Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Simple English 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 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]

Youssef Rzouga[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.
  • The outcome of this review resulted in no consensus to overturn the original decision made by the closing administrator at RFD. If a user wishes to make a revised article that meets our guidelines in userspace, it is far more likely the decision of the community will change. Griff (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted against normal WP:GNG rules, as it exists in multiple languages. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the GNG rules does this violate? My comment when I deleted this article was "The article as it exists here does not show notability, even if articles on other Wikipedias do." The fact that the page exists on other wikis might indicate that the subject is notable (although those other Wikipedias might have different policies/guidelines about that), but it doesn't mean that the version here met requirements for Simple English Wikipedia. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be recreated in line with what exists in other Wikipedias where it is proven to be notable? Blissyu2 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedias may have different criteria for notability, so the fact that it exists elsewhere doesn't mean the version here is notable. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this one, too, because it was substantially similar to the deleted version. Please don't recreate until this discussion is closed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask that you recuse yourself from future discussions, since you seem to have deleted this against policy, that'd be much appreciated. Thank you Blissyu2 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Blissy2 does not withdraw the "recuse yourself" request, then I ask that Blissy2 recuses Blissy2 from this discussion, for the reason of disturbance of wikipedia, and/or for the reason of wiki-lawyering. Regarding one reminder for Blissyu2: wikipedia is not a democracy. 89.8.77.222 (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to recuse myself. All viewpoints should be taken into account, and I am entitled to give mine. Also, you have not explained what specific part of policy you think was violated. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning undelete- We don't need to follow any projects but for enwp we have WP:FOLLOW, there is an article of the subject on enwp (and was carried over there - also so called created by a sysop so I think the creation meets enwp guidelines), i.e. enwp accepts it and per FOLLOW, no reason we deviate. Also seeing the other versions, the works of this person seems to be able to meet NAUTHOR. The only thing holding me back is the spammy nature, we need a clean version here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit late, but see WP:What FOLLOW is not — we only follow in the case that we do not have the correct & corresponding guidelines. FOLLOW does not pertain to having articles. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MrMeAndMrMe, there are relatively few cases where we need to follow enwiki because our policies and guidelines cover most things already. But in those few cases, all policies and guidelines on enwiki are guidelines. And as guidelines say, it is a good idea to follow them, but it is not policy, we don't need to follow it - although from my experience, keeping away from guidelines just makes messy situations. Another flaw of your essay: we don't have few policies and guidelines because we have few editors, we have few policies and guidelines for simplicity purposes. --Ferien (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about that. Follow does not pertain to articles, it pertains to guidelines, policies, ect. Sorry for any confusion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You confused me because you linked to that essay which didn't talk about articles :) --Ferien (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Perhaps I should include that as well in future revisions. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien upon further thought, I would like to point out that following en.wikipedia.org guidelines that don't conflict with ours is literally the same thing as having those guidelines at the Simple Wikipedia. People will still reference those guidelines and will be pointed out regularly so I wouldn't call that "simple" if we basically copy all of their guidelines. In fact, it makes it more confusing due to the fact that those enwiki guidelines are written in complex english.
    I may have written this confusingly so I can reword it if you don't understand. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 02:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When I mean it's more simple, here I'm saying there are less of things. Most of our editors understand complex English - it is more difficult to edit here if you don't know what is complex and what isn't - so that is why our template docs aren't in Simple English, for example. --Ferien (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The article had about zero sources - but they were available on other language-versions of Wikipedia. I am fine with this case being sort of an informal deterrent: When nobody (including myself) does not add a single notable source - then sometimes stuff ends up being deleted (for whatever reason). Leaving things as they are, works for me (and if someone starts an article that actually has a notable source, then that will be a new situation regarding Youssef Rzouga. 89.8.131.154 (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I trust our administrators, for the purposes of the discussion, could a copy of the article be posted in a user space somewhere? User:Griffinofwales/Youssef Rzouga is as a good place as any. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this one is uncontroversial, it stayed at RfD for 10 days (RfD) the comment that there are no sources was made about 3 days into the process. So, I endorse deletion. --Eptalon (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[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.

สมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวมหาวชิราลงกรณ บดินทรเทพยวรางกูร and วชิราลงกรณ[change source]

Both of these redirects were deleted for being “Not in English” although they don’t fit any deletion criteria. I don’t see any problem redirecting Thai words to a Thai King. -Deppiyy (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deppiyy Only the nomination gave the reason of them not being in English. The other people commenting referred to the discussion at Simple talk, which could be taken to mean that no new redirects of this type should be created until that discussion is over (and these were created after the discussion started). Also keep in mind that there are no defined "deletion criteria" for RFD discussions so it doesn't make sense to say that they don't fit any deletion criteria. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what they are trying to say is the deletion didn't match policy/guidelines which is true. The deletion and delete votes didn't follow the current guidelines for redirects, they were valid redirects. -Djsasso (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I support deletion on both RFDs. The deletion criteria is used for speedy deletion. For articles that do not fit the criteria, the community decides whether they should be deleted, as they did. Support continued deletion. Griff (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Djsasso. A few people supported the deletion pretty much saying "look at ST" where about 50% of the comments are essentially "I don't like it and I don't want to explain why". --Ferien (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued deletion - the redirect is not needed.--Simple wiki can not solve all sorts of imagined problems.--I am not saying that the redirects are related to a troll factory - however my "out-of-whack detector", is giving interesting signals. 89.8.168.158 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued deletion -- Redirect doesn't exist on Enwiki and really there isn't any point at all whatsoever for it. Something that is unused has no place on any encyclopedia. Many projects have been deleted on this Wikipedia for lack of activity and I think we shouldn't keep something that has no place here. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrMeAndMrMe: I'm not saying we should restore these, but keep in mind that the issues with redirects are different from the issues with articles (or projects, for that matter). Redirects aren't expected to necessarily be used; they exist in case somebody uses them at some point in time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josephs Quartzy (actor)[change source]

The mentioned article was currently nominated to speedy deletion because the article with the same content (and name actually) was once deleted because it did not provide enough references to stand. I suggested it to be reviewed before all and gave a reason that, it had all the requirements for an article but I was never replied and the discussion was a seen a waste lastly, it was deleted. Could you please reconsider and review it?..Though the requirements for an article may vary among wikipedias of different languages. I think notability stands as a pie for all. The entity has got several articles on different wikipedias. NHWX (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the original article that was at RFD, as well as this article, I'm not seeing any one thing that is stated in the article that makes Mr. Quartzy notable. Can you tell me, in short and direct statements, why Josephs Quartzy is notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Griff (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not happen to see the original article at RFD though I think it was written poorly, but Mr. Josephs Quartzy is an actor having worked with big names in several notable movies&Tv prog (you can check at his Fimography or prove them at search engines, news, articles and movie data bases). Also he his an author with a notable book nominated in several accordance. He is a performer too. We could keep on improving if article was still alive. NHWX (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked IMDB and none of the credited roles he was in were *not* in notable movies as defined by our guideline on movie notability, nor did I see any indication he met the notability guideline for actors and performers. It is the responsibility of the user requesting a deletion review to show why the reasons the article was deleted were not valid, and you have not provided sources or evidence that it was. At this time, I support continued deletion. Griff (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support continued deletion - After reviewing the links below:
  • The Los Angeles Times article does not mention Josephs at all. He is not covered by that article.
  • The casts section of the Netflix page does not indicate that Josephs played an important role.
  • No indication that he played an important role in Madagascar 2.
No indication of importance, fails NACTOR. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 11:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: the editor who started the deletion review has now been blocked as a sockpupppet... --Ferien (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
notability.

Per my research I can testify against 'his credits not to meet our guideline on movie notability'.

I could find a large number of his credits on english and other languages wikipedias too. I thought they might meet requirements.

For notability guideline for actors and performers he's got a huge following in his social medias. He is featured in few articles are referenced on the deleted article, He is featured in other wikipedias like fr and esp also he is well established in search engines like Google and Yahoo NHWX (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]