Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 they want 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]

William Smith[change source]

  • This page was deleted because it was lacking notability. However, I think there are several things that make him notable, one of them being the fact that he was a high school valedictorian (Though that reason alone doesn’t make him notable). So, I think that the article should be restored for the time being so that I have more time to add sources and information that shows that he is notable before the article is deleted. BayPackers1444 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I looked at the article. There was nothing in it that established notability. Also, the only source was the person's own Instagram page, and Instagram does not support notability even for a claim of something notable. If you want to work on the article to make it notable, I recommend doing so in your userspace.
    What is there to add that would show notability for this person? Remember that to show notability, you need two things: a claim of something that would meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and a reliable source supporting that claim. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C. E. Taylor[change source]

This page was deleted with the believe (I don't think...) that the person didn't need notability. An AfD didn't take place. I think this article should not have been deleted quickly because

  • 1) The articles deletion was based on her achievement, however WP:GNG is about coverage, not about achievements.
  • 2) The person is from the earliest women's fencing history. There have been in the 1910 only be a few international women's fencers. With covereage on women's fencing in that era in national newspapers, you are quickly notable when fencing internationally.
  • 3) It's about a British fencer, with the information in the article only based on Dutch language secondary sources. It's likely there is more coverage about her in English newspapers or offline sources, already because she is mentioned as a "famous fencer".
  • 4) Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes states: “Sports people may be notable if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level” SportsOlympic (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    She was rated 8th best in a competition with a single country (Holland). That's not rubbish, but it's not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good that you reply here, as you didn’t reply to my message about this on your talk page. The reasoning you are giving is a reasoning for AfD; not for a quick deletion. Note it's was not a competition with a single country (Netherlands, Belgium, UK). These were the only three nations competing internationally in women's fencing in the 1910s (next to 1 German fencer living in Belgium and 1 American fencer living in the UK). It was one of the top-3 international highest level competitions in the 1910s. If you want to state it in achievements, she was the third ranked British fencer of 1914.SportsOlympic (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Endorsement - Taylor competed in a sports competition at the highest level. Requester is indefinitely blocked, so I doubt the article will be reinstated. Friendly Human (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete: Endorsement by blocked users. I repeat: She was rated 8th best in a competition with a single country (Holland). That's not rubbish, but it's not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning towards overturning this decision. No QD criteria was provided and I do think their part in a national competition is a credible claim of significance. Whether the subject is notable or not is a discussion to be had at RfD. --IWI (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People with dyslexia[change source]

This category was deleted for not being defining, with a few other categories. However, we have categories about cause of death, which are not as defining as this category, in my opinion, as Lights and freedom pointed out here: User talk:Lights and freedom#People with dyslexia. Before I get any comments about this category already existing, I created it as I didn't realise it had been deleted on creation. By the time I realised it had previously been deleted, I had already added the category to about 60 pages. Instead of quickly deleting it and rollbacking all my edits, I thought it'd be best to ask the community's opinion first. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm OK with keeping this category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sari Katha[change source]

It is tribe history documentary animated platform. I request to our team. Please join and discussion this decision. 2409:4061:4E0A:4F8F:0:0:2A4A:BE0D (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The closest I could find that still exists is Santal people, an ethnic group/people mostly in north Indian states; Of the 7 million total, about 130.00 are in Bangladesh, and about 50.000 are in Nepal, the rest are in India. The article you mention was deleted at an RfD, and the huge consensus of the RfD was to delete. So, what new information is there, that we ould re-consider this (The Rfd was closed end of November 2022)? - I currently see on reason to undelete the article.
Eptalon (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Age of Catastrophe[change source]

@User:Macdonald-ross If one looks at the authorities, they can see that the page is about a true and important event and I can join more to the page to make it have more that is.Climatepedia (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remain deleted - A4/A6 by multiple administrators, does not appear to be a credible subject. Griff (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mesopotamia achievements[change source]

Not a test page. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Remain deleted - the article would have been deleted under other criteria. As a re-worked article, it would be titled differently. The subject itself can fit within other existing articles. Griff (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore Could not have been deleted under any other criteria. While the article certainly isn't perfect, particularly the title, this is not what quick deletion exists for. --Ferien (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know why we would restore this. I don't think I could ever argue for the restoration of an article that begins with the phrase "One of the most biggest things". I'd argue it may be a case of A1, as even reading it a few times I don't have a clue what its about. The meaning of the page doesn't exist. I don't think the deletion criteria is 100% correct, but I think it needs to stay deleted.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 WhatsApp Outage[change source]

So 2022 WhatsApp Outage needs to undeleted. Also it's not a test page. Bakhos2010 (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why everyone ignore me? Just undeleted 2022 WhatsApp Outage. PLEASE Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bakhos2010: You aren't necessarily being ignored. Entries on this page are discussions and might not get comments right away. Discussions generally stay open for at least a week. Maybe people haven't seen this yet, maybe they're thinking about it; we don't know. Let the process happen. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So, very clearly I think this is not a test page. Nothing about it is a test. I think @Macdonald-ross: should perhaps be more careful in selecting quick deletion criteria. This article, in my opinion, would be an easy candidate for RfD. That said, Deletion review is supposed to be for reviews of RfD, not reviews of QD. I do have half a mind to restore the page and send it to RfD just to push the point that proper procedure must be followed. In any case, I expect it to be deleted.... but that's a discussion we should have had at RfD. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I agree with Gordon's comments regarding the process of the deletion, after review of the article content, it is my opinion the article would not have been kept in the RFD process. For this case, I don't see a need to conduct a process for process' sake. Griff (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yaduvanshi Ahir[change source]

undeletd Yaduvanshi Ahir page, copy content will be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by विक्रम सिंह बनाफर (talkcontribs) 13:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There is an EnWp article en:Yaduvanshi Aheer, but that also is quite cryptic: What are we talking about? - a tribe, a clan, a caste...? - Compare that to for example en:Fugger family or en:House of Medici (both were important families in Medieval Europe). So, uless there's a clear idea of what the article should actually cover, there's no reason for restoring it. --Eptalon (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Eptalon makes a good point about defining the subject of the article. It should be noted that the article was deleted due to G12, and as a result, there is no issue with starting a new article with content that meets Wikipedia's policies. I believe the DRV process is unnecessary. Griff (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Honestly, the article's existence on enwiki is spurious at best – it's poorly sourced, don't see how it passes WV:GN, FWIW. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mona Ghan[change source]

Mona Ghan is well known in Ireland and there was a reliabe source provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The subject, a supposed superhero, is likely a hoax. Even if real, nothing in the article indicated any kind of notability. It had a misleading link (supposedly to a related character, but actually to an astronomical object). The only source given was a link to a YouTube video of "Never Gonna Give You Up". --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete Endorsement The "reliable" source was just a link to a YouTube video. I agree with @Auntof6. Also the ip is currently blocked for 1 year. Friendly Human (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susovan Sonu Roy (actor)[change source]

Hi, Can I start this article or get refund this article which have deleted ? (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone see my request yet ? (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page was deleted because it did not show notability. If the article is created again, it would have to show that. Even the article on Nepali Wikipedia was deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All Drafts by[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

all articles delete by Bbb23 see [1]

  1. 10 and more
  2. Bbb23 was Blocked Block evasion, User:Navajcmer

Pages[change source]

  1. Draft:SM City Sorsogon (mall)
  2. Draft:List of rulers of Brunswick and Welf
  3. Draft:Lists of monarchs by time
  4. Draft:History of Spain (before 1808)
  5. Draft:List of fomer Monarchs
  6. Draft:List of Video games by date

in enwiki (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the venue for you to complain about deletions on other wikis. Please contact the administrators on enwiki if you wish to appeal those deletions and blocks. --Ferien (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i im Blocked to edit enwiki @Ferien (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Xbox 720[change source]

Old revisions can now be restored. (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]