Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

onomasiology[change source]

This article was deleted in 2015 but I see enwiki has an article. The creator of this article is   Still active here, so why not allow this article to be developed? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted for being a dicdef (dictionary definition). If someone wants to write a more fleshed-out article, that would be fine as long as it's in simple language. When an article is deleted for that kind of reason, it doesn't need a deletion review to be recreated, as long as the deletion reason is addressed. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Many articles start out as stubs and develop over time. I for one am grateful to the person who started this article in 2015, for bringing the topic to my attention. In my opinion it was a mistake to delete it when an enwiki article existed since 2005, and the original Simple creator should get the credit for it. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The users who created the RFD and gave input on it felt that it was a dicdef, rather than a stub. You may disagree, but the RFD had to be decided based on the comments given at the time. Also, existence of an enwiki article is not grounds for keeping one here. As I said, you are welcome to create the article again if you're going to write more. If you want the deleted version restored into a sandbox, I can do that (after my laptop maintenance finishes), but I don't want to restore it to mainspace in the form that was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sportacus[change source]

was qd'ed because it's not notable, even though it's linked to from 3 different pages. would be better to rfd, or just restore/improve it. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I restored it, because I don't believe QD option A4 applies to fictional characters (pinging @Macdonald-ross:, who did the deletion). Note that the number of incoming links alone does not constitute notability or require RFD. It's also not necessary to have incoming links to justify a deletion review. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

XP School[change source]

XP School. Good afternoon. Less than few hours after this page has been created, already deleted with no discussion. I am too late to add "wait" on the talk page. 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:9CDC:F6B0:8CC7:9D88 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Mohammad Ghorbanpor[change source]

As far as I can see, this article was never discussed on RFD on this wiki, so QD G4 does not apply. The content does not appear to be blatant self-promotion either (QD G11). The subject does indeed have questionable notability, but such an issue falls under RFD scope. Chenzw  Talk  20:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Forevergrgr[change source]

There's a reason this wasn't deleted before. We need it as a honeypot. Additionally, it was deleted for a "copyright violation" but no explanation was given on how it violated copyright. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
What's a honeypot? I think we should keep it though. --Derpdart56 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Steriev purposefully uploaded copyrighted content in an effort to get it deleted. It's fine; he'll find another favorite page. Vermont (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
First rule of honeypots is never talk about honeypots..... -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)