Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| 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
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- 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);
- (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.)
- 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);
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- 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.)
- 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.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- 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.
- 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
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{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:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
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".
Hi there - for full disclosure, I'm a current PAR employee. I noticed that there currently isn't a page for PAR on Wikipedia and that it was deleted in Jan 2018. I would have tried to go on the talk page for those who discussed its deletion but those users don't seem to be active on Wikipedia anymore.
I would like to share that PAR Technology hired a new CEO, Savneet Singh, in Dec 2018, eleven months after the page was deleted. Since Savneet joined PAR, he raised capital and acquired several different business in the restaurant technology and hospitality space, including Restaurant Magic, Punchh, MENU Technologies, Stuzo, and TASK. Today PAR trades on the New York Stock Exchange with a Market Capitalization of $1.6 billion dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.
I noticed that many of the comments in the deletion discussion were centered around PAR being a government contractor business; however, PAR has sold off its government businesses and is now a pure-play food service technology company. Among PAR's clients are Tier-1 restaurants like Burger King and Wendy's. Many of PAR's competitors in this restaurant & hospitality technology space, such as Olo and Toast, have pages on Wikipedia. PAR's acquisitions have made news on notable outlets like TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and CNBC.
To summarize: although PAR Technology as a company still carries the same name, under new leadership (hired after the page was initially deleted), it has been transformed from a USA government contractor into a food service technology business. I'd kindly like to request for review to see if opinions may have changed on if PAR Technology should have a page on Wikipedia. Thank you! LeLiPAR (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- A new article could be created, the deletion was a long time ago and as long as a new article asserted importance then it shouldn't be speedily deleted. But if it's really a notable company then people who aren't employed by the company will write an article about it. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Allow review of draft - User:LeLiPAR may create a draft and submit it for Articles for Creation review. That is a proper way of dealing with conflicts of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedily restore to draft and go through AfC. The deletion was correct, the request is fine. We don't need a week here. Star Mississippi 16:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- As above and thank you for being open and forthright about your connection with the company in question. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to draft and go through AfC. The deletion was correct, this request should have gone to WP:REFUND. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- in the requestor's defense @SmokeyJoe, with the AfD I'm pretty sure REFUND would have kicked it here anyway. I see no issue with the request, but believe it can be speedily actioned. As @Robert McClenon has said, some tweaks to the process are likely needed to make it easier all around. Star Mississippi 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:REFUND should improve its instructions to distinguish better between REFUND to mainspace vs REFUND to draftspace (or userspace). If a REFUND admin declined a REFUND to Draftspace request, and it came here, I would be criticising that admin.
- There is no tweaks to process applicable, only tweaks to instructions/advice to applicants needed.
- DRV should be reserved for actual reviews over a complaint that someone did something wrong. DRV should not be a standard gateway to restarting articles, unless there’s opposition. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- in the requestor's defense @SmokeyJoe, with the AfD I'm pretty sure REFUND would have kicked it here anyway. I see no issue with the request, but believe it can be speedily actioned. As @Robert McClenon has said, some tweaks to the process are likely needed to make it easier all around. Star Mississippi 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting a review of my closure following an inquiry on my talk page by Dclemens1971. I closed this as "keep" after determining that there was a consensus that coverage in the Otago Daily Times was sufficient to establish notability. I would appreciate feedback as to whether this was a reasonable decision. If it was not, would it have been better to close the discussion as "no consensus," or to relist it? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Relist (involved). Thanks for flagging this. While there were more "keep" !votes than "delete," it was 5 to 3, so not a strong consensus and had only been relisted once. Four of the five "keep" supporters !voted before the applicable criteria for WP:BRANCH, which requires greater scope of sources beyond local news for a chapter of an organization, were brought into the discussion, and thus it would have been worthwhile to allow more discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:BRANCH applies. A branch of what exactly? I'm also not sure we have the GNG met. A school paper can be a good source (though I'd be leery of an article where that was the only reliable source of any depth...). Can someone who wants to keep this chime in with the WP:THREE best sources? [1] seems to not have significant coverage of the group. The school paper article is, of course, solid in terms of depth. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to have been established as a branch of NORML New Zealand, which is itself a branch of NORML. (The Otago organization appears to be inactive but see description on its old Facebook page.) Despite its depth, the school paper doesn't qualify for GNG under WP:RSSM. I don't want to relitigate the AfD though, I just thought it appeared that there was not a consensus formed and that a relist might have brought in additional perspective and a firm consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I get not wanting to relitigate (that really isn't the point of DRV). But what I'm trying to do is gage the strength of arguments made in the AfD. An issue you raised here was WP:BRANCH not having time to be discussed in the AfD. Our article says "It is not affiliated to the national New Zealand cannabis law reform organisation NORML New Zealand". So I'm wondering if the WP:BRANCH argument made above is relevant. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sources indicate it was founded as a chapter but at some point lost its affiliation (see its facebook page and archived website: https://web.archive.org/web/20101121002708/http://www.otagonorml.com/?q=node/13). Even if affiliation was removed at some indeterminate point, it still seems reasonable to apply the WP:BRANCH criteria to a group that appeared to operate as a chapter for most of its existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I get not wanting to relitigate (that really isn't the point of DRV). But what I'm trying to do is gage the strength of arguments made in the AfD. An issue you raised here was WP:BRANCH not having time to be discussed in the AfD. Our article says "It is not affiliated to the national New Zealand cannabis law reform organisation NORML New Zealand". So I'm wondering if the WP:BRANCH argument made above is relevant. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to have been established as a branch of NORML New Zealand, which is itself a branch of NORML. (The Otago organization appears to be inactive but see description on its old Facebook page.) Despite its depth, the school paper doesn't qualify for GNG under WP:RSSM. I don't want to relitigate the AfD though, I just thought it appeared that there was not a consensus formed and that a relist might have brought in additional perspective and a firm consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn I don't see keep as a possible result here. It's clear from the keep !votes that coverage is very marginal. One delete !voter brings up WP:BRANCH, the other clearly discusses the coverage, these are the two strongest !votes in the discussion. Finally, the final keep !voter, and only post relist voter, both correctly (in terms of general policy) and incorrectly cites policy, if WP:BRANCH applies - the NORML New Zealand page says it is a branch and this page says it is not a branch and none of the sources, well, work, and in any case that's sort of beyond what a closer should be doing. I probably would have relisted this, but I think I might have endorsed a delete result and no consensus probably makes the most sense if someone has to close this, even though I think the delete !votes are stronger. SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Relist or close as N/C and allow a renom in the short term future. While a keep isn't wrong per se, I don't see that the case being made strongly for GNG. Star Mississippi 16:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Endorse I think merge (even though the !votes were mostly binary keep/delete) would have been the best policy-based outcome in light of that discussion, with no consensus also a strong contender. Keep would have been my third choice, but I see no reason to NOT relist an additional time. Some of our experienced closers will relist with a statement asking the participants to choose between two non-deletion arguments--merge or keep, in this case--and that might have been the best thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- (as participant to the discussion) It does not look like a misunderstanding. I noted in the discussion that articles are already in e.g. Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent when it is about someone with French (i.e. European) ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a
relevant comment supporting deletion
in the absence of an intelligible rationale coming from you and in the context of the erroneous nomination.—Alalch E. 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you
did not get the facts right
. It doesn't mean that this was a good category, but it means that it wasn't a good CfD. —Alalch E. 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments were made about how the nomination was erroneous in this deletion review already prior to this thread, which arguments were then followed up by more arguments how it was erroneous (at this time: the DRV nominator's statement, my 09:55, 6 June comment, Extraordinary Writ's 19:27, 7 June comment). Marcocapelle clarified his !vote here distinguishing it from the erroneous nomination so that his comment can be understood not to rest on the nominator's objectively incorrect assertions, but you haven't distinguished your comment from the erroneous nomination, and as you, in your !vote, made a reference to White Dominicans, which is a reference to the nominator's incorrect assertions, and there's no other intelligible rationale contained in your comment, your comment can not be seen separately from the erroneous rationale. So, as I said, you
- There was nothing erroneous about the nomination as far as I can tell, and any good closer in the category space would understand I'm supporting the arguments which have been made before me. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I legitimately can not see how you made a
- Why are you discounting my comment so readily? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle what do you think about overturning this CfD and you nominating with the correct rationale, as only you made a relevant comment supporting deletion. Others simply did not get the facts right, so the DRV nominator is right that there was, predominantly, a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 09:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. The nomination was clearly and objectively erroneous and the comments followed this erroneous reasoning, with the exception of Marcocapelle's comment, but that is only one !vote."European American descent" part in the category name clearly refers to European Americans, citizens of the United States of European descent, to this is a category for articles about Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S. for whom their American ancestors are of European descent, i.e. European Americans. So when the nominator said
it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S.
this was absolutely incorrect.In spite of this, Marcocapelle reasons that we should not have such a category and that the two layers of descent should be compressed into one, so if someone is Dominican with French American descent, the category should be Category:Dominican Republic people of French descent. This is a fine opinion to have, but consensus did not form around this view, as all of the remaining participation revolved around the erroneous rationale. So there was no consensus to delete. My suggestion would be to renominate with a valid rationale.—Alalch E. 09:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC) - These were the articles in the category at the time of deletion. I think Alalch is right that
Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S.
simply wasn't correct: the people in question did have white ancestors in the U.S., which is why they were added to the category. The real question is whether 1) residents of the Dominican Republic 2) whose ancestors are of European descent and 3) whose ancestors resided in the U.S. is one intersection too far, as Marcocapelle suggested. I suspect the answer is yes, but the CfD didn't really get into that, and since we have a good-faith request I'd probably just relist for further discussion. (Whatever arguments apply to this category probably also apply to the African-American category mentioned above.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist is requesting a review of my close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Nichols (psychologist) 8 years ago, due to sockpuppetry and there may be better sources available (now). Punting this to deletion review as I am no longer this familiar with the biography notability guidance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |