Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct errors in the deletion process, but that may also involve reviewing content in some cases.

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please 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.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• 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.

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.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. 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.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

Active discussions

17 May 2008

Michigan Dogman (closed)

graphalloy

Graphalloy (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

continue_to_develop_with_new_content Ebenwalker (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

16 May 2008

Head coach articles (closed)

"An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content 
that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from 
questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability;
to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just 
give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web 
content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums,
software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If 
controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead"

Adil Najam

Adil Najam (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a reproduction.And Person IS Notable Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn (The deleter asked that I post the discussion here, after argument in Conflict of Interest).
  I don't understand how my article can be a reproduction, when I never heard of the man before, until reading about Negotiation on wikipedia, and created the article from scratch from the first 100 or so google posts that I found about him, Including the links which are from neutral non controversial sources. I felt its a cultural war to eliminate this person, since my post was very short, and well sourced, with media of all sorts and locations showing credibility to the person AND notability. Still don't understand how it can be NN. In the deleter's talk page, and above I wrote the full scope of notability I found. This article was deleted three times. Once because written by the man himself, and seemed to be self promotion. Second time for NN (non notability). I was not able to see any of the deleted articles - would like to. But according to user:Equazcion the second was deleted because it was a reproduction! My short entry CANNOT be a recreation of the first entry. A few minutes after entering it, it was deleted. I then started searching to understand if there is any controvercy around the person or his sayings. I found that there definitely is, but could not bring any of it to Wikipedia, because it was quickly erased. I proved the man is notable! Over 100 entries on the web from various sources, including books, sayings in his name, by extremely notable sources. Pashute (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The G4 deleted article, like the AFD'ed article, contained no sources. It also mentioned no new claims of notability. In my opinion a sourced article would be significantly different, but an unsourced article is not viable here. GRBerry 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn It is indeed not a re-creation, nor was it written by the subject, for it leaves out a number of the things that might in fact prove notability. It was rather written quickly from the web, just as Pashute says, & needs some additional work. At the time of creation of the original article, he was Associate Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, This is a really important place, though it was just Associate Professor. Since then he has become Director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future [1], also an important place. I thinks its a plausible claim to notability and a decent article could be written. The original AfD was before I joined WP. The arguments there were not substantive--it was judged vanity, and not considered whether or not he might actually be notable. I dont think it would be deleted now, even without the subsequent promotion. WorldCat shows that he seems to be editor or co-author of at least 10 books, including ones published by Harvard University Press & Palgrave Macmillan & Yale. They had not all been published back in 2006. Restore, & I'll help Pashute improve it. DGG (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. I think that it would benefit from a broader consensus; in addition, according to the instructions (above), "The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action)." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - It's hard to judge G4s without the benefit of seeing the deleted versions, so I won't try to. However, I would suggest that the nom work on a draft version in his userspace (at, say, User:Pashute/Adil Najam) so we can judge it by its own merits. The AfD was closed delete due to lack of sources, so the addition of some inline citations would invalidate it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist on AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jersey £1.jpg

Image:Jersey £1.jpg (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a test case (one of many similar images, none of them uploaded by me). This image, of a Jersey coin, was deleted with the note "CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago". It seems to me that either we do allow images of coins in copyright, or we don't. The justification will essentially be identical for all of them. Assuming we do allow coin images, it is in my view unhelpful to delete them just because the uploader didn't happen to get the exact form of wording that would satisfy a copyright lawyer. Since the deleter knew that that justification was inadequate, presumably he or she also knows the correct form of wording to use. It would be much more helpful, and just as quick (probably quicker), for that person to retain the image and simply copy and paste a standard form of wording into the rationale. I propose therefore that this image (and others similar, which I will identify) are reinstated, and that a standard form of wording is copied and pasted as justification for use. Matt 11:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

Well, this particular image was deleted because its fair use rationale didn't provide the name of the article in which fair use was claimed, thus breaching criterion 10c of the fair use rules. It has nothing to do with whether we do or do not allow coin images (as far as I am aware we do). Fair use rationales cannot be boilerplate and must be specific to each use, and it is the responsiblity of the editor claiming fair use to justify it with a rationale, not for those removing invalidly-used images to go and investigate whether there is a possible fair use claim that can be made out. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, if images of coins are in general allowed, and the only problem is with the justification of use in a particular article, then there is no reason to delete the image itself, only the use of the image in that article. I understand what you're saying about the rationale being the original editor's responsibility. However, I personally wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to write such a thing, whereas I assume that copyright patrollers understand all this stuff and know what they're doing. If an image of a coin is used in an article that describes the coin (as was the case here), and we have decided that this type of usage is permissible, then I still maintain that it would be better for the copyright patrollers to help out by fixing the rationale (which should be no more than a copy and paste), rather than taking the nuclear option and deleting. Even more so if it's a trivial matter of an article name being missing from the rationale, which seems to be what you're saying was the case here. The sensible course of action is surely to add the article name, not delete the image. Matt 14:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.212 (talk)

... but, moving on from debating the rights or wrongs of what happened with the original deletion, let me propose the following.

1. We satisfy ourselves that the use of the now deleted coin images at Coins of the Jersey pound, Coins of the Guernsey pound and Coins of the Manx pound (those are the ones I spotted) was fair use.
2. We obtain some suitable text that can be used in justification, to be written by someone who understands what's required, or copied from another coin image.
3. We reinstate all the deleted images, apply the new text, and repair the relevant articles. Matt 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

• The article in which it, and several others, was used was Coins of the Jersey pound. See this multi-diff (all intermediate revisions by the bot, it did each image separately). GRBerry 13:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore and someone do the trivial work of adding the missing information. Deleting in a case like this is process-wonkery carried to the extreme. (I don't like that word, and have never used it before, but there's nothing that fits better.) If the type of use is accepted fair use, except that the name of the article is missing, add it and go on. If other elements of the justification are missing, look for them rather than delete. Copyvio is a matter of substance, not of form. This is like deleting an article copied from the PD because the source was spelled wrong. I've avoided working on images because of the excess technicality and rigid approach of the people in that section of WP. The impression I have is that the people who actually real ly oppose fair use altogether are seizing on the least technical defect. DGG (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• comment I've posted a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use to recruit additional editors to join this discussion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy restored. Now, go stick it in an article and write a fair-use rationale for it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey_Worthington (closed)

15 May 2008

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

References Added Commoncase (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Members, I have done a lot of work on this article over the last week, and I believe it is now up to standard to be put back in the main Wiki, as simply "Bloodstained Memoirs". I have included references to many, varied third party and reliable news sources, stated reasons for notability, and generally tidies up the article to a more polished standard. There are no instances of Crystal Ball knowledge, as all items stated in the article have been referenced either from the official site, or third party news sites (with interviews from the producer). Commoncase (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm not all together convinced that the references there now constitute reliable sources, but certainly all the WP:CRYSTAL concerns are addressed, and I'm certain reliable sources will be available in the very near future. MrPrada (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and tag it with {{Current}} or with similar tag that indicates that the information may change a lot when the documentary is released --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Put back as a main article. I believe this is a good page and should be put back up as a main article. The references are well known Wrestling related news sites.I can't see where anybody else is expecting references from considering this is a wrestling production? I feel this article meets all criteria. Arthur Cutz (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Aset Ka

Aset Ka (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm filing this request for GustavusPrimus. She claims the article was incorrectly deleted; the original AfD closed as delete, as it was an unreferenced hoax, however, the article was rewritten with more references and images, but similar information. The article was then speedied under WP:CSD#G4, something the author disagrees with. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (as closing admin) The only new source offered in the recent draft is a self-published book on Aset Ka that contains much of the same unreliable and unreferenced material that was used to substantiate the outrageous claims made in the previously deleted article. As such, I consider the original consensus to still apply and have therefore speedied the new version per G4. It is worth noting that no draft of the article ever offered any record of physical evidence for the historicity of the order or any published criticism of the research that led to uncovering its existence.
• Trusilver put it best in the deletion debate, "It's a hoax, and not even that good of a hoax. Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references. There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago which as far as I'm concerned put this clearly in opposition of WP:NOT#OR." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn "There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago" - Although this is not true, it is not even a valid argument, because even if the organization is 3 years old, it still is a valid organization. We are not here to discuss its age. The Wikipedia article does not endorse any of the order's ideals or belief system, it works only as a reference to an occult tradition. The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books. The last book added as reference is an international publication, with an official ISBN number, readily available on Amazon and countless other bookstores worldwide. No matter how much we may disagree from the contents of the book or question the truth of their beliefs, as we can do with any other religion or new age tradition, it still deserves respect as such. And the existence of the tradition is verifiable. It is throughfully doc