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]

Los Rios Community College District[change source]

Los Rios Community College District is a college district, so it is definitely notable. Therefore, it should be restored. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SkeletalDome$: Can you cite a notability guideline that covers college districts? Also, I note that Eptalon QD'd it under QD G4 (Recreation of a deleted page with the same or similar content), but no RFD links to this name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia guidelines, all colleges and universities as well as high schools are considered notable.
    • Where does it say this? Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll go further: no institution is notable by simply existing. It's just that some are so obvious that it doesn't need saying. Obviously not all college districts, colleges and universities round the world are notable. Otherwise we should be forced to say that various small places, ridiculous shams, or trivial cases are notable. What the guidance says in such cases is that the institutions may be notable. In other words, the case has to be made each time.
Also, it is absolutely wrong for an ordinary user to close the discussion prematurely, especially when some who voted against were not notified of its reappraisal. It was closed early to prevent further discussion. Shameful.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is an article about this district on the English Wikipedia and it has never been deleted there, we can have an article about this district on this Wikipedia. So, the article should be restored. Thanks! SkeletalDome$ (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article I deleted mostly gave numbers; and at the time I interpreted it as a secondary-level (pre-university) eductation network, which seems to have been wrong, in hindsight. It looks like a number of colleges, under a common roof. TO me, this looks between a single university (with many campuses) and a group of universitis. --Eptalon (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Article restored, and nominated for deletion. Let's see what other people think about it.--Eptalon (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Srinivas[change source]

Was not eligible for U1. I’m not sure that this page is pure disruption too, so it should be restored. Darubrub (Let me know) 12:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page restored I’m not quite sure why it was deleted, but it does not appear to be eligible for U1 as a legitimate talk page. --IWI (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zambabi[change source]

There needs to be an undeleting on the article Zambabi now. ( (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article was a clear hoax, based on the article about Tanzania. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat racism[change source]

Whilst there was consensus to delete on the RfD here, the page was not eligible for G1 deletion. It was written in English that made sense and so it is not, in any way, eligible for G1 deletion. Furthermore Macdonald-ross was involved in the deletion discussion so he probably shouldn't have deleted it himself. --Ferien (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should not split hairs over this kind of page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it should be restored now. I just don't think it met the QD criteria back then and an RfD would have been fine. --Ferien (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need to keep in mind that RfD is overloaded and slow. By clearing the decks with obvious cases we free up RfD to grind on remorselessly with more debateable cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No No No. We should never speedy just for the sake of speed when QD is not applicable. The being slow is the point. Please stop using QD criteria when they are not applicable, its an abuse of your tools. -Djsasso (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I don't see the RfDs as overloaded. We are getting all of 2 entries per day, which is easily enough to keep up with. I am happy to have a look at this. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, RfDs stand at 57 at the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross If there are that many RfD-worthy articles, then that's not a problem. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restoration - While I haven't seen the article, it seems that it was deleted in the wrong way, and perhaps should be put back up to RfD to have a proper look. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the deletion was completely out of the regular process, and as far as I know G1 is only applicable when the page makes no sense (in language). That being said, I think we can just let it be as this is going nowhere. The comments on the RFD page are all in favor of deletion, and restoring the page just to delete again seems pointless.-BRP ever 12:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skirt steak[change source]

I doubt whether the article is too complex enough for a deletion. I edited the article in the same format as the other steak articles (listed here). I would like to hear other thoughts about this. Darubrub (Let me know) 18:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross: Pinging Macdonald-ross --Ferien (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to all those pages being reinstated. Having said that, the terminology is basically North American. Why is that? why not pickup at least French terms and make it less one-dimensional? I don't see why we need to have a set of parallel pages, when they could all be put together under one heading. Many of the top chefs use French terms, at least in the UK. There's about 22 of these terms, and they could all be consolidated IMO. Anyway this is all beside the point. I agree the pages can be reinstated, and I apologise for not discussing them beforehand. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link to the 22 terms? Darubrub (Let me know) 18:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the French wiki categories at the time. There's 48 pages in the En wiki category; 22 in the French category. I think fewer than ten are regularly met on menus. If I was doing this area from scratch I would list those ten in English and French with a brief explanation of each, and do it on one page. Is it appropriate to do copies of all the separate pages? We know our readership is not sophisticated outside of pop culture! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Definitely was not an A3. -Djsasso (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idris of Libya[change source]

Rationale for deletion doesn't make sense: obviously a notable individual as they have an article at enwiki and multiple language Wikipedias. If restored, we can easily add information and citations from enwiki if they are needed. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most-probably notable, if you look at en:Idris of Libya. The problem is just that what was deleted here was some graffitti, which didnt have to do muh which the subject in question. --Eptalon (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Shanooj (musician)[change source]

Ferien selected article 'Mohammed Shanooj (musician)' for speedy deletion! The Article seems Notable and there are more references to stable. It contains no promotional, advertising, autobiography, or anything. Its view in neutral point of view. Please Undo/Remove your Block and Republish same article as soon as possible, because its Notable and need to be in wikipedias with policy. If you find any Mistakes or any manner, please edit it & improve you can or for other users instead of speedy deletion. UnknownEditor1234567890 (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brij Kishore Sharma[change source]

When the deletion tag added in the wikipedia page I research about him and get more sources about him now I have added all sources now you can review that page now the page has good references and I removed wrong references which are not reliable and I want to say something that when you click first reference you have to create an account to see it but don't fear about it because it is the official website of Government of India and after creating an account you have to reclick it and you will get his imformation which is reliable and notable because it is the official website of India and to make this process I have added achived link Thankyou 2405:201:3000:4110:A1AD:41DB:7329:2F1E (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose not notable. SHB2000 (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Restoration - This is a clearly notable figure who has an English Wikipedia article [1] that establishes notability. (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about a different person. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Manikchand Singh[change source]

This article is about a person who is notable enough. Please restore it. The notability guidelines says a notable person should have good contributions. He is an author of many books. All these info are cited with explicit information from Google Books, a good reference site. Besides, the page is available in other WMF too. Please restore it. We can re-develop it in better way. Deleting is too harsh for the article. Because there is no lack of adequate reliable references. We can't easily say that the arguments for deletion outweighs that of keeping in the RFD for that article. Please restore it. Haoreima (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose No. That article was deleted by community consensus. Only you and one other person opposed to the deletion. SHB2000 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no case of counting heads. And if it's so, then two persons say keep, giving appropriate reasons. Two persons say "delete", where only one gives reasons, and another one (that's you) who gave no reason, even when asked by 3 people in different times. Haoreima (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those 2 people who said "Keep" were I and @Sakura emad: and one of the people who suggested you to reply the reason of your "reason-less comment-delete" was @Ferien:. Haoreima (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responding to you any further. You yourself know why it was deleted. They're non notable and fail the GNG criteria. *sigh*. And I presume you're deliberately excluding @Elytrian: here. SHB2000 (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elytrian is excluded because he is the nominator of the RFD, so his sidewise comments can't be counted. Regards! Haoreima (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for admin's reply, not yours. Thanks! And this is not a place for support or oppose! Haoreima (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Haoreima: Actually, this is a place for any user to support or oppose restoring—see the text at the top of the page. At RFD, people can support or oppose deleting, and here they can support or oppose restoring. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haoreima, your "deliberately exclude people" behaviour needs to stop. This is a collaborative project, and such behaviour is unproductive and unconstructive. SHB2000 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to any particular article, for which please see my comments on the RFDs of articles created by others too. I am just expressing my thoughts. Well, please do not charge false things on me. I don't like that! You can suggest me, that's not a problem but have no charge. Regards! Haoreima (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The delete comments held more weight with me. There doesn't appear to be any evidence they meet GNG. In fact that is a common problem with articles created by Haoreima and his creations should probably be gone through as I am guessing there are a lot of them that don't meet the standards for an article to exist. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'm sure a lot of them can be A4'd although given the fact that they call my nominations "disruptive", I'm a bit reluctant to do so. SHB2000 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restoration I note that there were 2 for keep and 2 for delete in the RfD, and while Haoreima has a habit of voting to keep articles he has created, the other user advocating to keep it, Sakura emad, does not have such a reputation. Therefore, if we ignore Haoreima, there is still a 2-1 vote, which suggests "no consensus" to me rather than "delete". I note the comments of Sakura emad as follows: "Dear Ely this discussion should not be taken due to your reasons let me explain: i believe having this article on other wikis has nothing to do with Deletion Discussion Policy, we delete pages based on Rules such as -> if the article is Meaningless or copied from another Place (Copyright issue), or if the subject does not claim notable, and if not written in english && An obvious Hoax, Therefore we should not delete any articles if we thought that the article should not be here or if we simply do not like the article, sorry if my explanation sound rude to you i do not mean it 😊 thank you again". These carry great weight to me, and I think that we should restore the page and deem the outcome to be no consensus not delete. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just need to remind you that Rfd is not a vote count. An admin can close a discussion opposite the majority of votes at their discretion based on their reading of arguments. And if it were vote counting, you forgot the nomination counts as a vote so it was actually 3-2 anyway. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. No consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dc Themmie[change source]

@Gimmelover (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC) dc themmie an article for a singer was recently deleted by the Rfd saying it was not notable, Please am having good reliable sources to add to the article kindly restore or let me recreate it and add secondary sources for notability on wikipedia. pleaseGimmelover (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gimmelover: Some of the issues with that article were that people kept adding references they said were reliable, but in fact they were not reliable. Can you mention 2 or 3 references you have that you think are reliable and would show that the person is notable? Please don't include a long list of references here, just 2 or 3. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, @Auntof6 Here are some references

it remaining the other refernces but these are the only ones i gat for now, i will get the others from scooper news and Opera newsGimmelover (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gimmelover: Those websites seem to be fan-made. Anyone can make a Wix site. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sadly those references weren't reliable (since anyone can make a fan made wix site for free) and the subject fails the GNG criteria. SHB2000 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will look for relaible sources to add. What about the Fandom wiki profile of dc themmie, it was protected nowGimmelover (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gimmelover: No wiki is considered a reliable reference, not even Wikipedia itself, because anyone can edit them and there isn't the right kind of control over what gets published. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, @Auntof6, thanks for letting me know, i always like your contribution to wikipedia, bravo keep it on, so can i also cite a magazine or newspaper online to his article when creating, make it clear for me, am confused there little, and then when i will be creating this article some of the deleted content in it are almost the same but not the same content just few of it are in there, for example the infobox and the short description is fairly the same as the one deleted b4 but it will have different references hope it dosent mattersGimmelover (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given you created Dc Themmi (Singer)‎ when it was deleted via RfD, I've tagged it for G4. SHB2000 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but can't i create a page deleted via the Rfd when am having reliable references, cant i I like WikipediaGimmelover (talk). 07:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, @Gimmelover:, that the sources that you have provided are all fan-made, and therefore not reliable. See WP:CITE. Hockeycatcat (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, because he's not notable, and unless he ever becomes notable, then he will not get an article SHB2000 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000: We can't say he's not notable. All we can really say is that we haven't seen enough evidence that he's notable. That evidence (for the benefit of others here, because I know you understand this) would be in the form of statements that 1) show notability and 2) are supported by reliable sources. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, thanks all, how can this artist be notable for wikipedia, will i add news,magazines and biographies citation to this article when creating. And then this artist is having over 200k plays, streams and downloads on Audiomack and spotify thanksI like WikipediaGimmelover (talk). 18:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gimmelover: What is needed is to show notability. To do that, it needs two things:
  1. To say things about the person that show he is notable (Some things that are not notable are the number of plays, streams, or downloads.)
  2. References from reliable sources documenting those things
Before you go any further, take time to read WP:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:Reliable sources. It doesn't help to keep suggesting sources if the sources aren't reliable. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can see nothing notable on Google or in the references provided. Blissyu2 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this article will be useful on the wikipedia but only if it can be notable, I suggested this article should be recreated after some months cheers -- (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of time that passes is not a factor. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done no consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in London[change source]

One of the main reasons why this article was deleted was because there was no-one willing to update it. I'm happy to update the article every few weeks or so if necessary, and even if I'm not around, the tables can be copied and adjusted from enwiki with attribution, because they are mostly simple enough. This is the original request for deletion, and to be clear, I have no issues with the consensus/closure. It's just the main reason for deletion no longer applies. --Ferien (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there temporary undelete here, I hope to see the state of article before opining. Actually we don't really have a dateline for wikipedia articles anyway, so being outdated isn't a good reason to delete articles. Deletion isn't clean-up, and updating articles are clean up work. That's said, can this be under NOTGUIDE and wikivoyage might be a better place? Not sure either. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted under Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/List of bus routes in London. I think willingness to update is an issue, but mainly because users change and information changes. Personally, I have nothing against such pages, which are, after all, basically factual. I just say they don't add much: who cares if the 94 bus goes to Catford? I'd rather see a page about Catford. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the obvious ("Route 89 has always run from Trafalgar Square to Lewisham"; don't know), such a list probably changes a lot, and is "expensive in upkeep"/"easily outdated"), I don't think we have enough editors from the Greater London Area, to write articles on places such as Catford (IIRC part of Lewisham, a bit south of the town centre, were most of the Lewisham administration is). I remember there being a river/creek, and and a park...--Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I come from Greater London, but editors from Greater London aren't needed for this task. If we want to update it, we can pretty much just copy the updates that have been made on enwiki. --Ferien (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think before we embark on such a journey of a list of bus routes in a major European city, we should also look at the cost of upkeep. Would you be in favor of having a list of bus routes in New York, Amsterdam, Paris, or Novosibirsk? - As I pointed out, I don't know how much of the lines are historical, and have changed little over time, and how many of them have been there for 3-5 years, while they build a new subway, DLR, or tram line?- Also, we are looking at a list of bus lines, so realistically, there would be line number, end points, and major stops en route? - I think we should really think twice before embarking on such a task; As to the editors from Greater London: how easy is it to motivate someone to keep up a list of transport links for a city he/she has little relation to?--Eptalon (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the routes haven't changed that much in 100 years! There have been additions to the various rail systems. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Should have never been deleted in the first place. It is a notable subject. -Djsasso (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete whether it is NOTGUIDE isn't discussed in deletion discussion, so I don't think it will block undeleting. Since the routes are static, outdated is faulty reasoning to delete. So there isn't a reason to delete. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This is clearly in scope. We have plenty of articles that's out of date. Don't see anything with this one, especially given that Ferien has volunteered to update it. SHB2000 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article restored. Consensus to undelete.-BRP ever 14:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the logic for both deleting and keeping - My train of thought at that time was that we shouldn't be providing out of date content to our readers but then again I guess Simple probably has more out of date articles than it does in-date. Sadly at the time of writing this the article hasn't even been updated which is disappointing but if Simple wants to provide out of date content to it's 1 reader then who I am to stop them. Simple is the death of it's own making. –Davey2010Talk 12:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patroller[change source]

  • R2 is only for redirects from mainspace to user or user talk space. This redirect was not to either of those spaces. Naleksuh (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR. -Djsasso (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or I could have even closed it as WP:SNOW. This seems like a disruptive listing. -Djsasso (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Closed what? Naleksuh (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rfd for the above redirect. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created an appropriate page and redirected it. Cross-namespace redirects are to be avoided as much as possible, especially in cases where they have genuine mainspace use. It's just regular Housekeeping.-BRP ever 13:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever: Great. Yeah, I personally don't like redirects from article space to non-article space either, just that they do not qualify for CSDQD. It's cool that a new real page, Patrol, was gotten out of it too. Naleksuh (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It looks like this is a redirect now. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media Marketing[change source]

Was recently deleted after a 2-0 vote (ignoring the nominator) or 2-1 if we include the nominator, in spite of it existing in multiple other languages. Request undeletion and recreation. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my closing comment on this one was "Although both responses were for keeping, I am deleting this article. The first response mentions that the article has been improved, including the addition of references. Unfortunately, if the article is kept the additions would have to be reverted because they are not in simple language. The second response mentions that multiple other Wikipedias have an article on this topic, but that is not a reason to keep this one; the other articles may be in better shape than this one, and other Wikipedias may have different criteria for keeping articles. We have to use the criteria for Simple English Wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees with this decision is welcome to bring it up at WP:Deletion review."
In addition, please note:
  • We do count the nominator.
  • RfD requests are not votes. Sometimes they are not decided according to the number of responses for keeping vs. deleting. It depends on the reasons given in the nomination and in the responses.
Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, can this be recreated based on what exists on other Wikipedias? I believe you deleted this one in error. Blissyu2 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and recreated both articles based on their notable versions on other wikis, since you were deleting based on current content, not on topic, which suggests that recreation is appropriate. Blissyu2 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new article you created wasn't substantially different from the deleted one, so I have deleted it again. Because you started this discussion, please don't recreate it again until this discussion is closed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 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]
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]
  • Undelete the recently created page. Deletion is not a clean-up. I believe that the newly created page clearly dealt with the concerns of the RFD -- which was the article being unsourced and information being not credible enough. There have been no concerns about the signifcance of the topic, and it's recreation should be allowed.-BRP ever 04:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Can you also comment on Youssef Rzouga below? As both were deleted by the same admin with the same issues surrounding their deletion. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete because the topic definitely meets GNG. However !vote count never matters at RfD, and closes are not/should not be based on the number of people who !voted for or against something. --Ferien (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Can you also comment on Youssef Rzouga below? As both were deleted by the same admin with the same issues surrounding their deletion. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be careful of WP:CANVASSING. This might be seen as one. Just a note not saying you did anything wrong. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page restored - consensus to restore page. --IWI (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Rzouga[change source]

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. (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]
  • 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. (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Village Haji Muhammad Malook Shar[change source]

Villages seems not to be suitable for A4 deletions if I am not wrong. Unsure what was the state but villages seems immune from A4. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article restored. Not eligible for A4 and was at RfD so I think it's best to let people decide there. --Ferien (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ferien :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of note: this was then deleted on RfD, so this case is no longer current. Blissyu2 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swelling[change source]

There was an acceptable amount of content and this was very clearly not a test page. I had already declined the QD request because the article is not eligible for quick deletion. However, I would like someone else to look at this as I was the one who declined the QD request originally. Also pinging @Macdonald-ross: as the admin who deleted the page. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse undeletion - While I don't know what the content was, swelling as a word is very encyclopaedic and it exists on EN-Wiki. At minimum we could create the page with appropriate content if the original content was not adequate. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Blissyu2: The entire content was "An unusual enlargement (size getting bigger) of a part of the body is known as swelling." -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I put in a couple of requests at the top of this page but I am now noting that new ones are going at the bottom. I thought that they were meant to go at the top like in RfD. Did I get it the wrong way around? Blissyu2 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blissyu2: I think people would see them in either case, so no worries. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: the content was no more than a dictionary definition. If more medical-type content were added, it could be encyclopedic. As for a word being encyclopedic, only topics are encyclopedic, not words, unless you're analyzing the word itself (its etymology, for example), which this was not doing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not a reason to quickly delete an article. The main problem here is that the page was deleted as a test page, which it wasn't. The article could have been expanded or even redirected to Oedema like Swelling does on enwiki, I think a delete here was unnecessary. --Ferien (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have the page Oedema, which is also known as "swelling" (as I see it: its caused by fluid in the tissue); I am not a doctor, so I can't say if a swelling that occurs as part of an injury, and which is probably part of the healing process is different from the Oedema. If it isn't then we need just one of the two (which likely means: redirect Swelling to Oedema, or a Section and expand there). If it is, then we need a separate article, which also points out the differences.--Eptalon (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - Certainly not a test page and redirection can be done outside of a deletion process, if the article is up to scratch and it's not like G3/G10 which a delete and redirect might be better. Undelete and redirect will be best here or if we wanna cut the red tape, just someone BOLDly creating a redirect will do. But on the record this isn't a G2 at the very least. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]