Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:RFU
WP:DRV
WP:RFU

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.

Survivor Series (2016)[change source]

I created an article on the upcoming WWE network event, 2016's Survivor Series, but it was quickly deleted. Put simply, I don't know why and I don't think there was anything wrong with creating the article.0737290632t2x273n (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles about events that have not yet happened are usually deleted. There is a guideline which says that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot make predictions about the future. Usually these sort of articles are more promotional, not encyclopedic. There are no articles under your user name. I will have a look at the logs for articles that might have been created by an IP. Also, when writing a comment, please sign your comment, so that other editors know where to address the reply.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't show because it was deleted: click on "deleted user contributions". It was deleted by Mac for not being simplified enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)7
Well, I feel someone should have helped simplify it if that's the case. I did my best. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you'd like to work on the article to simplify it more, it can be restored to a sandbox in your userspace. Let us know if you'd like that done. You could ask someone to help with it there, but be aware that the help might be guiding you to do the work, not necessarily doing it for you. Unfortunately we don't have enough editors to do take care of all the unsimplified articles that get created here. That's part of the reason we have the quick deletion option that was used to delete this article. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I would like that done. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done The article has now been placed on a User subpage where you will be able to work on it: User:User:0737290632t2x273n/Survivor Series (2016). You can always ask for advice on simplifying the article, and it would be best to get an experienced editor to check it before moving it back to the main space.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The entire article was based on info that was confirmed. Regular English Wikipedia has a lot of these articles. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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=http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/onairhighlights/a-glimpse-into-the-secret-world-of-geisha|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 213.229.101.126 (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)