Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 June 29}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 29}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 29|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

  • Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

29 June 2024

Salva Marjan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article- First female Formula 4 driver from Kerala India [1] [2], which was not proven in the deletion discussion of removing the article at the time, is now passed WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, and the discussion at that time ended immediately, and now the woman who is the subject of this article has participated in many notable events as a formula. A female driver. This article should be moved back to the main space, and this request was communicated to a closed editor who participated in the discussion of its deletion. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

28 June 2024

Disidrose

Disidrose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as an WP:R3, despite being too old to be eligible under that criterion. As an WP:RFOR from a language without a clear connection to its target of Dyshidrosis its retention at RFD is highly questionable. Nonetheless it was marked as reviewed by an experienced editor and the community has made its desire to weigh in on redirects more than a few months old at RFD clear. Deleting admin is largely inactive and archived the request for undeletion without comment, as such I am beinging this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95CE:1437:1591:A9E6 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

27 June 2024

1794 in Ukraine

1794 in Ukraine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Relist. While not harbouring strong feelings about the outcome of this AFD, I believe that it was contentious and therefore should not have been closed after three days by a non-admin. Though it was "withdrawn by nominator", there was no consensus yet, and per WP:WITHDRAWN: "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep [...], the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it". Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisting is acceptable as well per OwenX, Alalch E, and others' interpretation of WP:WITHDRAWN, which I consider to be reasonable, though an optional new AFD with a better nomination statement is my first preference. Frank Anchor 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Racism in North America

Racism in North America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'd like to request the reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in North America. All 4 commenters that supported delete mentioned that the topic isn't covered as a whole but rather individually by coutry (i.e. "no coverage of this subject as a whole", "Unable to find anything discussing this topic specifically", "This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"). In my comment, among other things, I mentioned that Google Scholar has 867 hits for "racism in North America". Many, if not all of these sources deal with racism in North America as a whole and would be out of place inside each individual country's article. Here are a few: "Transnational Perspectives on the History of Racism in North America", "Imperialism and Settler Colonialism: Xenophobia and Racism in North America" (let's remember that California was Mexico a mere 200 years ago), "Racism and the mental health of East Asian diasporas in North America: a scoping review", and I could go on. The discussion was closed a few hours after I made my point and before anyone else had a chance to either counter it or to agree with it and review their positions. I feel a relist would have been more reasonable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

25 June 2024

Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award

Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:JUSTAPOLICY WP:JUSTA Nayyn (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

24 June 2024

Heer Da Hero

Heer Da Hero (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AFD I initiated was closed with a "keep" decision, but I've concerns. Some IPs (WP:LOUTSOCK) voted "keep" based on some WP:ROTM coverage, which I countered. And just before closure, @Libraa2019 voted "keep" without adequate time for source assessment., @Libraa has a history of throwing 'keep' votes based on ROTM coverage. If possible, reopening the AFD would allow me to assess the sources provided by @Libraa. I've always understood AFD closures to be based on policy, not vote counts alone, and this closure is demotivating. Fwiw, the page was also created and heavily edited by UPE sock farms. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

  • Endorse: reopening the AFD would allow me to assess these sources properly - how so? What prevents the appellant from doing this source assessment now? If the sources provide only ROTM coverage, what difference does it make whether they were provided by anon IPs or established editors? I don't understand the basis for this appeal.
After being open for three weeks, the nomination failed to receive a single supporting !vote to delete. I don't see how relisting it for a fourth week will achieve anything beyond giving the appellant the opportunity to bludgeon that final Keep view. Even if all the Keep views are proven to have come from a single sock farm, this would still be closed as N/C. I'm okay with an early renomination. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
OwenX, OK, I'll do a source assessment here related to coverage provided by @Libraa. This also raises a question. If, due to a lack of participation, an AFD receives a few "keep" votes, who cite some coverage that doesn't easily satisfy GNG, should the decision be based on the vote counts and not on the source assessment and/or counter arguments? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the detailed source assessment. But again, what would you have us do with it? Even if none of those sources provides SIGCOV, what are we to do - relitigate the AfD? Overturn to N/C? I've closed several AfDs where you were the nom or a participant. It's clear that you have the best interests of the project in mind, but your style often comes across as unnecessarily confrontational. Your request to reopen this AfD, after it was relisted three times, strikes me as an attempt to have the last word in it, without any reasonable expectation of changing the practical outcome. I know being right is important to you, but using your time constructively is often more important. Maybe start a merger discussion (to 7th Sky Entertainment?), get other editors involved, and if no consensus is reached there, at least the next AfD for it might be better attended. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
OwenX, In the past, I used to nominate AFD and then disengage, only to find them kept due to non-policy-based reasons that I didn't challenge at the time. So after returning from a wikibreak, I decided to engage in AFDs more actively, particularly when I feel that non-policy-based arguments or keep votes based on ROTM coverage would influence outcomes unfairly. My intention is to simply to ensure that decisions align closely with WP:N. And I want to clarify that I've been lately working to avoid being confrontational in my AFD interactions. Regarding the DRV, my main concern is highlighting the issue of how low participation can allow some IPs to rescue some pages so easily. That being said, if you feel this DRV was unnecessary, I'll leave it at that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I can acknowledge that you recently have, indeed, been more amenable to walking away from an AfD debate if it turns too acrimonious, and I commend you for that. But I can't recall cases where you were able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with you. Suggesting a viable ATD is often a good way to sway things away from keeping a page that isn't independently notable. Very few pages actually violate policy to the point where they need to be deleted. I know you only strive to ensure decisions comply with WP:N, but I'm not sure you're always going about it the best way. I don't think it was wrong of you to bring this to DRV. The topic of anon IP participation in AfD is worth discussing. But I still think a merger discussion, or failing that, renomination in two months, per Frank Anchor, would be more fruitful in this case. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
OwenX, Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion) where I was able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with me. But I think this might be an instance where an editor withdrew their keep vote after I countered it. Anyways, your comments were encouraging, and I appreciate that you acknowledged the topic of anonymous IP participation in AfD as worth discussing. I have no hard feelings about this page being kept, so this DRV can be closed now. No offense to @Doczilla: even though this comment was discouraging. I wasn't arguing with them; I was just providing counterarguments. P.S. I'm observing an AfD (where my !vote is neutral) where some editors are debating as if it's the end of the world. Cheers! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
re: "Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion)"
That might suggest one reason among many to not nominate so many pages. (Yeah, I split an infinitive.) AfDs need quality over quantity. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
But Doczilla, I don't nominate every page I dislike—only those that apparently fail to meet WP:N and there's nothing wrong with that. Right? By the way, since Liz advised me, I've definitely slowed down; you can see it in my AFD logs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I've kept thinking about this because I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I do want to help you be effective, so it occurs to me that this might be worth pointing out: Fewer editors have participated in AfD lately. We're having some discussions trying to figure out what might be done to help with that. In the meantime, though, the fact that fewer are participating means AfDs are getting relisted more often and more are closing as no consensus. It's about both the sheer number of noms (which you've addressed above) and the quality of those noms. Concentrating efforts on making a smaller number of stronger AfD nominations might (1) give editors clearer AfDs to discuss in the first place and (2) be less daunting to people who feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of AfDs listed. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Point taken! I'll definitely slow down more if you think I should. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.24newshd.tv/3-May-2023/nadia-khan-gets-crazy-as-mad-over-drama-serial-heer-da-hero ~ 24News is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established - clearly falls under WP:RSNOI No The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2407480/ramazan-binge-list-five-shows-to-keep-you-entertained-post-iftar ~ Express Tribune is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1079637/amar-thanks-the-audience-for-loving-the-alpha-hero-she-has-penned-in-her-serial-heer-da-hero/ ~ Daily Times is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/30-Mar-2023/amar-khan-s-punglish-skills-in-heer-da-hero-impresses-fans Yes Daily Pakistan is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line ~ CHURNALISM style coverage and falls under WP:RSNOI - Fwiw Daily Pakistan itself is not a RS No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://www.independenturdu.com/node/133401 Yes Independent Urdu is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line No The coverage was published in the blog section (بلاگ) of Independent Urdu and was done by a blogger (بلاگر) so the expertise of its author has not been established. Yes The coverage discuss the subject in detail ✘ No
https://jang.com.pk/news/1211032 ~ Jang is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line but this particular coverage is based on an interview ~ How coverage based on interview can be reliable? No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://www.aaj.tv/news/30323593 ~ Aaj is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
https://lahorenews.tv/index.php/news/61302/ ~ Lahore News is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199328 ~ Dawn is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI No This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established No WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG ✘ No
https://www.easterneye.biz/amar-khan-being-her-own-hero/ ~ Eastern Eye is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview No How coverage based on interview can be reliable? No Amar Khan - the actor of TV series themselves talked about the subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

23 June 2024

  • Feature Films for Families – Speedy moot. The deletion discussion is not being contested, nor is the 2022 speedy, but rather a case has been made that factors have changed due to source access. The article is now in draft space where it can be improved before a return to mainspace. If there are extant concerns about sourcing in the new article, the course of action is an AfD. Star Mississippi 23:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Feature Films for Families (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article on a Utah-based kidvid company, deleted back in early November 2017 for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH thanks to this AFD; an early July 2022 re-creation attempt was also shot down. After some 5–7 years, looks like WP:Library may be coming to the rescue. (What follows below may be enough for now to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA—lest we look a bit harder beyond lots of natter on their telemarketing practices?)

  • Bosha, Pat (2000-03-17). "Feature Films for Families Fills Need for Wholesome Fare". The Morning Call. p. D01. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Discusses co-founder Forrest Baker III's early career (in an article on a regional release of theirs, Who Gets the House?, from their theatrical Visiplex label).
  • Jones, Lara (1996-02-05). "Film company building new distribution center". The Enterprise. Vol. 25, no. 31. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — Mentions co-founder Baker III, the founding date (1988), and the inaugural year of operation (1990).
  • Rattle, Barbara (1993-05-10). "Wholesome films pay off for Murray's Feature Films". The Enterprise. Vol. 22, no. 47. Salt Lake City. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-02-11 – via ProQuest. — At original press time, the company's "president and executive producer [was] former KSL-TV sports anchor Don Judd". Also from this source:
    • "Feature Films for Families' goal is to strengthen traditional values through feature film entertainment produced and distributed directly to homes on videotape, [public information director Michael] Clapier explained."
    • "Feature Films for Families not only produces its own movies, but also carries 'G' rated films from other sources and re-edits or 'sanitizes' some Hollywood productions."

XPosted from WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 383#Feature Films for Families and User talk:Liz/Archive 47#Undeletion request: Feature Films for Families (both from February 2023).

As an added bonus since our last appeal attempt, here's what AVID Logos has to say on their recent fate (with relevant WP links added):

"In 2018, the company was fined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for $45.5 million (settled to $487,735 due to the company being unable to pay such a high fee). This is because it did more than 117 million illegal telemarketing calls to people in the Do Not Call Registry between 2007 and 2011, for the purposes of selling their DVDs and tickets to the 2009 theatrical release of The Velveteen Rabbit. They would often hide these calls under the guise of a charity called 'Kids First' that was looking to make a list of good family movies, and claim that they would donate the proceeds of their DVDs to police and fire departments when they didn't. Since the lawsuit closed, FFFF has been much quieter, with most of its activity being its own online 'streaming service' (actually a website with embedded and paywalled Vimeo uploads of their library)."

From here, perhaps the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs) may give us an extra hand this time around?

Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Requests for 2 and 3 should not really come to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

21 June 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Possible physical damages through anal sex (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324637 https://health.clevelandclinic.org/anal-sex-safety 202.134.11.238 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Troll. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 June 2024

Moruf Oseni (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Moruf Oseni (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was deleted under the G11 and A7 criteria. There was no communication before the deletion. The subject is the CEO of a top Bank in Nigeria (Wema Bank) and so qualifies to have a Wiki page. He is notable enough. I would like to be able to edit the article in a draft space to fix the G11 issue before seeking approval to move to mainspace Michael Ugbodu (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 June 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Miskin_Abdal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I noticed that deletion of this article was closed with no consensus. This is very surprising to me. I have spent three days to investigate it and came to conclusion that it was a hoax. Moreover, the statement in its first paragraph is completely wrong. Please reconsider your decision or provide reason(s) for keeping that article which is full of false statements. HeritageGuardian (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 June 2024

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kerakat railway station (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi folks. I wanted to clarify this deletion discussion, where both User:Mjroots and User:Balablitz stated that all railway stations are notable. This contradicts WP:NTRAINSTATION which states that train stations do not have any inherent notability. Can this be checked? I am an AfC reviewer and regularly decline articles of railway stations for not meeting GNG. Qcne (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Read this as 2024, didn't realise this was a ten year old XfD! Qcne (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

That was nearly 10 years ago, we've moved on since then. Railway stations should generally be notable enough to sustain articles. That said, WP:GNG still needs to be met via WP:V by WP:RSs. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2024

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

That category was being used for Dominicans descended from United States citizens of European descent, aka White Americans (minus Middle Easterners), it wasn't used for "White Dominicans" as claimed by the deletion nominator. Even, there is still a separate category for Dominicans descended from African Americans, aka Black Americans (Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent) as anyone can see it in the parent category Dominican Republic people of American descent since that parent category was subcategorized into different recognized American ethnic groups. This category was deleted based on a misunderstanding, maybe it just needed some clarification in the cat page. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1188230539"