Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if he or she wants to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.

A page should stay listed here for at least 5 to 7 days. After that time, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do, and take appropriate steps. If the consensus was that the discussion was closed correctly, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.


Current requests[change source]

Review of the close at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2020/Barbekue[change source]

I don't see there is a consensus for redirect. 5 delete votes will make it a delete which is done correctly. The redirect part we have 1 redirect vote and 1 vote against redirection. The closer is also involved to an extent. Will seek a second review of the result as this may lead to precedence of unlikely typos redirects flooding the site. Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: This page is for deletion review, not RFD review. The page was not deleted, so this is not the place to discuss. However, to address your point, admins have discretion to decide RFDs in a manner other than what the majority of comments say. Remember that an RFD is a discussion, not a vote, as stated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Discussions. The redirect should stand. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
That would be, technically speaking, going against consensus. I participated in the RfD so would not be in an appropriate position to talk about what the consensus was, but I do note that there have been editors who mentioned the improbability of "barbekue" being a typo. Chenzw  Talk  11:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Switching a C for K is a very common mistake in all sorts of words because in English they have the same sound at times. I catch my kid doing it every other week or so and he is a native English speaker. So it is a very reasonable redirect on a wiki whose target audience includes ESL and children. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap after all. To be honest I am not even really sure why people would argue against a redirect that can help people and not harm anything? Seems counter productive to me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I will, again, request that Eptalon not close RfDs that he has participated in or nominated. Vermont (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,, firstly, please calm down. I deleted the article in question (as this was the consensus). Given that c and k have the same sound in English, I though redirecting was a good idea, even though it might not be the most common misspelling we are dealing with. Therefore: what are we discussing here? - A cheap redirect that helps more than it hurts?--Eptalon (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I think Vermont's point here is that admins should only close RfDs that they're a part if, only if the consensus is very obvious/uncontroversial. Since in this RfD the consensus is very far from that, I agree with re-closure from an uninvolved admin. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
An admin closes an RfD request, three days after its due date. Admins were chosen by the community to close such requests, even if they expressed their opinion. The result is pretty clear (4:1/3:1 in favor of deletion), as to the redirect this helps more than it hurts. So, except for more work for the already small team of active admins, what's the benefit of this discussion? - As I wrote in my first comment, we are discussing the benefit of a "cheap" redirect.--Eptalon (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I am not saying that admins cannot be trusted to close discussions, but they in general not recommended to close discussion they had expressed opinions in (see en:WP:INVOLVED). If minus your vote, the outcome is clear, and this is a small project, I agree to delete. The delete outcome is very clear as per my DRV statement, just the redirect isn't. I know redirects are cheap but then this is like doing the redirect without consensus of the community (something like a supervote). I hope you will understand where I am coming from. I won't have an issue if you QD the entire article and put the redirect in w/o RFD. I appreciate the many work you had done and seriously, you are one of the best admins here, but this time I am just a little uncomfortable with the close. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I don't think consensus is needed to redirect especially with a small (or new) page, but my side concern is that this is not the first time disputes have been raised about Eptalon closing RfDs they're involved in. I too think they're an amazing admin but just totally ignoring what people say about that is worrying, at least to me. I know that i'm not a perfect editor, but I'm always listening to criticism and trying to improve myself. Computer Fizz (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: The sort of issue here is that I had proposed the deletion of the redirect and then there are people agreeing, and yes, there are people who disagree. So sort of a deletion discussion of the redirect had taken place and there isn't good arguments there (or even discussion) of the suitablity of redirect (where I see it here), but well DRV isn't for this. DRV is to evaluate whether the closer acted correctly, so the RFD should be the point where these are discussed. My 2 cents. Hope you don't mind my long reply. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
DRV is to evaluate whether a deletion was appropriate, not a non-delete RFD close. Nothing was deleted here. Move on. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage:  (change conflict)  Well on simplewiki DRV is DRV, RFU, and everything else combined into one. As PROD, TFD, AFD, and everything else are all combined into one process of deletion, so is undeletion. Anyway, I should also say that I'm not trying to start any drama here or call Eptalon a bad admin. I just wish that they can not ignore the requests to stop closing what they're involved in. Computer Fizz (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
" Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if he or she wants to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure," is the heading of this page, so I think this is the closure also? @Computer Fizz, Auntof6: And there is a deletion done? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The first paragraph on this page states that this is the place to go if "you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed". This is further clarified by PeterSymonds in 2010. In either case, all administrative actions are open to review, and since we are here already, the discussion might as well continue here, unless someone prefers to bring this up to ST. Chenzw  Talk  08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Just a quick question: We currently have 4 or 5 active admins, who donate time to the project. There are currently more than ten RFDs open. In most cases, the consensus is pretty clear; in others, there are either no comments, or the consensus is less clear. As I outlined above, the consensus in the request above is pretty clear. I will therefore ask: Who thinks that another admin would have closed this differently? - In my view, this closure is a case of "ovious action" (third section of the WP:INVOLVED guideline linked above). Suppose, there was an admin who had closed this as a keep - this would have brought the problem of two articles about the same subject, which we needed to merge. Merging would have brought the same result; a redirect from the less common term to the more common one.Also note, that at the time of closure, the request was three days (almost half a week) overdue; if one of the other admins had had the time, he or she would probably have closed it earlier.--Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply @Eptalon:. I am meaning that deduct your vote there is still lack of consensus to redirect. I mean the delete is obvious. If like all the people voting says redirect, a redirect will then be obvious. As per lack of admins closing the RFD, I think we just have to wait? I know what you are saying, and we need your vote in RFD still. This is sort of a problem recently with little active admins. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Restore the page PediaSure[change source]

This page was deleted for not being notable, but I am sure that was notable because it is the 39th most popular/famous drug series. Also, another reason why it is notable and important is because there are reliable sources from its own website. Arthurfan828 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

QD A4 is not a judgement about whether the subject of an article is notable or not. An article is deleted under QD A4 if the article does not explain why the subject is important. For the above article, the article merely explained what PediaSure (as a company) makes. Chenzw  Talk  00:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieve the deletion - Fuad Al-Qrize[change source]

Fuad Al-Qrize is a Yemeni blogger and writer, an active contributor to follow up and document the works of Yemeni artists. He works at the Union of Yemeni Artists.

Sources that may interest you: My page is in IMDB An article about me in Wikipedia Egypt Who is Fuad Al-Qrize? Profile | who are they? – Economy Meet Fuad Al-Qrize at the Post Archived 23 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine. An African seminar on “Understanding the Universe” in the presence of Fuad Al-Qrize

  • Definitely not. Young blogger with no notability advertising himself. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. IMDB is not reliable for most of the case. Having articles in another language wikipedia doesn't mean they will be accepted here as we have different inclusion standard. Rest aren't in depth sources and do take note that undisclosed Conflict of Interest or advertising is against the TOU. No reason to restore--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieve the deletion of Mambo (artist) page[change source]

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and I am sorry if I did not do the right things, I am trying to learn and publish things properly. A few weeks ago I started the publication of Mambo (artist) page. He is my husband. I uploaded a photo I took of him in his studio and I had the first comment saying it was infringing copyright because it has been published on Facebook (by my husband on his page). I posted another photo, from the same series, that has never been published before. Then I have been traveling and got back sick and I have not been able to connect and Nat said this photo was infringing copyright. I asked why and what I should do and no answer And I understand because I did not do anything for 14 days Mer-C has deleted the entire page. I spent days collecting and structuring all the info, following everyone's advice. Can you please help me retrieve Mambo's page? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemarigny (talkcontribs) Thank you

@Jdemarigny:, I am not seeing that as a deleted page here on Simple English wiki. We can not help with things that did not occur on this wiki. -- Enfcer (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment : @Enfcer:, wrong. It did say that page was deleted at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambo_(artist)#/talk. Arthurfan828 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Arthurfan828: Yes, the article is deleted at en, this is simple DRV not enwp one. We can't help with en articles.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Voyage[change source]

I created a new page which name is Voyage. But someone wants to delete my page. I want to know about the problem of that page. And please don't delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md Tanbir Islam (talkcontribs)

@Md Tanbir Islam: The page hasn't actually been deleted yet, it's just been tagged for deletion. You can contest it by typing {{wait|your reason here}} on the page. This page is for [pages that have actually been deleted. Computer Fizz (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)