Wikipedia:Deletion review

Shortcuts

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.

Archives
2007–2012 2013–2016 2017–2019 2020–2021 2022–2023 2024–current

Current requests

Bad (Bodo culture)

I nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Bad (Bodo culture) and it was closed as Keep by Auntof6, I don't believe this is a notable subject, Other than a few book mentions I've not found anything substantial or in-depth, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AboFlah

But my article why has been deleted, since i disagreed with deleted i really cannot find any reliable and notable sources Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because that was the consensus at the RfD, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/AboFlah. If you can't find any reliable sources, that's a good indication that it isn't time for an article about this subject. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 please undelete my article and add me reliable sources Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 The consensus of the community to delete can only be overturned by a consensus to undelete by the community. Since there was a consensus to delete the article in the deletion discussion, it was deleted.

I endorse deletion. The sources in the article were not particularly good. Some are user-generated content, some are too short/not in-depth enough. You can post the sources you want to add here so we can review them. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My article has been deleted mistake, I reviewed my article and my article was not notable and my references are unreliable, Can you undelete me please, I want bring my article back and don't forget to add me a reliable and notably sources Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 10:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 Do you mean that your article is notable? If your article is not notable, then it's normally deleted. I'd like to see the new sources first before the article can be restored. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i mean my article was notably Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 10:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse continued deletion - if a future editor finds reliable sources, I recommend creating in user space for a future review here. Griff (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

endorse fr33k man 11:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP^ever 12:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi

A prominent religious scholar and Khilafatist from Sindh, he had millions of religious followers, and his teachings deeply influenced Muslims in the Indian subcontinent and Arabia. These facts are well-supported by sources, even though understanding non-English sources can be challenging for many Westerners. Recently, I found out that it was taken to AfD but had no proper consensus, as most people couldn't read or understand non-English sources, which is understandable. So, I'm asking for a review of sources and calls for the restoration of our Sindhi literature. Our Sindhi History is very rare and precious for us. Thank yall For your time

Bless.

Sources.

[[1]] all pages,

[[2]] page 186,

[[3]] pages 41 43 275 34 25 15 ,

[[4]] 4th

[[5]] page 195.

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]] page 56.

[[10]] all pages

[[11]] [[12]] all pages

CaptVII- (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the page is sourced it actually meets WP:GNG we should consider removing contents which lacks sourcing. Articles like that contains sources should be improved instead. Jinglingzone (talk) CaptVII̟̠- 11:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

overturn support undeletion fr33k man 01:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - relevent AFD from enwiki - w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sayyid_Ihsanullah_Shah_Rashdi, so some questions on the right article name to avoid honorifics and a sock that was also active here. Ravensfire (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The sources aren't significant in-depth sources and the article is clearly not neutral. Most of it is based on single source which isn't reliable. This request itself demonstrates COI.-- BRP^ever 06:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userify - Without seeing the article, I can only judge based off the non-English sources, the AFD, and the RFD. The AFD performed a review of the sources available to them, which showed only 1 RS for the subject of the article. The RFD closed finding for deletion. I believe that the best option is for the article to be created in userspace, and then reviewed by editors to ensure that the article meets the appropriate notability policies. Griff (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

This page should not be deleted, the reason is invalid. See also: Talk:Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation#WP:CENSOR. --Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - in my opinion, the administrator's action was appropriate in enforcement of office actions. As this is a requested review of an administrative action, rather than a community action, I recommend that future discussion be routed elsewhere. Griff (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Given that access to the enwiki article is still suspended I'm perplexed as what you think undeleting this would achieve ?, Either way I would strongly advise you to read en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-11-06/In focus, The Delhi High Court is wanting names/personal information of the 3 editors that edited that article .... If we were to host that article here we'd all be screwed so no under no circumstance should the article ever be here not until the enwiki issue has been resolved. Fehufanga did the right thing in deleting and protecting that page. –Davey2010^Talk 02:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. All that would likely happen is that some people looking for an English page for the lawsuit will come over here, which will likely result in another office action forbidding us from having a page on it here.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

endorse per Griffy fr33k man 11:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per FusionSub Raayaan 9911 10:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - unwise to play with this subject until after everything sorts itself out. There is definitely scope for an encyclopedic article on the fiasco, but not now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP^ever 12:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Department of State, Petitioners v. Micheal Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich and Peter B. Chiafalo, Levi Jennet Guerra, and Esther Virginia John, Petitioners v. Washington

Hello Eptalon and @Fr33kman: What typo? (Everyone else will need to know these were redirects to Faithless elector laws.) – Invasive Spices (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these are most likely terms you made up, that are not widely used and there is no need for such redirects to exist. BZPN (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They actually aren't made up terms, but they are full case names that are not used. See w:Chiafalo_v._Washington, with w:Baca v. Colorado Department of State redirecting to the Chaifalo article as well. The full case names do not exist as a redirect on enwiki and I would ask they be deleted if created as highly unlikely terms to be used. The short case names is how they are referenced in sources. These redirects should not exist here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Invasive Spices is blocked on enwiki [13] with the reason being "Persistent creation of unhelpful redirects despite many being deleted at WP:RfD, and repeated personal attacks against RfD nominators" The first half of that seems to be happening here recently. See [14] with some of the more recent redirects besides this suggestion. Ravensfire (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Maybe an admin could warn them? BZPN (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]