Wikipedia:Deletion review

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.

Recently closed requests change

Made You Look change

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.

Was actively being worked on for simplification and had existed even before a complex version was pasted over other users' edits. I could recreate the page but the original creator of the article will lose their creation credit. Admins can go through the various revisions and note that I and QuicoleJR had already been making edits for simplification when the page was deleted.--NØ 14:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at the text, and I agree that it still needed much simplifying. In particular, there were a lot of sentences that were not simple sentences. I suggest restoring it to a user sandbox for further work. If that would be acceptable, please indicate which user would like it in their sandbox and what they would like the sandbox to be named. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much. My sandbox would be okay I think (and anyone interested is welcome to help simplify it while it's there).--NØ 23:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: You can find it at User:MaranoFan/Made You Look. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Current requests change

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[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[reply]
You are correct. fr33kman 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[reply]

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. (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

endorse Ok, we all had a bit of a laugh but it's not needed. fr33kman 18:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People had seven days to change their minds and they still deleted it. fr33kman 19:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse We aren't here to engage in this sort of silliness. Pppery (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it silly? (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

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[reply]

Notability is not judged by your opinion of notability, I do not believe it was notable. (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

  Remain deleted, Violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we shoule make a list of Nvidia graphics processing units instead. (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

endorse fr33kman 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse. I would recommend making a list of Nvidia GPUs rather than restoring the page which to me brings up the debate of what makes this GPU notable.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ), 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[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[reply]
Nileshpatelxyz is singer who is notable 2409:4081:921A:B9C2:0:0:251D:8A0 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Susovan Sonu Roy change

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[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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. (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

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 [1][2]. 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[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[reply]
  • PRIMARY[1] for large economic impact of large and long duration campaign in France. SECONDARY[2] which shows it is RS. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have restored the page, and sent it to RfD. If done properly, page has potential to stay. The Asian hornet is an invasive species in several European countries, anongst others. Link to RfD. Eptalon (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your rapid response. fr33kman 19:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References change


  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)