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]

Rohit Baghel[change source]

Was not eligible for A1, the article began with "Rohit Baghel is a Social media star.". There's a claim that the subject of the article may be important "In there video the viewer's are in millions." so there is no other quick deletion reason that applies here, definitely not a clear case anyway so should be bought to RfD for the community to decide. Thoughts? --Ferien (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside from the article needing copy editing, here are my thoughts:
The article was deleted under WP:QD#A1 ("very short and provides little or no meaning"). I don't think that applied, so the article should be restored just because of that. It's true that the article was short (three sentences), but that by itself is not a problem. The fact that this option was used means that whether or not there was a claim of notability wasn't a factor in the deletion that was done.
However, we can still talk about whether the subject was notable. Here are the statements made in the article:
  • Subject "is a Social media star": What does that mean? I'm not aware of specific qualifications to be called a star in any field.
  • Subject "is making short video" on various social media: Anyone can do that, so that's not a claim of notability.
  • "viewer's are in millions": First, there's no reference for that. (In fact, this BLP had no references at all.) The last time I saw it discussed, the number of views did not establish notability, but that may have changed.
So IMO the first and third items I list could be seen as claims of notability. (I don't think they are, but others might.) If we can't find a QD option that does apply, then we could take this to RFD if someone wants to. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also agree that QD A1 does not apply to the article. Auntof6 has a very nice breakdown of the article's contents and I think this article manages to evade QD A4 by a hair, too. Chenzw  Talk  02:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely agree with your points here. I don't think that "viewer's are in millions" makes the subject notable, but others could view it as a claim. Just to clarify: I'm quite certain that this person is not notable but as I think this is an unclear case for quick deletion, we should send it to RfD. --Ferien (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only saw this now, as I nominated the page for A1 deletion, I see now why it shouldn't be nominated as A1, and I have no objection restoring this for an RfD. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 07:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Article resored, nominated for regular deletion; let's see what the community says...--Eptalon (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr.Varun Pradip Dave[change source]

This was an real article of a well-known sports person from India who recently got famous after winning the Title of "Strongest Man of Gujarat" is not for fake article even you can check his notability Varun Pradip Dave is like the motivation for us Indians in the field of sports how can people also delete it without any reason please un deleted the page and keep it protected we also have the proofs of the real match results certificates of winning and various notability for this person he has set a new bench mark in the Indian Powerlifting please an humble request to undelete the page and Keep the page Protected from Vandalism and Deleting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2692:14d7:dc3c:d1b:5df:e376 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose - The reason of the deletion is clear - the subject of the article fails (and still fails) GNG. Undeleting it so it may serve as a "motivational" page is not a valid reason to overturn the discussion. Pages are not protected preemptively in most cases, and protection doesn't protect from deletion anyway.
*Fehufangą✉ Talk page 10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Priyanka Rani Joshi[change source]

It was speedy deleted by one of the admin but i don't understand why? She is the winner of Miss Nepal world and representing Nepal in Miss World. Clearly notable enough and has many independent reliable sources.  DIVINE  13:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)exReply[reply]

  • Overturn deletion: The editor who requested WP:QD#A4 gave the additional reason "Winner of a single local beauty pageant". The beauty pageant mentioned was Miss Nepal World. Miss Nepal World is a pageant at a national level so I don't think it should be considered a local pageant even though Nepal is not a large country. The "Miss <country> World" pageants are the national beauty pageants that choose countries' representatives to the international Miss World pageant, and this person is going to represent Nepal at Miss World 2022.
I do, however, think we might need better references than this article had, but there are good references in the enwiki article. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Miss Nepal world is not a local beauty pageant. I had added notable references as enwiki article is also created by myself. As they clearly passed notability guidelines. I was just concerned with QD. Best Regards,  DIVINE  13:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohammad Abdul Khalek[change source]

A4 says, "If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead." The creator of this article disagreed and put a {{wait}} template on, therefore not everyone agreed the subject wasn't notable and A4 doesn't apply. I think let's send to RfD and let the community decide. --Ferien (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the statement "Chittagong's first Muslim engineer, editor, publishing-entrepreneur and founder of Dainik Azadi, the first newspaper of independent Bangladesh" constitutes a claim to notability that makes this article ineligible for A4. Whether that claim holds water is a question best left to RfD indeed.
Also, QD A4 is really only concerned about whether there was a claim to notability in the article (i.e. EN's CSD A7 "credible claim of significance"). Whether the subject of the article was in fact notable is not relevant to the A4 judgement - it is possible to QD A4 an article about a notable person, and it is also possible for a non-notable person's article to fail QD A4. Now that I look at it, I am not quite sure why that last sentence is included in our QD A4 policy - if we are at the point of asking whether the subject is in fact notable, then it is by definition a discussion for RfD, not QD. Chenzw  Talk  17:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it a credible claim of significance if the author says it's significant? No, because the author is voting on his own case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the use of the {{wait}} template matters here. What matters is the claim that is already written in the article. Chenzw  Talk  02:48, 29 August 2022 (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]

Mesopotamia achievements[change source]

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