don't see how the closer could have done otherwise. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - the only correct closes, in my view, were 'delete' or 'redirect'. Redirect favoured because of WP:ATD. There was clear consensus from the arguments presented that this topic does not qualify for a stand-alone article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The editor's closing decision is the result of manipulation by 2 editors in the discussion and should clearly be set to no consensus. Certainly no stronger arguments by "delete" voters, since heavily biased: Total ignorance of the sources present in the article at the time of closing is a red flag for trolling and vandalism. Just as 78.26 said: there's evidence this is a fairly important German label that has had cultural impact .... I don't see how the current decision can stand, Ritchie333. Planetdust (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Planetdust: I would cordially invite you to re-think your presentation above. Unfounded accusations of bad faith such as this should not stand. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, this entire AfD was a textbook case of WP:BLUDGEON, and this DRV is already heading towards a similar situation also. Encourage uninvolved administrators to intervene if this gets much worse. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • NoteDaniel was one of the "delete" voters in that discussion. So character assaults, misrepresentation and manipulation are fine, but asking others to look at the sources is bludgeon = "clear consensus". Planetdust (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The issue is whether Redirect was a valid closure.
      • Redirect was a valid closure.
      • It didn't require a clear consensus. Sometimes the closer can compromise. It was a valid closure.
      • No Consensus would have been a valid closure.
      • Shouting at the other participants in an AFD or a DRV is not a way to "win" a content dispute.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Correct close. I see two very poor “keep” !votes, and a strong consensus around the “delete”/“redirect” boundary that definitely falls on the side of “redirect”. “Keep” could not be defended as the result, and “no consensus” would be a failure to read consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Planetdust should read and reflect on WP:BADGER and WP:STICK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete per Planetdust's behavior there and here. No, not really, but deletion would have been a reasonable conclusion, the article got a redirection instead from a very charitable closing admin, and yet here we are, a new venue subject to the same badgering and textwalling seen in the AfD. Look, if the deletion of one article is such a tragedy, don't try to put it on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse there was a clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject. Closing as Redirect is reasonable given that it's a plausible search term which is covered in the target article, nobody offered an argument against redirection, and several people supporting deletion said they would be happy with a redirect. There was plenty of discussion of sources in the AfD, but if the nominator has three good sources which weren't discussed I'd be happy to look at them. Hut 8.5 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Reply: @Hut 8.5: – sure. 3 that were added to the article, yet ignored (I've translated the German titles here):
a) Feature in Tip Magazine "12 Berlin music labels from Ostgut to Macro to Deutsche Grammophon"[2] This one calls them "the 12 most important labels in Berlin".
b) Feature at DJ Lab: "Portrait: Macro – Innovation as Common Denominator"[3]
c) Textura – Macrospective[4] – Review of anniversary label compilation, with a section on label curation policy & about artists and styles.
Also, 2 more extensive press features about the label (I didn't add them since they appeared in print media only and aren't online):
d) Carlos de Brito: "Macro Records: Eine Gelegenheit um aus dem Rahmen zu fallen", Groove Magazin, 07-08 2009 (#117).
e) Philipp Steffens: "Macro Recordings – Fünf aus Fünzig", Faze Mag, 2016
  1. ^ Rob Young: “Stefan Goldmann – Close to the edit”, WIRE Magazine, #314, April 2010
  2. ^ "12 Berliner Musiklabels von Ostgut über Macro bis Deutsche Grammophon". Tip Magazin. Retrieved 26 February 2021.
  3. ^ "Simon Ackers: Porträt: Macro – Innovation als gemeinsamer Nenner. Feature at DJ Lab". DJ Lab. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
  4. ^ "Stefan Goldmann & Finn Johannsen: Macrospective". Textura. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
  • Comment bulk of these are the product of music PR rather than genuine music journalism, most likely generated/commissioned/pitched by the label, for instance, note submission guidelines for Textura, anyone could pitch to them, and the item is unattributed. This is a textbook example of how independent labels set about establishing notability, it's common practice. Acousmana (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, of the ones I can see those don't look very impressive. [2] is very brief, [3] is a review of one of their records which occasionally mentions the label (even if it's reliable), and [4] is so promotional I'm having a hard time believing the company didn't have something to do with writing/publishing it. Hut 8.5 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I can help here. The link provided above by Acousmana leads to a statement that Textura accepts music submissions, I believe like all music media – not article pitches, like some. This is DJ Lab's disclaimer: "Bitte sehen Sie von Anfragen bezüglich Verlinkungen und Gastartikeln grundsätzlich ab. Beide Arten von Mails werden direkt gelöscht." ("Please refrain from request for links or guest articles. Mails with both kinds of requests are deleted directly." [5]. Mastheads of Tip Mag[6], Faze[7], Groove[8]Planetdust (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The inability of a "new sources exist" proponent to count to three correlates with all the proferred sources failing in one way or another. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Planetdust - You are also arguing with all of the other editors at the Villa Kamogawa AFD. I have not yet seen an AFD or DRV where someone changed the outcome by arguing with all of the other editors. I am sure that it has happened at least once, with tens of thousands of deletion discussions. But I wouldn't recommend trying to be the second. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment why are we re-arguing the article merits here? Might as well just re-open the discussion. A DRV is intended to evaluate the merits of the close, which is based upon the arguments present at closing time. Or so I thought, perhaps I've fallen behind the times. Planetdust, if you'll stop badgering everybody, and apologize for calling long-term, highly productive editors who edit across an extremely broad spectrum of topics "trolls", (and redact such an absurd claim), I'll take the time to explain why *I* think this may (or may not) be a notable label on your talk page. Record labels are a specialty of mine, although post-1990 labels lose a lot of my interest. Otherwise, based on your contribution history and interaction style, I'll think your sole purpose here is to promote topics related to Stefan Goldmann. By the way, are you familar with the requirements of WP:COI? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
78.26 – WP:COI read & understood. If my early decision to limit my editorial efforts on Wikipedia to 3-4 closely related topics arouses suspicion I'll have to live with that. To understand the WP better: Is the case of an administrative assistant at a politics department[9] who inserted 14 of his own writings 16 times as sources, + another 9 under further reading in the Stockhausen article (a composer), while simultaneously policing others's edits in there something within the scope of WP:COI? Planetdust (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • despicable attack on a notable deceased editor, who made significant contributions to the encyclopedia, was editor of a respected contemproary music journal, and who clearly stated what his connections with various topics were. What have you done for this community other than attempt to fluff your own pillow? Nothing. Acousmana (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Right, you can personally attack a deceased editor (again, a highly accomplished, valued and beloved one), labeling him a "troll" without incident, but when it comes to yourself, it is not okay. I find that telling. El_C 14:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • To my mind, that debate could sum to "delete" or "redirect", at closer's discretion. It definitely doesn't sum to "no consensus" or "keep". I agree with Planetdust that "no consensus" would be the best compromise; but on Wikipedia, a decision is usually better than a compromise, and our discussion closers aren't required to compromise with interested parties.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said to User:Planetdust on the talk page of this daily log. Hounding does occasionally happen in Wikipedia, and must be dealt with; but it is rare compared to nonsensical claims by hypersensitive editors that they are being hounded when other editors reply to them. There is no hounding here, but there are civility violations by Planetdust, who is being aggressive, and is then crying "Hounding" when other editors reply. This is a content forum. If User:Planetdust really thinks that they are being hounded, they can go to WP:ANI; but their hands are not clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)



Recent discussions

27 February 2021

United Airlines Flight 1175 (closed)

Ultimate Kricket Challenge (closed)

James Merry (actor)

James Merry (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created this page back in 2010 when he was a character in British soap opera Doctors. I have updated sporadically and now find it deleted. The deletion discussion suggested this actor appeared in YouTube shows, when in fact he is on the BBC every day in Waffle The Wonder Dog. He has also appeared in several other TV shows. Can I request this page is reinstated please?

Here are references for his career:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm2771194/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&hl=en-gb&ei=DzE6YL-EG-LC8gLcyqBI&q=james+merry+waffle+the+wonder+dog&oq=james+merry+waffle+the+wonder+dog&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQguEJMCMgUIIRCgAToECAAQDToCCAA6BggAEBYQHjoCCC5QuiBYr0Ng3UVoAHAAeACAAWOIAdYOkgECMjeYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesmerry17?lang=en

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_the_Wonder_Dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b09tn0ys/waffle-the-wonder-dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/shows/waffle-the-wonder-dogFrankcable (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse. None of the above are suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe Can you advise what is a suitable source please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talkcontribs) 14:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

    • User:Frankcable, a suitable source is independent of the subject, reliably published, and comments directly and in depth on the subject. You need two or three of these. IMDB, Twitter, Wikipedia, and any user-contributed website is deemed unreliable for Wikipedia to use. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, at least for now. I sympathise with the original poster here - that AfD wasn't well attended and looks like one of our run of the mill deletion discussions, and had they participated may have run closer to a no consensus especially given the poor rationale of one of the votes (the Youtube one.) However, given the sources above this isn't a slam dunk restore by any means - the community has determined IMDB isn't reliable for notability purposes, and none of the other sources are secondary sources, i.e. unrelated to the actor or the shows they appear in. Therefore I'll reluctantly endorse, but if other, better, secondary sources are found, I'd be happy to overturn and relist so they can be presented and discussed. SportingFlyerT·C 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer I’m happy to provide more sources but I’m at a loss to know what is more reliable than IMDB and BBC sources? What is required? Please advise and thank you for intervening and reviewing the discussion. Frank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talkcontribs) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyerI think this is what you mean by secondary sources. I apologise, I’m not an experienced Wiki editor or anything like that, so I’m doing my best! This is the actors appearance as a guest on a British radio show and a BAFTA nomination for his children’s TV show.

https://www.bafta.org/children/awards/childrens-awards-nominations-2018#PRE-SCHOOL%20–%20LIVE%20ACTION

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/hawksbee-and-jacobs-daily-458993/episodes/waffle-the-wonder-dog-teenage-53820719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talkcontribs) 19:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • No worries, that's why I spelled it out. Neither of those sources work either - the first one doesn't even reference him, it's just a list of nominated shows. The second one can't be used because it's not independent of the actor. You can't make yourself notable. I've just done a search to find an example but unfortunately I can't find a good example for him. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a valid closure. Relist would have also been valid, but the question is whether there was an error by the closer. There wasn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow Re-Creation as DraftRobert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I think this is poor advice. I think better advice is for User:Frankcable to find suitable sources to add material, including comment on this actor, to Waffle the Wonder Dog. For the actor, it sounds like WP:BIO1E. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Squad (app) (closed)

Friday Night Funkin'

Friday Night Funkin' (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article has been deleted twice as a result of an AfD from December, but the topic has gathered attention surprisingly rapidly since then and I believe that it may now meet WP:GNG.

Sources:

Multiple in-depth articles/reviews in multiple gaming news outlets would appear to satisfy GNG. Given the popularity of the game on social media, I imagine the dead article title is probably getting hits, so it should be restored if notability allows. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

allow recreation It does seem to me there has been sufficient new coverage since the afd that the page could be recreated (that’s not to guarantee it’s notable, but that the situation has changed to render the Afds consensus, for lack of a better word, obsolete). The article itself was completely unsourced and fancrufty, so I see no value in restoring it. Eddie891 TalkWork 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete straight to mainspace. It was in development, and deletions reasons cited “TOOSOON”. It should have been draftified, not deleted. It now seems to be released, and there is a flurry of sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation, though if the article gets sent back to AfD, I'd note this discussion does not preclude it from being deleted again. I'm also against moving it directly back to mainspace due to the potential copyright issue noted in the final delete comment - if an admin reviews this and determines it's not an issue, then I'm content with a direct restore. SportingFlyerT·C 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow Re-Creation in DraftRobert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no opinion (I deleted it in AfD) but it appears to have already been recreated on 28 February 2021 by User:Geekgecko. Missvain (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, that saves some work then, assuming that it stands. In that case the relevant question (assuming this DRV overturns the previous delete decision) is whether the former article(s) that were deleted contained content that should be restored/merged. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Huh, I had no knowledge there was such a big debate over this; I've seen it get a lot of attention on social media over the past few months, recently noticed a lot of news sources covering it even though it still had no Wikipedia page, and made the page from scratch. If previous since-deleted iterations of the page exist with info that isn't currently on there, you could add the info in them to the one I made.Geekgecko (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse and move forward 1) The deletion discussion was arguably correct at the time, and 2) nothing about it prevents the new article from existing, thriving, and growing to FA status if new information. An AfD is 'delete this as it exists now' not a 'delete and ask-DRV-mother-may-I before creating an article on this topic henceforth'. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Previous recreation had been deleted referencing the AfD which is why I took the matter here to get an official word. BlackholeWA (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah. So you're actually wanting to contest not the original AfD, but Ritchie333's G4 speedy deletion of the recreated content. I know, that can sound like an arcane difference, but it affects how we address this topic. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Not necessarily that deletion, but if the former AfD was functioning as consensus to not have an article on that topic, I wanted to formally challenge that consensus given the new sources. I think this falls under DRV purpose point 3, to challenge "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". BlackholeWA (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Hmm. I agree, the verbiage is confusing, especially in light of DRV purpose not point #9, which states it is inapplicable in case of very old deletions with new info. I'm still pretty sure a G4 of a recreated article that has significant new information is not appropriate under that criteria, regardless of how old the AfD is or is not, so yeah--we could clarify it. My position, that substantial new RS information moots an old AfD and so if someone doesn't like the new one they can take it to AfD again, is unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Izuru Kamukura

Izuru Kamukura (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created this article but in less than a week, the entire video game project deleted it despite my attempts to write as much as real world information as possible to pass notability guidelines. Instead, they deleted it, claiming it doesn't count because some months ago another user rushed a page of the character without any real world information. In the project people kept insisted it had a bad prose rather than notability issues and as soon as I requested a copyedit from the guild and rewrote most of the ficitional content, it got deleted. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure of Redirect, and Protect the Redirect due to the edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Timeline: unanimous delete and redirect at an AfD in January 2021, I've added the link to that discussion above. Tintor2 attempted to recreate a standalone article, which was reverted back to a redirect due to the clear result at the last AfD. Tintor2 then did what looks like a copy-paste merge at List of Danganronpa characters here. I can't look at the deleted version (no mop), which was created by a banned user. There's now a couple reverts as to whether this remains a redirect or a standalone page.
The AfD noted that a number of sources in the old version of the article made it seem like the character had more notability than they really do, and I'd agree based on a quick spot check of the new version of the article. However, considering the rewrite, it probably makes sense to send back to AfD, assuming this isn't G4-eligible, which seems to be an easy assumption to make, but I'm not bolding my proposal since I'm not certain this is the right result. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Quick comment, it's not G4. The sock who created the last version has edited the current version though, and was CU'd today. Tintor has no involvement or relationship to the sockmaster, to be perfectly clear, beyond operating in the same topic space. Just noting since G4 and G5 are possible concerns for this topic. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay so from what I get, a sockpuppet once tried making Hajime's article back in January and got redirected. However, the only Danganronpa article I contributed in that month was Makoto Naegi since I took a break in the second half of the month due to vacations. When I returned the only characters present were Makoto which I had to rewrite when it came to to the in-universe information since the material from the character list was too confusing. The sockpuppet created the articles for Monokuma and Toko Fukawa based on what I remember. The only two articles I later created involved Nagito Komaeda, List of Danganronpa media and finally Hajime Hinata which the other user moved to Izuru Kamukura due to the complicated identity of such character. The rest has already been told. I tried rewriting Hajime/Izuru's appearances section due to how weird was his character section and then ask for guild's help but after it was deleted again, I had to remove the request.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, based on that we need to take a closer look at those other articles, I think at least Toko Fukawa would be eligible for WP:G5. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse redirect - Creative reworking doesn't substitute for meeting the WP:GNG. Best case scenario, WP:TNT, because it was very poorly written at last read. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I tried rewriting all the in-universe information from appearances and trim it. Not sure if it's easier to read.Tintor2 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn the AfD results, oppose protection of the redirect and allow recreation of the article. Tintor2 appears to be a longtime editor with good standing with the project, so they should be given the benefit of the doubt if they express a view that this topic meets WP:GNG. A closer examination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izuru Kamukura revealed that except for the sockpuppet creator, all of the participating editors advocated that it should be redirected without specifically saying it should be deleted as well, so there is no actual consensus for deletion on top of the redirect and the closer made an error of judgment. As per WP:ATD, asking for an article to be redirected is a valid alternative or compromise to deletion. There is no policy or consensus that ever precludes restoration if the contents are substantially different from the version being reviewed at AfD, and a recent example illustrates this point: if anyone is opposed to Tintor2's view of the topic's notability, they can always nominate their version for AfD. Haleth (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Im not sure exactly sure I'm following your reasoning on why the redirect part of the close/consensus though. I also don't think a single "no consensus" close a month or so back is as strong of a precedent as you think it is... Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD, Restore, and Send to AfD I don't think the draft of the article passes GNG having looked at the sources, but it's also not really a topic area I know anything about. Since this isn't a G4, I'd support moving this back to mainspace and having another AfD, under the assumption this is a different article than the one that was deleted per Ferret's helpful response above (not casting doubt, just can't prove it myself.) The original AfD seems valid and there's no reason to overturn it, so we're dealing with a recreated article here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Wait, so it's impossible to recreate the article only because somebody rushed it in January? Everything from this article was taken from the characters list and completely rewritten due to confusing inuniverse information so I can't understand what's the actual reason since it has nothing to do with the other article.Tintor2 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

25 February 2021

Vivien Keszthelyi (closed)

23 February 2021

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year 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
What is this?