Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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.

Archived requests are here

Current requests[change source]

Please list newer requests at the top.

Fiona Graham[change source]

Overzealous Auntof6 again, the subject appears in 8 other Wikis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you have to read the mind of Auntof6, since she has the ability to delete what she does not like, and no oversight to stop her. She does not tag articles for improvement, she does not seek the opinion of others, she does not notify you of deletion. When you write the article you have to think how will this article please Auntof6. There are too few people here to give proper oversight so it has become a fiefdom. It doesn't matter if you article is already in 10 other wikis. Auntof6 is not looking for WP:Notability which is defined by the objective references, she is looking for something extraordinary that catches her attention, something subjective and hard to define. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
RAN, since I am not an admin, I cannot see the article as it existed before. Would you mind explaining to the community what claim to notability was made, and giving one or two examples of the sources that were used to support it? Etamni | ✉   07:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
For your convenience, here is the entire content of the article, (the note at the end of the reference was added by User:Macdonald-ross):
Fiona Caroline Graham (born 16 September 1961 in Melbourne, Australia) is an Australian anthropologist who works as a geisha in Japan.<ref name="radioaustralia">{{cite web|last=Ng|first=Adelaine|title=A glimpse into the secret world of geisha|url=|date=1 August 2011|accessdate=13 May 2013}} ''NB: source does not mention her original name''.</ref>
I'd be interested to know what part of that RAN considers to show notability.--Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
RAN, your are forgetting that others agreed with my assessment of your other articles that were deleted. Admins, including me, do not delete pages based on whether we like them. We delete them based on whether they meet requirements for the type of page they are. We quickly delete them if they meet the criteria for quick deletions. This discussion was held the last time you were unhappy about articles being deleted. Tagging articles for improvement, seeking the opinions of others, and notifying users before using the quick delete processes are not required. I'm sorry that you either don't like or don't understand the requirements for showing notability here. If you are that unhappy with me, then start a discussion to clarify the rules for everyone or to remove my admin rights. In any case, stop casting aspersions on me, lest you find yourself accused of personal attack, either here or elsewhere. User:Peterdownunder's warning is still in effect. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I need access to the thesaurus of magic words that Auntof6 uses to decide what she finds notable. She appears to have a vision that only superlative people belong in the Simple English Wikipedia. They have to be the fastest, or slowest, have written the longest book, or sold the most books. That is the Guinness Book of World Records. This is not a "personal attack" nor am I "casting aspersions on [you]", it is an accurate description of your behavior here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow! You just confirmed everything he said by blocking him. You told him "if you are that unhappy with me, then start a discussion" then you deleted the evidence he was collecting on his user page. You seem to be taking any legitimate criticism and bludgeoning it as a "personal attack" then hide the evidence, so that only your side of disagreement remains to be scrutinized. I think he used the word "fiefdom" correctly, I would use the word "authoritarian". Cheers. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes).
    • No one has attempted to tamper with evidence, nor tried to "delete" anything, from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). If anyone has an issue with any administrator, please take it up to WP:RFA. I agree with the original deletion. Relevant criteria (QD A4) states: "This includes any article about a real person, ... that does not say why the subject is important." It is not immediately apparent that a non-Japanese working as a geisha makes that person important. Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • For the record, I did not block the user: that was done by someone else. I personally didn't think blocking was called for yet. I also did nothing to affect any "evidence" of anything: only the user himself has ever edited his user page (at least as of a minute ago when I checked). As for the personal attacks: when a user 1) accuses an admin of acting improperly when that admin follows standard procedures, and 2) tries to make it sound like that admin is the problem rather than the procedures, then yes, that looks personal to me, especially when the complaints are only about that specific user's work. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Restore to User Page[change source]

The page "CoNetrix" was deleted by Orangemike on August 19, 2009 for Advertising. Can the page please be restored to a user page so that I can work on it an ensure it follows all rules for posting? (prlandru) — This unsigned comment was added by ‎ Prlandru (talk • changes) at 14:15, 20 July 2016.

I see that that page was deleted from English Wikipedia in 2008, but I don't see a record of it here on Simple English Wikipedia. If it was deleted here, then it's too late for it to be restored. If you want it restored on English Wikipedia, you would have to ask there. I'm sorry we can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The New Classics (band)[change source]

The page is a notable band that is known in Japan. 2605:6001:E484:1000:4DB5:1D5C:A470:2F3A (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The band may be notable, but the article didn't show the notability. Articles need to show that their subjects are notable. For refetence, the article consisted of one sentence, a discography, and a list of two television appearances. The sentence was "The New Classics is a Japanese hip hop band consisting of Asu, Greg, and Kaz founded in Tokyo, Japan.". --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz O405[change source]

The subject's claim to notability is: "It was the last VöV SL-II standard bus to be made." No matter how weak/questionable this claim to notability is, the claim exists in the article text, so the article can only be brought to RfD instead. Chenzw  Talk  11:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup, it had a claim. I restored it. As an admin Chenzw, since it wasn't deleted at Rfd you could have just restored it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh nevermind I just noticed you had edited it so I guess you couldn't. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Digital Combat Simulator[change source]

deleted under G11 "obvious advertising" without being an advertisement. Deleted completely unfairly and without proper review, nobody even tried contributing, instead people just JUMPED for deletion. You can see a similar version here. If you think it's not simple enough, then undelete it and make reccomendations or fix it yourself. If you think it's not notable, go google search it: it's a thriving community and has other wikipedia pages in many languages. The one I wrote in simple was v. similar to the English one, and that one isn't being deleted. In other words, there's no reason for it to be deleted. HarryKernow (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional information given in the QD request was "refs are blogs and sources close to subject (vendors)". That might have made the requestor think it was advertising. A better QD option for this would have been WP:QD#A4, the one about not showing notability. I don't see advertising here, although it would need better refs and there are too many things in the other-websites section. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You can't possibly argue it's not notable. The subreddit has over 6.6k people subbed and grows daily, it's on steam with 2.5k reviews, the forums have hundreds of thousands of posts, and there is a lot of money in the hyper-realistic sim market. If you undelete it I can find more refs, but it was mostly referencing update logs and community announcements on the forums, not blogs, and dev sites with information on the aircraft in question. Most said also comes from officially confirmed information put out by E:D, which along with the third-party devs are really the only ones that can put out announcements like "we are making xyz plane it'll be released soonTM". Other news sources wouldn't do anything to further confirm it. But alas, I can if you really want to. HarryKernow (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
As a plus, that reads If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted... and others and I certainly do think it is notable. HarryKernow (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the original QD reason was pushing it a bit, so I have gone ahead to perform the undeletion. That being said, there are two remaining issues in this article:
  • The claim to notability is not as clear as I would like, but I am giving the benefit of the doubt here considering the nature of this genre.
  • Whether the game is even notable in the first place: from the general notability guideline, if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article", with emphasis on "independent" here. I don't deny the size of the player base, but it could still not be significant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.
Undeletion does not guarantee that the article will pull through future RfDs, so please work on the issues I brought up. Chenzw  Talk  03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)