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 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]

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3[change source]

An unusual DRV, I am not challenging the close per say as it's correct. I am troubled that sources of in depth review of the subject is provided in the enwp article en:Chicka_Chicka_1,_2,_3 and was duly analyzed in the enwp AFD the same nominator started, per en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chicka_Chicka_1,_2,_3. I am not sure whether a direct re-creation is allowed, hence, I am leaving it here on DRV to seek assistance. Per the enwp, it unanimous keeps with users finding in depth coverage (albeit behind a paywall) as well as saying that something called en:WP:BOOKCRIT is met, I do not know is this valid here but well given that we have a unanimous delete here vs a keep result on en, I am thinking can we re-look at this. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eptalon, Auntof6, Chenzw, Yottie, ImprovedWikiImprovment: as users involved in the original discussion.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn indeed, the coverage enwiki users found (which we were unable to) is sufficient to meet BOOKCRIT, of course assuming good faith given the paywalls. --IWI (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Just for reference Discussion of 2020, Discussion of 2019. The only source in the EnWP article seems to be a paper/article of 2004; which of course was there at both discussions. 2019 discusssion was a no-consensus keep; 2020 discusision resulted in deletion. I think a re-creation is allowed; however given only that one source you'd probably have a hard time defending the article. Especially since the reference is behind a paywall...--Eptalon (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
EN user Haukur seemed to provide several in depth reviews, although all are paywall. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
There is more than one additional source mentioned in the RfD. --IWI (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
From a policy POIV it would be great if there was at least one freely-accessible source, wthout paywall. --Eptalon (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It would be good, but per en:WP:PAYWALL, this is not a requirement. --IWI (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers[change source]

Was deleted by Macdonald-ross for 2 reasons - G4 / G11. This is problematic in all cause. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers as the page had been kept at a RFD, QD requests cannot be carried out at all barring some circumstances (we don't have a local policy but per WP:FOLLOW and en:Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions), none of those criterias applies here. In addition, both QD criterions cannot be true. G4 isn't true as there is no RFD result that lead to delete as well as there is no resemblance here. G11 cannot be true too as the page have a non-infringing version that survived RFD (per talkpage which is also deleted, this cannot be deemed as G11 after community discussion), so it should be reverted to that. Overall the entire deletion was erroneous, and I wish the page can be restored. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Overturn - from what I can see, I doubt there was a valid reason to delete per G11 given the previous discussion, and G4 couldn't possibly have applied in that case either. --IWI (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross, this page was kept in an RfD under a week ago. Please try to be more careful. Best, Vermont (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC) fix ping Vermont (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Can the talk page for the article be restored as well please? PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai[change source]

Hi. There is a page called Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai that I created. For some reason, an admin deleted that page and it was an error. I worked hard on creating that page and none of the content that I put on that page was copyrighted. So can anyone of you please restore the page? Thanks. 100.37.165.187 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the page because the QD option used was not applicable in this case; option G4 is for use after an RFD, and there wasn't one in this case. This is not to say that the page won't be deleted for another reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6 Both the current version and the previous are copyvio, G4 surely is not valid but G12 does and you also restore a copyvio version. Am I correct to say so? Much appreciated any advices. CM-Public (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@CM-Public: G12 would apply if the text was copied. However, before I restored it, I looked at the IMDB page that was cited in the original request, and I didn't find a match. If I had found a match, I would have immediately deleted the article again after restoring it. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6 What I meant is the 1st 3 versions are copyvio, you shouldn't restore. Last few are full of copy pasting of different parts of the sypnosis, making it still copyvio with close paraphrasing in others. CM-Public (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
For the record, the page was re-deleted by Operator873 per CM's request. --IWI (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
For completeness, now User:Saroj Uprety had created a redirect to a clean, non-copyrighted version of the article which he created. I think this is the best result, copyright offending versions deleted, clean version created. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Gowri Nadella[change source]

This page was originally deleted this morning due to a request from a bot asking for deletion of the article as I was trying to revise it. While the original draft lacked credible sources, I was able to find several credible news outlets that have published articles about Gowri Nadella, such as SEEMA Magazine, India Tribune, Nyota Magazine, and several other publications. I also revised the original draft by changing the verbiage to better fit that of a Wikipedia article. This article conveys the notability and significance of Gowri Nadella and meets the Wikipedia guidelines. I kindly request this article be brought back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2601:249:880:ab30:3406:9cf8:8965:9e42 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

see the RfD; the deletion discussion has been there for a week; in this week, 3 people agreed with the nominator, giving reasons. This resulted in 3 delete votes, and no keeps after the week, so it got deleted. I don't see a reason to undelete it, as most arguments are about the person (notability, and seach results), and not the article we had. --Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  (change conflict) Endorse closure - The discussion had a clear consensus, and the person does not appear to be notable at this time. If you can demonstrate some coverage here in this discussion that shows she is notable, the article can be recreated. So far, that has not been provided. --IWI (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Barron Trump[change source]

The page was originally quickly deleted last year by Macdonald-ross, which was contseted and restored by Vermont. Now the page has been deleted again by Macdonald-ross. I think this is a matter for RfD, not QD, especially given the objection by another sysop. It may not have been intentional, but it could be viewed as wheel warring. --IWI (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No comments on the admin part, but if this is a RFD I will per enwp en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barron_Trump_(2nd_nomination) (do see the 1st one too), both ended up with just redirecting which I am also keen to. He isn't that famous as per his siblings, and a redirect and content placed within Trump article should be okay. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I too support deletion/redirection, but I think that the decision should be one for the community and not QD. --IWI (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That's why I say no comments for the rest of the action (yet), I haven't have time to think through it properly. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 (change conflict)   Checking... Chenzw  Talk  11:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Findings:
  • No RfDs were found on file for the subject of the article. As a point of clarification, we may refer to EN's AfD decisions for reference (and tend to do so), but we do not automatically inherit them.
  • The article as of 21 May 2020 (before Mac's original deletion) is substantially similar to the current version of the article (as of 14 January 2021, before Mac's subsequent (re-)deletion).
  • An article can be QD'd under A4 only if there is no claim to notability in the article. This is similar to EN's CSD A7.
  • QD A4 does not mean that the subject of the article was found to be not notable. Whether the subject of an article is notable or not, is a decision to be made at RfD, and not summarily via the QD mechanism.
  • The deletion policy explicitly excludes the following from QD eligibility. This is consistent with QD A4 reasoning, which I have also elaborated on ST.
  • Subjects that are obviously unimportant, but claim to be important: Articles that are about obviously unimportant subjects are still not allowed for quick deletion unless the article does not say why the subject is important....
  • A claim to notability exists in the article: ...is the son of US President Donald Trump.
  • Notability is not inherited is an invalid QD reason.
In lieu of above, I am restoring the article and sending it to RfD. Chenzw  Talk  11:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)