Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

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

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);
  9. 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.)
  10. 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, 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

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.

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 October 27}}</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 October 27}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 27|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

27 October 2024

25 October 2024

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion involves a contentious topic (BLPs and BLPgroups with living adults and children) and it was an active discussion when it was closed with a no consensus determination. Beyond this, comments about self-identification were incorrectly applied (when reading his sources, most of these articles were related to 'self-identification' as one sees in census information; IE where it is applied appropriately. Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling for the category to be deleted? It's not clear what remedy you are seeking here. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting that either deletion or relisting for further consensus is considered. Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer – I have already responded to some questions about the close (which in my view have more merit to them than this complaint). Arguments about whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish a WP:DEFINING characteristic is a great topic for discussion at the CFD, but DRV is not CFD 2.0. I was asked to relist the discussion on my talk, but per WP:RELIST something should rarely be relisted more than twice. Given that this is a massive discussion was open for a month, I think editors have had more than enough time to participate and relisting is dilatory. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The CfD was open for almost five weeks, and was correctly closed as no-consensus. The closer provided a detailed and well-thought-out rationale, carefully navigating this political minefield. Yes, this is a contentious issue, and there will always be an "active discussion" when it is time to close, but we can't leave this open indefinitely. "Continue relisting until I get the result I want" is not a valid DRV appeal. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as participant in the discussion) regrettably endorse, closer is right that further relisting would not have helped. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved in last discussion) I support deletion, but would accept relist/reopen, not least because this is BLP territory and this is very likely WP:POVCAT, so we should make sure to get this right. This isn't a category for people who aren't NA, as per RSes, but a category for people who've said they're NA but we, as editors, don't have evidence to support that. That's dangerous and requires WP:OR.
If RSes say they're not NA, then we should just say that, instead of putting them in a weird umbrella category which is ripe for abuse. As per the category page, this category includes people who make statements of self-ID where "reliable sources substantiating the statement have not yet been identified in their articles" so the statements should simply be removed from those articles if not supported.
Another issue is that the substantiation required is narrowly defined in these categories, and in a way that doesn't fit how WP usually defines reliable sources. If RSes we would rely on for other factors consistently refer to a person as x, we should also call them x. We shouldn't withhold that fact until the RS we like says it.
Otherwise, any category which actively labels people based on what we can't prove about them is on inherently shaky grand, and gets into WP:CATV and WP:POV pushing territory. There are only a small handful of exceptions I can think of (e.g., cases where someone is well known as claiming heritage that isn't theirs), and those could better be dealt with in other ways.
Just to be clear: I have no problem categorising people who are considered frauds by RSes as such; my issue is with categorising people just because we can't prove they definitely are what they say, or with cherrypicking certain RSes over everything else.
Edited to add suggestion/possible compromise: When there is contention or lack of consensus about a category, it is permissable to make it into a list instead. That actually seems like it could be a good solution, since it addresses several issues, such as the category being WP:NONDEF for most BLPs. I would also support this option. Lewisguile (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 October 2024

Tej Giri

Tej Giri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I hope this is the right place to ask. I'm looking to restore this article and add proper sources. The deletion discussion highlighted the lack of independent sources, but I've mentioned some reliable sources based on Usedtobecool/PSN , which are highly reliable sources and old media of Nepal Here are the sources: himalayan news of nepal / nepal samachar patra nayapatrika dainik nagrik network nepal live Endrabcwizart (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This DRV request was not properly formatted, so I fixed it. The appellant also failed to discuss it with the closer or even notify the closer of the appeal. As for the merits, the appellant appears to be making a DRV#3 appeal -- but the sources offered here were all presented in the deletion discussion and they did not attract any support for retention. The quorum for deletion was minimal, but there was a consensus (when including Mushy Yank's non-!vote comment) that the material did not belong in mainspace. A redirect might have been a better interpretation, but "delete" was within discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ehimalayatimes.com is not The Himalayan Times (thehimalayantimes.com) from Usedtobecool's list.—Alalch E. 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyways, endorse. The nomination and the discussion weren't great at all, but all taken together, it is clear enough that there was a rough consensus to delete on grounds of non-notability. —Alalch E. 15:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As Dclemens1971 says, the sources presented here were already assessed at the AfD and found lacking. Nothing to justify overturning, or even draftifying. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's not entirely clear on what basis this review has been lodged, but if #1, then although the AfD had very little discussion, the close does seem to correctly reflect it. Whereas if this is instead a type #3 appeal, then the sources listed here, which are of course the same as were already listed in the AfD, don't (with the possible exception of the Nagrik Network one) contribute anything towards notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct reading of discussion by closing admin. Strong overturn to soft delete and restore as draft based on lack of quorum to delete (only one vote plus the nom. I do not consider Mushy Yank's comment to be supportive of deletion, I consider it an argument against redirecting). I agree with others that the sources do not come close to meeting WP:GNG, but DRV is not the place to evaluate sources. That is the role of AFD or AFC. Frank Anchor 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Mushy's comment as saying that he thought redirection might not be acceptable to the community since it might not be appropriate for the subject to be listed there if he didn't have a page, but that Mushy would be OK with redirection if it were. However, Mushy often !votes for "keep" and "redirect" and didn't here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Mushy also didn’t !vote to delete. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can speculate on what a user thinks based on contributions to other AFDs. Frank Anchor 01:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quorum does not exist as a requirement for consensus under policy, and soft deletion was not applied. It's possible to restore to draft regardless, but I don't agree that the decision should be based on the idea that there was a "lack of quorum". —Alalch E. 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:QUORUM, a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. This AFD is a textbook WP:SOFTDELETE (assuming it was eligible for soft deletion), even if that term was not explicitly used, and therefore should be restored upon any good faith request, such as this DRV. I recommended a restoration to draft space because using only the sources presented at the AFD or here, the article would be right back at AFD again. Frank Anchor 13:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:QUORUM" is a figurative shortcut and no guideline or policy imposes a quorum requirement in actuality. —Alalch E. 02:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I never said there was. However, there is also clearly no DRV-appropriate argument against refunding to draft space. Frank Anchor 04:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Soft deletion says that. WP:QUORUM does not say that deletion discussions with minimal participation must be soft deleted, just that that's one of the options. —Cryptic 09:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
…and the option that should have been chosen here. Just because the closer didn’t choose that option, doesn’t mean the closer should not have. There is no justification to have “hard” deleted (unless not eligible for soft delete) when there is minimal participation. 12:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I also find Cryptic’s edit summary on their post be an unjustified insult of my vast experience on Wiki and particularly at DRV, and request an apology. Frank Anchor 12:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 October 2024

  • Crink – Speedy closed by creating the requested redirect, which seems uncontroversial. I left the existing page protection in place, although I'm not sure it is still required. Any admin is welcome to revert and/or relist, if they believe this needs further discussion. Kudos to the appellant for proactively creating a redir at CRINK to the same target. Owen× ☎ 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Crink (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Previously a deleted article, would be useful as a redirect to Axis of Upheaval. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then do go ahead and create the redirect, there's no need for a DRV. Sandstein 10:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SALTed. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • John LaMotta – Speedy restored to draftspace. The article was soft-deleted nine years ago, and therefore qualifies for REFUND upon any legitimate request. Since the article is currently unsourced, and the appellant is inexperienced, I recommend going through AfC to avoid an instant return to AfD. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John LaMotta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

LaMotta only acted in ALF, he had also a leading role (One More Chance (1981 film)) and supporting roles in many films of director Sam Firstenberg and also some guest appearances in different TV Shows. I would like to get restored the article and add more information to it. --Dk0704 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


Recent discussions

19 October 2024

Greater Manchester bus route 216

Greater Manchester bus route 216 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Would like to restore article and add more sources to it which discussed in AFD discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TL9027 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2024

  • Ivy Wolk – The consensus of participants is that new sources do not provide significant new information that would warrant allowing recreation by removing the salting. Recreation remains disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV, which will require additional sources to be published (or identified if they have already been published). The nominator withdrew, and the consensus is unanimous, enabling this to be speedily closed. If a draft is submitted through AfC, reviewers can review (and can decline); if the submission passes their review, they should seek that recreation be allowed in this forum. (non-admin closure)—Alalch E. 23:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ivy Wolk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the deletion discussion two months ago, two new sources have been published: this piece in Interview magazine (which contains usable independent coverage in the introduction) and this brief bio in Teen Vogue. I've added these to the previously discussed profile in Variety in a draft at Draft:Ivy Wolk. She's not Emma Stone, but together these suggest notability under the basic criteria. (For future reference, the title is currently salted after repeated recreations without discussion; I'm hoping this discussion resolves that.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say that neither of these two sources are really significant coverage, but this is getting closer. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of Scope It seems to me that this is not a DRV matter. This is a simple undeletion request because further sources have been found. There is also a new draft which renders that to be unnecessary. Let us speedy close this and let the new draft take its chance. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and leave salted. Neither the interview nor the 180-word in Teen Vogue blurb tip the scale for a DRVPURPOSE#3 "significant new information" to overturn the unanimous AfD. The appellant has already created a new draft, but I don't see it getting through AfC, let alone another AfD. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May not be quite there yet, but I think the blurb in Teen Vogue is a solid if short source. I understand we need multiple, good sources for a BLP, but for an aspiring actress/influencer "getting profiled by 'Variety'" is a pretty reasonable bar for notability in terms of weeding out spam. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and retain salting. As the original nom of the AfD, I am not confident that these additional sources provide significant coverage of this subject. The Variety source used previously has done a lot of heavy lifting in justifying such a small article, with most of the details available largely being trivial. Comparing the draft to the prior revisions that were deleted, these little tidbits do not add information that seems significant, and the draft in question relies on three of this subject's social media posts to help with coverage. Unless there are actual in-depth coverage beyond just interviews with the subject and blurbs about them, I reaffirm the deletion. I am also not confident that a draft would be accepted at this state, but if done to bypass the salting without any significant improvements, I would not be surprised for it to wind up down the same path. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trailblazer101: most of the details available largely being trivial: Please feel free to edit the draft; if you don't think she's notable yet, a draft is worth having. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I have no interest in editing this article. I am indifferent on the draft. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably say that you are welcome to expand upon the contents in the draft, and I encourage you to do so over time. That is the best place to develop this article rather than attempting to get it back into the mainspace, which does not appear to be likely anytime soon. If you want this to be an article, then the WP:BURDEN would fall onto you to prove its notability by addressing the concerns raised in the AfD and in this DRV. Sources with significant new information are probably going to take awhile to become available, considering it is still WP:TOOSOON, although there is WP:NORUSH to publish an article in mainspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was notified of this discussion and the message stated that the article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. I didn't understand that notification because I wasn't the AFD closer. But I do see that I later deleted a version of this article as a CSD G4 without properly investigating the history of the article. I gave too much weight on the fact that it was the second recreation of this article over a short period of time since the AFD was closed. But the version of the article deleted through the AFD was poorly sourced and I can see that the latest version deleted via CSD G4 was an improvement over it. I wouldn't object to restoring this version of the article to Draft space so it can be reviewed by AFC. This is the standard procedure for putting an article back into main space after it has been deleted through an AFD but I'm guessing many editors do not know that this is the case.
But I'm guessing that this Deletion review is actually about the CSD G4, not the AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft with the understanding that salting should be lifted if there is a valid, good faith AfC approval, or at the discretion of any of the administrators who have previously interacted with the article who also believe that G4 no longer applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't think she meets GNG yet, but she's very close with the Variety article - I don't think either of the other two get the article over the line. My feeling is we'll clearly know when to un-salt. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am willing to do something that I usually will not do, and that is to conduct an Articles for Creation review on a draft of a title that has been salted. I generally will not attempt to review a draft that I couldn't accept if I wanted to accept it. In this case, I am willing to perform the review, not to offer an opinion as to whether to accept it, but to offer an opinion as to whether it should be desalted. The question that I think DRV should address is only whether the draft has sufficient promise to desalt for future work. I have a comment for the ultras, overly enthusiastic fans, who re-created the article twice in two months after it was deleted. This was almost certainly the work of a fan club, for a young female celebrity. Ultras think that they are advancing the prospects of a Wikipedia article about their person, but they are making it more difficult. Overly enthusiastic disruptive fans almost always annoy the rest of the Wikipedia community, and often get titles salted or even blacklisted. Patience isn't easy, but neither is impatience. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Keep Salted - The sources are still inadequate, except for the Variety article, which is good, but was not enough in July and is not enough in October. The two added sources are just sound bites, and sound bites are not notability. The appellant or petitioner is just trying more of the same. At this point, she is too soon until she achieves either general notability with another real article, or acting notability with two major roles.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Twitter (no matter what Mr. Musk calls it) A tweet on X. Could not be viewed, but that isn't important, because tweets are not reliable. ? No, not in 280 characters. No No
2 Twitter (no matter what Mr. Musk calls it) A tweet on X. Could not be viewed, but that isn't important, because tweets are not reliable. ? No, not in 280 characters. No No
3 variety.com Significant coverage Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 www.teenvogue.com "20 under 20" list of short profiles Yes Not really Yes Not really
5 /www.interviewmagazine.com/ A long set of sound bytes. No ? Yes No
6 Twitter (no matter what Mr. Musk calls it) A tweet on X. Could not be viewed, but that isn't important, because tweets are not reliable. ? No, not in 280 characters. No No

If this were AFD again, I would say to Delete again. If this were AFC, I would Reject it, because it is not really an improvement over the deleted article. This is DRV, and the title can remain salted for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I'd quibble with a few things here, foremost that the Interview does not have independent or secondary content: a recent discussion makes that clear that the introduction to an interview should be assessed separately to the interview itself for ind/sigcov/etc. Which, when combined with the solid Variety profile, I'd say easily passes the letter of WP:BASIC as multiple reliable independent significant sources. I could understand if you called the intro too short, but that's a different question. I agree that the past attempts to create this article did it no favors and hope this try isn't one of the same. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC only works when the content speaks for itself and is obviously encyclopedic, i.e. article has encyclopedic breadth and detail and easily shows that the subject is "worthy of notice" (in the language of WP:N), but there are no two sources each with SIGCOV (a rare situation). Then we should not delete the article, because doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the notability standard: ensuring that the content in the encyclopedia stays encyclopedic. Here, the content is weak. Draft:Ivy Wolk is thin. —Alalch E. 20:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hameltion: I personally think that everything is clear now, and that you should withdraw and allow for this discussion to be closed. —Alalch E. 20:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, feel free to close this. I'd guess the article would stick if it were published today without a deletion history. Good to know DRV remains an acceptable venue if and when good new sources come out. PS: Were you thinking of WP:ANYBIO in your previous comment? WP:BASIC is just a restatement of GNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hameltion: I was thinking WP:BASIC. Some SNG criteria provide alternative routes to article eligibility via a presumption of notability, and some are modifications of the GNG. NCORP, for example is a toughened-up GNG because it specifies that significant coverage must be in the form of an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization etc. That adds a layer of strictness on top of the general language of the GNG. Conversely BASIC is a lightened-up GNG because it says that the depth of coverage in a given source considered as the basis for notability does not have to be substantial, and that instead of needing to have two or three sources each with SIGCOV, we can combine multiple independent sources [none of which are SIGCOV by themselves] ... to demonstrate notability. So BASIC exists precisely not to restate GNG but to modify it in the area of biographies. This is because Wikipedia has a "bias" toward including biographies because it's a traditional encyclopedia subject and there's a strong impetus to include as many biographies as humanly possible because it's a perennial topic of human interest, so strict application of GNG would create too much friction. I will close soon if someone else doesn't. —Alalch E. 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD result. I would oppose recreation based on Robert McClenon's source analysis above; the draft is not ready for AFC at this point. Frank Anchor 13:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not allow recreation yet (keep salted). Reasonable attempt but the request is slightly premature. The Teen Vogue bio is the best source IMO. Make this same appeal again when another source like that appears. Give DRV some breathing space and don't rerequest in the next couple of months. With a good new source, permission for creation will probably be granted then. The AfD has not been challenged so there's no need to endorse its result. —Alalch E. 20:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 October 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
United States girls' national under-16 soccer team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hope this is the right place. I'm looking to undelete this article and add sources. The deletion discussion concerned sources' lack of independence. I've located what should be enough independent coverage to show notability in TopDrawerSoccer ([1] [2] [3] ), Ouest-France ([4]), archives at Newspapers.com ([5] [6]), etc. Thanks! Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Archive

Archives, by year and month
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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1188230539"