Wikipedia

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.


Current requests change

Shailendra Khanal change

A few years back, Macdonald-ross deleted, undeleted, and then redeleted it. Today, I only learned about it while checking on Xtools, so I request WP:DRV. Shailendra Khanal has served as the 10th IGP of the Armed Police Force of Nepal and meets WP:GNG & WP:BLP. #QDA4, seriously? DIVINE 23:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DIVINE I just did a search and the only things I found are that he was put into place as an IGP. That does not make him notable. What other sources do you have that would show notability? Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 23:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, he was the chief of the Armed Police Force of Nepal. The Nepal Armed Forces not only look after the security of Nepal but also contribute to the UN peacekeeping force. You can check sources provided below and also read WP:BLP & WP:GNG. These are just a few reliable sources, but in case you need more, there are a lot of such sources, including BBC and the UN.
[1][2][3][4][5][6] DIVINE 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DIVINE I am familiar with the requirements. I will look at the sources and provide feedback for you. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DIVINE: Keep in mind that two things are required to show notability: sources and a claim of notability. So we should be discussing what makes the person notable before we worry about whether there are sources to support whatever that is. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before, when I created it, there were 3-4 reliable sources, I believe. Additionally, as the head/chief of the Nepal Armed Force, which is a government organization, there are enough sources to claim notability. DIVINE 06:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parvej Husen Talukder (poet) change

Recently, this page was deleted by User:Macdonald-ross as a wrong by [G5]. But, User:PotsdamLamb was decided alone another reason for delete on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Parvej Husen Talukder (poet) After all, it was a unwanted and unacceptable deletion and i am requesting to undelete it for that. GSEWTalk to me!Special:Contributions/Genius sew 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Genius sew I do not decide alone. Also, you just created your account and this is your only edit. So without any other comment, I will be submitting a checkuser account as a sockpuppet. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 04:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is my first account as this IP. You was decided alone. Actually, you telling non-true. Genius sew (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: For any admin - See logs at Parvej Husen Talukder. CU request opened. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 04:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently closed requests change

status:Not done

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Puppy Bowl change

Macdonald-ross deleted this page as "not notable". However, there's an enwiki page with several reliable sources, meaning it has a credible claim of significance/explanation of notability for A4. I recommend overturning. JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustarandomamericanALT Just because they have it and we don’t is not a reason alone to request undelete. There may have been other issues with the article as well that we are not aware off. I didn’t request QD so I’m not sure of what else may be wrong. It could even be a complicated article. Who knows? Maybe an admin can chime in and let us know what they see. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 20:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there were other issues, but the deletion reason was clearly not right (there is a credible claim of significance based on reliable sources), hence the review. Justarandomamerican (t • c) 14:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on this. Looking at the en article, there are sources that specifically cover the event itself, not just a puff piece on the results for a year. See yahoo news, archived NY Times piece, Variety for what I would consider good, in-depth sources that cover the Puppy Bowl itself, not a specific year. Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following statements about the Puppy Bowl were the only text in the article:
  • It's an annual program on Animal Planet
  • It's on Super Bowl Sunday
  • The names of the two teams
  • The date that it started
I don't see any claim of notability there, and there were no references. I think somebody starting over would do a better job. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 If that is all that was on there, I will restart it in myspace and any user has my permission to work on from this grouping #@Justarandomamerican@JustarandomamericanALT@Lee Vilenski@Ravensfire@Shoot for the Stars. Thank you for the update. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All - It can be found at User:PotsdamLamb/Puppy Bowl. @Auntof6 This is safe to close at this point I feel as it is in my user space, as seen above and we will work on it. Thank you again. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reversal of deletion. I think if this article gets restored, it will meet our requirements to be in the encyclopedia. Also, I will recommend that there is nothing prohibiting restarting the article since it was not an RfD. More than likely not feasible if there was a lot of work done, but an option. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reversal of deletion. Definitely meets notability requirements. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross can you undelete this article please? Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural endorse I suspect if it was deleted, it was in poor shape, and most likely didn't make a good attempt to show it's notable. The topic itself is notable, so would endorse it being made visible, even if it's a case of reclassify. Ping me if it's in really poor shape and just needs cleanup Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb and Shoot for the Stars: Point of order: as per the notes at the top of this page, endorse means that you agree with the deletion. If you want to see the page restored, you can just say so or use the term overturn. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Thanks for that. I never noticed it. I will keep it in mind. Someone else used it, which is why I used it as I typically do not agree with overturn on these. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable and user is check-user blocked.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cheryl Jordan change

Cheryl Jordan is notable because she is the superintendent of a public school district. Therefore, I think this article should be restored. 174.214.16.163 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. When considering whether a person meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia, you have to distinguish between someone who is locally known/respected/admired and someone who you could expect to find an article about in an encyclopedia. That second one is the standard on Wikipedia. Being a public school district superintendent doesn't make a person notable. There was nothing in the article that claimed notability, so the quick deletion was appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I want the article restored so that I can do more research on this person to prove that she is notable. 174.251.161.1 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Research can be done without restoring the article. By the way, I noticed that the article had no references. You would need references to prove notability. If you were a registered user, we could restore it to a page in userspace, but IPs can't have subpages. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I also can not find much of anything that would put her in the realm of being notable. Also does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: IP user was just blocked for block evasion. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable and also removed from NLWP for same reason.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roy Van der Veen change

Roy is a Dutch singer and this page should not be deleted. I made this page for a singer 2 hours ago, Someone already gave reaction on the page, It wasn't even done yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandovanderVeen (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The article has been deleted from other Wikipedias and is at our version of RfD on the NL Wikipedia. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 16:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: I just checked NLWP, and they too deleted the article Roy Van der Veen as non-notable. Also, editor has not been active since the 27th of March. I will be closing this out as not done. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Requester is CU blocked and also not notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lyle The Kindly Viking change

I think this article should be restored because it a Veggietales movie and therefore it is considered notable.174.251.161.157 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never deleted, it hasn't existed here before. -Djsasso (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has since been created and deleted. However, there was nothing in the article that claimed notability. Being a VeggieTales movie doesn't mean that it is notable enough for a separate article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is notable because there are some aspects of the film that make it notable. I would like it restored so that I can do more research and add stuff to prove that the movie is notable. 174.251.160.146 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be easier if you create an account. Then you can have a user subpage. Kk.urban (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, as previously stated, this article was never created here, therefore it cannot be undeleted. You can create the article if you wish. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


RESTORED:

Requested restore by myself for bringing them back. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020 United States presidential election in [state] change

I don't think these articles qualified for quick deletion as housekeeping. Kk.urban (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. @Fr33kman:, as the deleting admin, would you care to comment? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I check to see if any other articles had been made for other years As there were not I thought that maybe these that are need while the election was on and deleted afterwards. If these are notable should there should't we have articles for all elections? fr33kman 18:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that we can have article for other elections. As for whether we should, maybe we should, but we get the articles that people want to create. No one is obligated to create any particular article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6@Fr33kman@Kk.urban On 22 February, I requested these to be deleted and no one responded. On 8 March, I sent them to QD to be deleted. Everything that was on them was already in the main article (a specific section) for how each state voted. I did not feel (and still do) that we do not need these stubs as they can never be developed into a more robust article.
Also, going forward, I would like to recommend that if someone brings up something here, the original requester be notified. I happened to come across this to respond to another request that popped up in IRC. Otherwise, I would not have known and I would like to explain why it was requested. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb OK, I will notify the original requester in the future, if I can tell who it was.
As for the main page, 2020 United States presidential election, I don't see much details on each state, only a map showing the winner of each state. The individual state pages usually have the vote counts and percentages for each state, as well as a separate map for each state (for example, see en:2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania. I don't have a strong opinion of whether these are needed for all elections, but I don't think the QD rationale for housekeeping is meant for cases like this, where information will be deleted. Kk.urban (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban Since a lot of them are tables, they can be copied over to our article (with attribution). We did not have one for each state for that request. I can start on this tonight when I get home from work. These were very basic, with information copied over from en wiki. I think this would be the best way as we are simple and should not be sending our readers all over the place to read the results. Just turn it into a "one-stop shop,"1 if you will.
An American term meaning everything in one place that one would need; similar to a Target or Walmart. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban I checked en wiki. They only have 3 states with the same title. Everything else is all in the main article they have. Is there anything in particular you want me to pull over as someone spent a lot of time on that article and they have all sorts of tables on it. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 03:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban Any insight yet as to what you would like? Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb It may be good to have the number of votes and percent of votes for each major candidate in each state. It would also be good to have a map of results by county (File:2020 Election Results Map by County.png), and a map showing the importance of each state based on population (either File:USA electoral votes 2020 hex cartogram.svg or File:2020 Scaled election map with Nebraska and Maine's differing votes.svg).
In general, I think the use of WP:QD#G6 here was not following the deletion policy. Kk.urban (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban I understand you rationale, however as previously stated, it was on the board for discussion for an odd amount of days (Start Feb 22 end Mar 8) and no one commented, so it went to QD. See the 5th statement from the beginning. Also, I will state that at any time an admin can restore these. However, I have noticed admins are not restoring things, especially when it is obvious like Puppy Bowl as they just want us to keep commenting. @Auntof6 @Fr33kman Please restore the articles deleted per this conversation. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the whole discussion and I don't see a consensus to undelete. Am I missing something? I'm happy to do the work but don't see the consensus. fr33kman 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman For Puppy bowl or for the states? For the states, I am requesting they be undeleted so I can copy the info over to the main article since I do not have the privileges' of seeing the info that was deleted and en wiki does not contain what we had. Sorry I should have clarified as the requester for it them to be deleted to have them undeleted. Sorry for that. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that housekeeping was correct, it was a mistake I made when scrolling through the options. fr33kman 21:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman Do you mean housekeeping was incorrect? :) If you want to restore them, you can put them as subpages under me so I can copy/paste then delete them. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was incorrect. Could you list the article titled below and I'll undelete them. fr33kman 21:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman They all start with the title of this thread and end with a varying state name. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was being lazy and hoped you put redlinks for me but I'll do the work and go to the log instead. :) fr33kman 01:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman I’m sorry. The good part is they were all deleted at the same time so you should be able to restore in one push. Here is one for you 2020 United States presidential election in Connecticut Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman Here look at March #s 1-51 User:PotsdamLamb/QD log Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, undeleted to main space fr33kman 01:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman I still see quite a few red links on my QD log. Can you double check please? I have been going through and removing my QD from them as they turn blue. Thanks and edit well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Advertising only (per del log)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nileshpatelxyz change

Nileshpatelxyz is singer who is notable 2409:4081:921A:B9C2:0:0:251D:8A0 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hatsune Miku change

I think this page should be restored because it's notable. 2601:644:907E:A450:8D7B:D750:4FF7:273F (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not judged by your opinion of notability, I do not believe it was notable. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually. en:Hatsune Miku is quite notable. It's not mentioned that well in the article, but a quick search will easily show that Miku is one of the most notable vocaloid voice banks. Pinging @User:Bsadowski1: do you think it is okay to restore the article before the vandalism?— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justin Jin change

Hi there! Requesting for the undeletion of deleted page Justin Jin. This is my bad, I didn't realize that there was a space for undeletion requests. Although QDG4 was somewhat applicable here, I did completely rewrite the article on this subject. This page was also previously deleted for QDA4, though, honestly unsure why the subject does not meet notability. According to Mashable, which is a highly reputable news source, he created the "world's largest teenager-led media company," and according to their website and the below sites they have "7 billion views." See below.

  • USA Today
  • Forbes Mexico
  • Mashable
  • Forbes
  • The Daily Trust
  • and a few more but I'm unsure they meet the reliable source requirements.
    • All of these references have already been checked and found not to support notability in the other RfDs for Poybo Media and The Vach. Some direct, reported media coverage from a major, reliable news source is required for this. Too much evidence of PR and content placement. Should remain deleted. --Gotanda (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dotdashmeredith (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

J Merlin change

Hi there I’m requesting for the page, J Merlin to be undeleted. I believe this artist has potential to become notable. I keep gathering information about this artist on a weekly basis. Christoffheaney (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Moved from Wikipedia talk:DRV --Ferien (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the request into this page Christoffheaney (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to find sources about this artist from a reliable news article Christoffheaney (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the sources here please? I have recently looked at the deleted page and it seems pretty unredeemable to me. fr33kman 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there after doing extensive research and discovering the artist other part of his full name the following came up https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/man-accused-of-possessing-sawn-off-shotgun-and-ammunition-in-peckham/
I understand discogs and music brains is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia however if you go on it you will see the artist full name. I also discovered the artist website which is the following https://jmerlin.mydurable.com/
You will also see the artist name of Instagram although it is just his first part of his surname https://www.instagram.com/merlin_made_it_bang
It’s very clear that this artist chooses not to use his entire full name due to the event that happened in 2015 however the artist needs to understand that entering the spotlight of the music industry, certain personal matters that are hidden will come to light eventually. Christoffheaney (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman hi there I’ve found another reliable source Christoffheaney (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


RESTORED:

Per request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:British King's Counsel change

C1 only applies for categories that have been empty for 4 days or more. This had not applied. Pinging @Fr33kman: as deleting admin. --Ferien (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to expand. The category should not have been emptied in the first place, it should have been discussed. I added a wait tag to make it clear there was opposition. Had the deleting admin checked the history, they would have seen that this was being discussed, but this should not even have been deleted as C1 in the first place because it didn't apply. --Ferien (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted as requested. There is however no such country as Britain therefore there is no such thing as "British" King's Counsels. Rathfelder is correct in saying that it should not be British King's Counsel as there is no such thing as a British lawyer. fr33kman 22:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the categorisation is "correct" or not is irrelevant, it is still a violation of policy both on your end and on Rathfelder's. --Ferien (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman, to your point of there being no such country as Britain: That is true, but "British" is used as the adjective for the United Kingdom. The term could be used as an umbrella term for anything related to the UK or parts of it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. fr33kman 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


RESTORED:

Restored per request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Permaculture change

Requesting for Undeletion of deleted page Permaculture in my Sandbox here, I did simplify it a lot before, and I'm committed to simplifying it further. Kindly consider restoring it to my sandbox for necessary edits. Thank you! Pinging deleting admin @Macdonald-ross:. Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by Macdonald-ross. -- Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Should be part of a list and not it’s own article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nvidia RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation change

This page was deleted because of advertising. It did not look like advertising and is written in encylopedical format. As per User talk:Macdonald-ross, this page contained a lot of mentions of Nvidia, but I explained the Quadro naming was dropped in Nvidia workstation GPUs as of the Ampere generation in 2020, so I used Nvidia as start of title instead of Quadro. Can we undelete? Xeverything11 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xeverything11, I agree that I don't think the QD criteria applies here, but...separate pages for all of these isn't really helpful. You can make a single list of Nvidia graphics processing units, like we have on the English Wikipedia, and include basically the same information (if you provide sources) but all in one page. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Remain deleted, Violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we shoule make a list of Nvidia graphics processing units instead. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)   Comment: I looked at what was in the article. I agree that it didn't look like advertising. However, there was nothing showing notability (no claim of notability and no references) so I think it should stay deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC) endorse fr33kman 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable and requester check-user blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murders of Linda Gibson and Cody Lee Garrett change

  • Honestly don't see why the page was deleted in the first place, It provided reliable sources, notability was good? I suggest it to be restored
  •   Administrator note:You need to say what you have done to improve the article. Also, please sign your edits. fr33kman 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the stub template as if I right it wasn't used before, Added more pictures, Added more information, Added more references, Don't see why it was deleted. R3prized (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    endorse What information exactly did you add? From what I can see, you added two additional news stories from 2017 that showed that a vigil had bgeen held. All the existing news is from 2017 asking for the case to be reopened. This means no new info. fr33kman 19:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


RESTORED:

Not right place for a merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lover Fest change

Just because no one closes it doesn’t make consensus a keep. Even discarding the sock, there was support for merge so it should’ve been actioned upon. Consensus isn’t disregarded because admins don’t close it.47.23.6.178 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfD isn't a venue for starting merge discussions. That is what {{merge}} is for. I don't know what you are talking about when you say admins don't close it – Eptalon closed it and there is nothing wrong with his close. --Ferien (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sock nominated it for deletion and a good faith user and admin supported merge. So the result should have been either delete or merge, not keep which no one showed support for.12.74.238.38 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether you're choosing to ignore the fact I already mentioned, that RfD isn't a venue for merging. Merging would take up a significant amount of time for an admin to do instantly when there are other RfDs to close. When you merge an article, you are keeping it, even if it may eventually become a redirect - that's why it's listed in the category "Requests for deletion that did not succeed". Regarding the close itself, there were no strong opinions either way, whether it was merge or delete. There was no reason to delete as these issues could be covered by merging, which is why Fr33kman suggested merging. But no-one was able to merge at the time, so the RfD was closed as keep for now, until someone would like to merge it. --Ferien (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A similar recent case was this RFD, which I closed as keep when there was a consensus for merging. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Consensus reached that it is not needed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Wtf change

This was deleted for being unused, but I believe this should be recreated for everyone to use it, and i believe it is useful. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

endorse Ok, we all had a bit of a laugh but it's not needed. fr33kman 18:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful if everyone knew about it at the very start, and it actually is useful, it was just unused when it was there. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People had seven days to change their minds and they still deleted it. fr33kman 19:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We aren't here to engage in this sort of silliness. Pppery (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it silly? 88.110.38.249 (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It did generate a good chuckle. But the most the template was used was in its RfD nomination.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Pointless and unfunny (I never got to see it but i'm guessing it was basically "what the fuck?" which to me just isn't funny). –Davey2010Talk 18:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Also I don't think "WTF" is even Simple English, so it may even confuse users...--Tsugaru let's talk! :) 03:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WorldWide CDI Organization change

Hello, I am asking you to restore a previously deleted article about the organization, since the reason for its deletion is unreasonable, and the reason was as follows: G4 (recreating deleted articles). About 2 years ago, a previously written article really had a lot of flaws, and a complete lack of sources. But after two years, I have significantly improved the article, added enough sources to it (including an authoritative source such as webgate.ec.europa.eu ), and having collected all the materials (which are easily verifiable), I decided to re-write the article, but the administrator deleted it for a reason: It was previously deleted. After reading more about it, I found out that the article is deleted according to this criterion only if the copies are identical or similar, but the content of the article is completely different at the moment (the administrator of this Wikipedia section, Auntof6, agrees with me), he advised me to go to this page so that the article could be restored - which I did. I repeat once again that the article has authority at the moment, I want to say that I want to help Wikipedia as its participant, but sometimes I am not understood. Please reconsider, thank you. Nikolay Zhivtsov 10:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through both the revisions of the page (before and after deletion). The content in both revisions are different, but the addition mostly seem unsourced and somewhat promotional in nature with no significant claim of notability. The new version is significantly more complex as well. I think the page should remain deleted, but if anyone else agrees with restoring the page, it can be taken to fresh RFD.--BRP ever 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Reese change

David Reese is a college professor and therefore he is notable. Therefore, this article shouldn’t be deleted. 174.251.160.13 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College professors are not automatically notable. There was nothing in the article that claimed notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for information on what makes people notable for Wikipedia purposes. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
College professors do research and therefore they are notable. I would like the article restored so that I can add more information to prove that he is notable. 174.251.160.146 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor. I looked up the professor. Nothing I can find will make him meet any criteria that is required for GNG or Scholar. Sorry, as we know that is not the answer you want to read, but we have to apply the same criteria across the board. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Deletion endorsed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William Smith change

William Smith is notable because he is a valedictorian. Therefore, this article should be restored. 174.251.161.1 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. IP editor, this is not a criteria to be notable, or else we would have thousands of valedictorians on Wikipedia for only that reason. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s other things that make him notable, such as being a national merit semifinalist and designing a unique science experiment in his high school chemistry class.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.161.1 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. That still doesn't make them notable. I did plenty of science experiments in high school, does that mean I get an article on Wikipedia? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But he did a really creative experiment that few people have done before. Restore the article and let me do some more research on him to prove he is notable. Lopoduas541$ (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Lopoduas541$ is check—user blocked. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: IP user was just blocked for block evasion. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Not restored per fr33kman A4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kourage Beatz NSI change

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am writing to request the undeletion of the page "Kourage Beatz NSI," which was deleted on multiple occasions. The most recent deletion occurred on January 2, 2024, at 08:38 (UTC), with the reason cited as "Recreation of a deleted page with the same or similar content (QD G4)." Previous deletions also cited reasons such as advertising (QD G11) and creation by a user evading a block or ban (G5). I understand the concerns related to the content and creation history of the page. However, I am seeking an opportunity to address these issues and contribute a revised version of the page that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I assure you that the new content will be devoid of advertising, comply with notability standards, and will not be a reproduction of previously deleted material. I kindly request the Wikipedia community's consideration in reinstating the "Kourage Beatz NSI" page, providing an opportunity to rectify past issues and contribute meaningful content to the platform. Thank you for your time and consideration.Dushdoo (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) endorse the article is clearly A4 and not able to be made notable. fr33kman 00:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable and advertising

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request Undeletion of Yoanna Gouchtchina change

I am requesting undeleletion of Yoanna Gouchtchina. The article was speedily deleted for not showing notability which I may not agree with. I believe the person is notable enough for the article to remain. The person has authored about 5 patents, she made an invention which is also patented, she is featured on Forbes among other reasons. Below, I am listing a couple of references which I believe are enough to prove notability. By the way, there are others available online, but I felt they may not be very credible and chose to leave them.

1. List of patents she authored
2. Yoanna Gouchtchina Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents Search
3. Feature on Forbes "Why Russian Tech Startups Like ZeeRabbit Are Emigrating To The West"
4. A feature on USA Today
5. A published interview
6. another Published interview
7. An article in French among others

I request you to have a look at my article, accept my request and guide me accordingly. Thank you all.

  • I think this is about as clear an advert for the person that I have ever seen. Its intent is so obvious that, even after years on this wiki, I'm still surprised anyone has the gall to do it. Do we not understand the world? Do we not understand that commercial people pay agents to place promotions like this? Actually, we do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've taken a look at the deleted article and it's nothing more than advertisement, stay deleted fr33kman 10:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked at the article, and it is a CV-style, she's a businessperson, founded a company that launched a product, plus her CV. Note that foundingf a company, and launching a product do not make you notable; zillions of people do this, 9 out of 10 startups fail, for different reasons. That people usually patent a technolgoy or procedure, to protect the product they are selling is normal. I looked at two of the sources you gave, they are interviews. So, again, what did this person do that could make her notable?--Eptalon (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked a bit into this. The sources mentioned seem to mostly be interviews, which don't really meet the requirements for sources. The USA Today source, though, I think is valid. Forbes contributors can be fine depending on the writer. This writer doesn't seem to be a subject expert. Dotdashmeredith (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done. No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 01:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charles Ndukauba change

I have not been a novice to simple English Wikipedia. But following simple English Wikipedia requirement for WP:Notability. The article passed WP: BIO, WP: Writer as some poem and books was listed. Being alone the Anambra State children's Parliament ambassador and activist according to Punch Newspaper, Nigeria already tag notability. I know it has been deleted up to three times. I plead with administrator that I will wikify and edit it well. Thanks. Best, Editing Wizard (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse This article has been deleted not three times but six. It should be created as notable the first time. I see no need to undelete it. If it can truly be made to meet our notability guidelines then it should have been done when it was created not worked on after it was created. I have done the research on this subject and it will not pass notability. fr33kman 19:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done. No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 01:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minnesota Zoo change

I believe the deletion of the article Minnesota Zoo, which I uploaded, on the grounds of A3: "was copied from another Wikipedia", is unfair, because I did not copy the entire article en:Minnesota Zoo from English Wikipedia, only a few paragraphs, which I did paraphrase and simplify. I believe the article, did meet the Simple English Wikipedia requirements for WP:Notability and Simple English. I wish they gave time and added the {{wait}} tag in the article, instead of immediately deleting it. The article could have been rectified easily to fulfill the criteria, as it was short and simplified. 31.200.18.164 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Minnesota Zoo, taking Wikipedia policy into account and rephrased the paragraphs. This article is much shorter and is thoroughly sourced. Gartok (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then this deletion review can be closed as the original article has been overwritten by a new version. fr33kman 19:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vespa velutina eradication change

Eptalon deleted QD A6: The page is a fake or a hoax. Undeletion was requested User talk:Eptalon § Vespa velutina eradication on User talk:. Eptalon has not replied. Fr33kman replied It may be a hoax or it may be a goal. I couldn't find anything on Google to indicate there is a concerted effort to eradicate this species. There are a large number of results on Google and in any case a search is unnecessary. The article has WP:RS WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. The WP:PRIMARYs provide links and budget information for multiple current eradication campaigns on 2 continents – including the most recent discoveries [7][8]. The WP:SECONDARYs review them. WP:QD#A6 shows Quick Deletion of sourced articles as hoaxes is not expected Articles that do not have sources. It is not stated explicitly because this is considered so far outside of the realm of possibility. I suggest changing it to state this explicitly. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn A6 is not the correct QD reason. Google Scholar indicates there are studies that are looking into ways of eradication even if there is no such efforts under large (concerted) effort. The article should be undeleted so that it can be fixed. fr33kman 19:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ "Economic cost" (55). 2020: 11–25. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ↑ "Biological" (67). 2021: 191–224. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


RESTORED:

Contested QD can always be discussed in RFD. An RFD has been opened.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separation of East Pakistan: The Untold Story change

I created the article only earlier today with citations already in place. This article is about a documentary. Literally minutes after I created it, a tag for Quick Deletion was stamped on it. The "reason" given was that it was non-notable. I placed deletion wait tag underneath as well as a construction tag. I added over half a dozen third-party published citations as well as links to movie review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and The Movie Database. I even opened a discussion on the talk page pointing to all the citations and pointing to General Notability guidelines, I received no response, including from the one who placed the tag. The article was then abruptly deleted without any proper review or response to the discussion I opened pointing to it's notability. I am seriously disappointed by the knee-jerk environment here. There's even more citations I added, but I added over half a dozen sources discussing the subject itself, which itself in turn is part of a larger history subject. I would like a full and just review of the situation. The original requester should have opened a discussion on a talk page to state his concerns or something of that sort rather than abruptly tagging it for deletion.--NadirAli (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NadirAli: to notify.--BRP ever 01:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Susovan Sonu Roy change

  Not done Stale Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Momcozy change

The brand obviously has a lot of independent references and information, and has won many awards. Doesn’t this also satisfy Notability? Please explain the problem in detail or provide corresponding modification strategies. --Carleyeta(talk) 16:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion. @Carleyeta: There was no claim to notability in the article, so it was deleted under A4 - no claim to notability. --Ferien (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No consensus to restore. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coat of Arms of Bulgaria change

I'm considering this article for un-deletion but would like some more input first. Deleted per A4 by @Macdonald-ross:. I know we've had a problem in the past with "X of Y" articles. National flower or bird or any other non-notable thing. However I think the official coat of arms of a country is perhaps a little more notable than those other cases. I think at an RfD, this would be kept. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. No response from Macdonald-ross and no other opposition to restoring. --Ferien (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done per Ferien Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpaceTIS change

"Undeleted". I am requesting that the page "SpaceTIS" should be un-deleted. SpaceTIS is a well-known Aerospace and Defense company doing business and working with notable governments in Europe, the USA, Africa, and the Middle East. The company received multiple awards worldwide and it was named Top #1 Aerospace Company in North America and in the World in 2023. This Wikipedia page about SpaceTIS should not be deleted. Please UNDELETE the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramatou2020 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted because the page was deleted under A4, but there were claims of notability. However, the page may still be deleted as advertising because the tone is promotional, and it could also be taken to RFD. Pinging @Macdonald-ross: as deleting admin. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a lot of the promotional fluff and ended up taking it to RFD after a search for useful, secondary sources didn't turn up anything worth adding. Feels like some COI or UPE editing happening here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No consensus to restore; No RfD opened. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broda Shaggi change

Please I humbly request the undeletion of Broda Shaggi. Actually, the page was created recently with sources and notable citations and was deleted tagging A4. I believe it may be a mistake. Pinging deleting Administrator, Macdonald-ross. Best, Mastashat (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual reason is that the page does not tell us why the person is notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think this page in question has ever been written in Simple English Wikipedia. Talking about your reply, I guess it's a clear misconception.
That page was cited by up to eight notable and reliable citations.
Per musician, the musics from meet google search was added.
Per actor, there was Selected filmography mentioning his notable movies.
Per other wordings, there are list of some of his awards (accolades). Using all these, what exact notability do the Nominator seek for the subject of the page. Best, Mastashat (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the page passed WP: GNG and it's addition from enwiki. So, what in details do your aspect of notability requires if not in WP: Notability. Best, Mastashat (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let the page be reviewed because I don't see how he doesn't claim notability when he has acted notable Nigerian movies, won awards for acting and some were listed on the page before deletion. Even if there is still doubt of notability, it should be rfd instead. Best, Mastashat (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfD In fairness, there was a claim to notability (that he won an award), but I'm not sure whether this article clearly passes GNG so I'd prefer this to be sent to RfD. --Ferien (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject has won many awards according to Nigerian sources credit to his movies. So don't we think having appeared on notable movies and wom awards for his movies. The page in question was created newly by me and just like Indo researches and add them one by one, I just saw it deleted per not notable. @Macdonald-ross deleted the page as if it was recently deleted. I request admins check whether it has been deleted earlier per notability. I guess Broda Shaggi is important to be included on this wiki. Best, Mastashat (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it clearly passed WP: GNG. I believe the page was in work before deletion but not even A4 because the edits already established notability while work continues. Best, Mastashat (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Requested restoration by a now globally locked account for cross-wiki spam. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Candy Bleakz change

I think the deletion of the page Candy Bleakz be overturned. This is because the page has been overly simplified by me. I further broke it down into simpler paragraphs; also taking out ambiguous statements. The reference article in question was also written by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda at Chocolate City Music (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: The page is not currently deleted as of 19th september 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.38.249 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done - Page still exists and this is stale. Article is currently at RfD.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


NOT DONE:

Article was restored for simplification, then user was globally locked and then article again deleted.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Byel change

This page was deleted under A3 (Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion). I guess I made mistake by not adding wait under the QD tag but I equally believe Simple English Wikipedia is a community where everyone learn different things. The editor may not know the rules like anyone random edits. I was even wikifying it before it was deleted. Please I humbly request the undeletion for further wikification. Best, Mastashat (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest recreating the article from scratch. It was a direct copy/paste from English Wikipedia. And yes, If you were in the process of simplifying the article, you should have added the {{wait}} template. Best, – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 14:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the page, so you can work on it a little more, if you like. Note however: Youtube does not confer notability, getting likes or followers on social media does not make a person notable. So, the page may well be re-deleted (using an RfD tthis time) Eptalon (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least that can be better but we can't use the mistake of an editor to lead to the deletion of the page. One can work on it instead. Best, Mastashat (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=9483263"