Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive 4

Please list newer requests at the top.

2022 requestsEdit

สมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวมหาวชิราลงกรณ บดินทรเทพยวรางกูร and วชิราลงกรณEdit

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.

Both of these redirects were deleted for being “Not in English” although they don’t fit any deletion criteria. I don’t see any problem redirecting Thai words to a Thai King. -Deppiyy (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Deppiyy Only the nomination gave the reason of them not being in English. The other people commenting referred to the discussion at Simple talk, which could be taken to mean that no new redirects of this type should be created until that discussion is over (and these were created after the discussion started). Also keep in mind that there are no defined "deletion criteria" for RFD discussions so it doesn't make sense to say that they don't fit any deletion criteria. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think what they are trying to say is the deletion didn't match policy/guidelines which is true. The deletion and delete votes didn't follow the current guidelines for redirects, they were valid redirects. -Djsasso (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: I support deletion on both RFDs. The deletion criteria is used for speedy deletion. For articles that do not fit the criteria, the community decides whether they should be deleted, as they did. Support continued deletion. Griff (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Restore per Djsasso. A few people supported the deletion pretty much saying "look at ST" where about 50% of the comments are essentially "I don't like it and I don't want to explain why". --Ferien (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Continued deletion - the redirect is not needed.--Simple wiki can not solve all sorts of imagined problems.--I am not saying that the redirects are related to a troll factory - however my "out-of-whack detector", is giving interesting signals. (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Continued deletion -- Redirect doesn't exist on Enwiki and really there isn't any point at all whatsoever for it. Something that is unused has no place on any encyclopedia. Many projects have been deleted on this Wikipedia for lack of activity and I think we shouldn't keep something that has no place here. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    @MrMeAndMrMe: I'm not saying we should restore these, but keep in mind that the issues with redirects are different from the issues with articles (or projects, for that matter). Redirects aren't expected to necessarily be used; they exist in case somebody uses them at some point in time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

Request to retrieve Ali Tajdary article that has been deletedEdit

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.

  • Consensus to delete this article again at RfD, after this request was made. The consensus is still delete. --Ferien (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I created an article called Ali Tajdari, the article was worthy of staying on Wikipedia in terms of sports and art. Before me, this article was created on Wikipedia, but it did not have credible sources and was deleted, but my new article has credible sources. Ali Tajdari is a member of the national team of Iran and has won the highest title in two MMA organizations, which is considered famous in terms of wiki rules.Please check the article and return it to the original environment if approved,thank youRazeasheghi (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Continued Deletion: I can not find any reliable sources to say other than the promotion of this person, which is all user-generated pages on the web. PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@PotsdamLamb just so you know, this article was recreated, and is undergoing another round of RfD. It's probably better to discuss it on the RfD page. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 23:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fehufanga I added my comments :) Thanks for the heads up! PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Youssef RzougaEdit

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.
  • The outcome of this review resulted in no consensus to overturn the original decision made by the closing administrator at RFD. If a user wishes to make a revised article that meets our guidelines in userspace, it is far more likely the decision of the community will change. Griff (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Deleted against normal WP:GNG rules, as it exists in multiple languages. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

What part of the GNG rules does this violate? My comment when I deleted this article was "The article as it exists here does not show notability, even if articles on other Wikipedias do." The fact that the page exists on other wikis might indicate that the subject is notable (although those other Wikipedias might have different policies/guidelines about that), but it doesn't mean that the version here met requirements for Simple English Wikipedia. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Can it be recreated in line with what exists in other Wikipedias where it is proven to be notable? Blissyu2 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Other Wikipedias may have different criteria for notability, so the fact that it exists elsewhere doesn't mean the version here is notable. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I've deleted this one, too, because it was substantially similar to the deleted version. Please don't recreate until this discussion is closed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
If I may ask that you recuse yourself from future discussions, since you seem to have deleted this against policy, that'd be much appreciated. Thank you Blissyu2 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
If Blissy2 does not withdraw the "recuse yourself" request, then I ask that Blissy2 recuses Blissy2 from this discussion, for the reason of disturbance of wikipedia, and/or for the reason of wiki-lawyering. Regarding one reminder for Blissyu2: wikipedia is not a democracy. (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I decline to recuse myself. All viewpoints should be taken into account, and I am entitled to give mine. Also, you have not explained what specific part of policy you think was violated. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning undelete- We don't need to follow any projects but for enwp we have WP:FOLLOW, there is an article of the subject on enwp (and was carried over there - also so called created by a sysop so I think the creation meets enwp guidelines), i.e. enwp accepts it and per FOLLOW, no reason we deviate. Also seeing the other versions, the works of this person seems to be able to meet NAUTHOR. The only thing holding me back is the spammy nature, we need a clean version here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    This is a bit late, but see WP:What FOLLOW is not — we only follow in the case that we do not have the correct & corresponding guidelines. FOLLOW does not pertain to having articles. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    MrMeAndMrMe, there are relatively few cases where we need to follow enwiki because our policies and guidelines cover most things already. But in those few cases, all policies and guidelines on enwiki are guidelines. And as guidelines say, it is a good idea to follow them, but it is not policy, we don't need to follow it - although from my experience, keeping away from guidelines just makes messy situations. Another flaw of your essay: we don't have few policies and guidelines because we have few editors, we have few policies and guidelines for simplicity purposes. --Ferien (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about that. Follow does not pertain to articles, it pertains to guidelines, policies, ect. Sorry for any confusion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    You confused me because you linked to that essay which didn't talk about articles :) --Ferien (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry. Perhaps I should include that as well in future revisions. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Ferien upon further thought, I would like to point out that following guidelines that don't conflict with ours is literally the same thing as having those guidelines at the Simple Wikipedia. People will still reference those guidelines and will be pointed out regularly so I wouldn't call that "simple" if we basically copy all of their guidelines. In fact, it makes it more confusing due to the fact that those enwiki guidelines are written in complex english.
    I may have written this confusingly so I can reword it if you don't understand. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 02:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    When I mean it's more simple, here I'm saying there are less of things. Most of our editors understand complex English - it is more difficult to edit here if you don't know what is complex and what isn't - so that is why our template docs aren't in Simple English, for example. --Ferien (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The article had about zero sources - but they were available on other language-versions of Wikipedia. I am fine with this case being sort of an informal deterrent: When nobody (including myself) does not add a single notable source - then sometimes stuff ends up being deleted (for whatever reason). Leaving things as they are, works for me (and if someone starts an article that actually has a notable source, then that will be a new situation regarding Youssef Rzouga. (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • While I trust our administrators, for the purposes of the discussion, could a copy of the article be posted in a user space somewhere? User:Griffinofwales/Youssef Rzouga is as a good place as any. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this one is uncontroversial, it stayed at RfD for 10 days (RfD) the comment that there are no sources was made about 3 days into the process. So, I endorse deletion. --Eptalon (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Cat racismEdit

Whilst there was consensus to delete on the RfD here, the page was not eligible for G1 deletion. It was written in English that made sense and so it is not, in any way, eligible for G1 deletion. Furthermore Macdonald-ross was involved in the deletion discussion so he probably shouldn't have deleted it himself. --Ferien (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • We should not split hairs over this kind of page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think it should be restored now. I just don't think it met the QD criteria back then and an RfD would have been fine. --Ferien (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, we need to keep in mind that RfD is overloaded and slow. By clearing the decks with obvious cases we free up RfD to grind on remorselessly with more debateable cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
No No No. We should never speedy just for the sake of speed when QD is not applicable. The being slow is the point. Please stop using QD criteria when they are not applicable, its an abuse of your tools. -Djsasso (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I don't see the RfDs as overloaded. We are getting all of 2 entries per day, which is easily enough to keep up with. I am happy to have a look at this. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, RfDs stand at 57 at the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross If there are that many RfD-worthy articles, then that's not a problem. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support restoration - While I haven't seen the article, it seems that it was deleted in the wrong way, and perhaps should be put back up to RfD to have a proper look. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that the deletion was completely out of the regular process, and as far as I know G1 is only applicable when the page makes no sense (in language). That being said, I think we can just let it be as this is going nowhere. The comments on the RFD page are all in favor of deletion, and restoring the page just to delete again seems pointless.-BRP ever 12:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Arguments made at RFD seem reasonable. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There's no need for any action on this in terms of voting delete or keep. I think it's obvious the article needed deleting but the deletion was problematic, hence I reported it here. --Ferien (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Result: Remains deleted. All comments acknowledged article should not be kept, but were only critical of the process. Griff (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ram RanchEdit

Was deleted at RFD in mid-2020 for being non-notable at the time, but is notable now. [1][2][3][4][5]. This would normally go to requests for undeletion, but it doesn't exist here. Naleksuh (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

see the RfD Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
A request for deletion was closed as a delete, two years ago. If the thing is now norable, why don't you recreate the page? Eptalon (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Eptalon. If there are now sources indicating notability, feel free to re-create. Just make sure it indicates such! Griff (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Griffinofwales: I don't have the text I used at the time. Can you send me the text in a pastebin? Since I wrote like 95% of it it shouldn't be a copyright violation. Naleksuh (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The content you originally moved to article space has been restored to your userspace. Griff (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

While trying to move User:Naleksuh/Ram Ranch to mainspace, I forgot that namespaces are controlled by a menu and not the type box, and accidentally moved it to User:Ram Ranch. When I saw it was a red link, I thought "Oh, how nice of the sysop to correct the move without leaving a redirect!", no, instead they have deleted the page completely citing U2. Please restore this and move it to Ram Ranch, as this was very obviously what I meant to do, and is spirit not letter. Naleksuh (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Restored to Ram Ranch - make sure to add the necessary sources to indicate notability. Thanks, Griff (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Result: Article re-created by Naleksuh after notability was shown. Griff (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Loro HortaEdit

Not eligible for G7 at all. Author was constantly removing the QD and RfD tags and then when they likely blanked it to rework the article, it was QDed as G7. The author removed the G7 template to show they do not want the article deleted and it was readded when they removed it... Pinging @MathXplore, Fehufanga, and Macdonald-ross: as people readding the tag and deleting admin. --Ferien (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Without commenting on the process that got us here, I endorse continued deletion per A4. In the deleted article, the subject is only described as a family relation of someone else, which does not indicate notability per WP:BIOFAM. As such, there is no claim to notability or sources to indicate such. Griff (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    The article was already at RfD, and in most cases with notability, once you've got to RfD, it's best to do a full RfD instead of quickly deleting the page during it. And as shown here, someone could believe that being related to a notable person is a claim to notability, and so pages are not eligible for A4 because of it. --Ferien (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC) (edited 19:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC))
  • Restore so that author can rework on it properly, and it can go through a proper RFD. I mistook the author wanting to delete the page as they left a message about deleting the article after they removed the G7 tag, and I sincerely apologize for that. --*Fehufangą✉ Talk page ♮ 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      Comment: Article has been restored by the author. --*Fehufangą✉ Talk page ♮ 05:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    And now it has been deleted as G4, something it is not eligible before because it didn't go through RfD and it was a G7 deletion. And a response from MathXplore and Macdonald-ross would be preferred, especially Macdonald-ross as there have been many instances now where his deletions have been completely incorrect and out of deletion policy, see #Cat racism as one example. Admins are supposed to be open to the community with how they use the tools; not following the spirit of the deletion reasons at all multiple times and ignoring messages about these deletions is not being open to the community. --Ferien (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    I also agree to restore the article and continue/restart RfD, although the author must promise NOT to remove tags. MathXplore (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I don't think tags should be removed, unless it is a G7 tag of course. --Ferien (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Pretty clear here in my opinion, should be restored and go to RfD. I also find the block of User: somewhat questionable. Removing tags isn't good, but a block for creating bad pages is a little off base in this case. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In any case where it is thought that further discussion could be fruitful, it is quite reasonable to put the item back on RfD. I was evidently mistaken in removing it, and I apologise to colleagues for doing so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Result: Arrticle restored, and put up for RfD again - No early closures this time, please...--Eptalon (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


There was an acceptable amount of content and this was very clearly not a test page. I had already declined the QD request because the article is not eligible for quick deletion. However, I would like someone else to look at this as I was the one who declined the QD request originally. Also pinging @Macdonald-ross: as the admin who deleted the page. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • endorse undeletion - While I don't know what the content was, swelling as a word is very encyclopaedic and it exists on EN-Wiki. At minimum we could create the page with appropriate content if the original content was not adequate. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Blissyu2: The entire content was "An unusual enlargement (size getting bigger) of a part of the body is known as swelling." -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I put in a couple of requests at the top of this page but I am now noting that new ones are going at the bottom. I thought that they were meant to go at the top like in RfD. Did I get it the wrong way around? Blissyu2 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Blissyu2: I think people would see them in either case, so no worries. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion: the content was no more than a dictionary definition. If more medical-type content were added, it could be encyclopedic. As for a word being encyclopedic, only topics are encyclopedic, not words, unless you're analyzing the word itself (its etymology, for example), which this was not doing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    However, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not a reason to quickly delete an article. The main problem here is that the page was deleted as a test page, which it wasn't. The article could have been expanded or even redirected to Oedema like Swelling does on enwiki, I think a delete here was unnecessary. --Ferien (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    We do have the page Oedema, which is also known as "swelling" (as I see it: its caused by fluid in the tissue); I am not a doctor, so I can't say if a swelling that occurs as part of an injury, and which is probably part of the healing process is different from the Oedema. If it isn't then we need just one of the two (which likely means: redirect Swelling to Oedema, or a Section and expand there). If it is, then we need a separate article, which also points out the differences.--Eptalon (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete - Certainly not a test page and redirection can be done outside of a deletion process, if the article is up to scratch and it's not like G3/G10 which a delete and redirect might be better. Undelete and redirect will be best here or if we wanna cut the red tape, just someone BOLDly creating a redirect will do. But on the record this isn't a G2 at the very least. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Oedema or soft redirect to simple.wikt. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Result: Redirected to Oedema, as proposed. If yo think swelling is noticeably different, please overwrite the redirect. --Eptalon (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Third Street Light Rail ProjectEdit

Deleted under QD: A3, but it wasn’t directly copied from the English Wikipedia version. The text was already simplified before getting deleted. --2601:645:8780:D9F0:D99B:1969:17CF:57F3 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Whilst some parts weren't copied and some parts were changed, it didn't change the complexity of the article. You changed some words which didn't really make it less complex and you weren't going to change it further. I'll remind you also that you are evading your block, which is not allowed and while you may be "evading it in good-faith", it is extremely disruptive so please stop. --Ferien (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Non-administrative closure - Requested by banned user. Any user in good standing is welcome to re-create the article following article guidelines. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 requestsEdit

Village Haji Muhammad Malook SharEdit

Villages seems not to be suitable for A4 deletions if I am not wrong. Unsure what was the state but villages seems immune from A4. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Article restored. Not eligible for A4 and was at RfD so I think it's best to let people decide there. --Ferien (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Ferien :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Of note: this was then deleted on RfD, so this case is no longer current. Blissyu2 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

List of bus routes in LondonEdit

One of the main reasons why this article was deleted was because there was no-one willing to update it. I'm happy to update the article every few weeks or so if necessary, and even if I'm not around, the tables can be copied and adjusted from enwiki with attribution, because they are mostly simple enough. This is the original request for deletion, and to be clear, I have no issues with the consensus/closure. It's just the main reason for deletion no longer applies. --Ferien (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there temporary undelete here, I hope to see the state of article before opining. Actually we don't really have a dateline for wikipedia articles anyway, so being outdated isn't a good reason to delete articles. Deletion isn't clean-up, and updating articles are clean up work. That's said, can this be under NOTGUIDE and wikivoyage might be a better place? Not sure either. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The page was deleted under Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/List of bus routes in London. I think willingness to update is an issue, but mainly because users change and information changes. Personally, I have nothing against such pages, which are, after all, basically factual. I just say they don't add much: who cares if the 94 bus goes to Catford? I'd rather see a page about Catford. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Besides the obvious ("Route 89 has always run from Trafalgar Square to Lewisham"; don't know), such a list probably changes a lot, and is "expensive in upkeep"/"easily outdated"), I don't think we have enough editors from the Greater London Area, to write articles on places such as Catford (IIRC part of Lewisham, a bit south of the town centre, were most of the Lewisham administration is). I remember there being a river/creek, and and a park...--Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I come from Greater London, but editors from Greater London aren't needed for this task. If we want to update it, we can pretty much just copy the updates that have been made on enwiki. --Ferien (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I think before we embark on such a journey of a list of bus routes in a major European city, we should also look at the cost of upkeep. Would you be in favor of having a list of bus routes in New York, Amsterdam, Paris, or Novosibirsk? - As I pointed out, I don't know how much of the lines are historical, and have changed little over time, and how many of them have been there for 3-5 years, while they build a new subway, DLR, or tram line?- Also, we are looking at a list of bus lines, so realistically, there would be line number, end points, and major stops en route? - I think we should really think twice before embarking on such a task; As to the editors from Greater London: how easy is it to motivate someone to keep up a list of transport links for a city he/she has little relation to?--Eptalon (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the routes haven't changed that much in 100 years! There have been additions to the various rail systems. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Undelete Should have never been deleted in the first place. It is a notable subject. -Djsasso (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Undelete whether it is NOTGUIDE isn't discussed in deletion discussion, so I don't think it will block undeleting. Since the routes are static, outdated is faulty reasoning to delete. So there isn't a reason to delete. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This is clearly in scope. We have plenty of articles that's out of date. Don't see anything with this one, especially given that Ferien has volunteered to update it. SHB2000 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Article restored. Consensus to undelete.-BRP ever 14:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I see the logic for both deleting and keeping - My train of thought at that time was that we shouldn't be providing out of date content to our readers but then again I guess Simple probably has more out of date articles than it does in-date. Sadly at the time of writing this the article hasn't even been updated which is disappointing but if Simple wants to provide out of date content to it's 1 reader then who I am to stop them. Simple is the death of it's own making. –Davey2010Talk 12:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Social Media MarketingEdit

Was recently deleted after a 2-0 vote (ignoring the nominator) or 2-1 if we include the nominator, in spite of it existing in multiple other languages. Request undeletion and recreation. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, my closing comment on this one was "Although both responses were for keeping, I am deleting this article. The first response mentions that the article has been improved, including the addition of references. Unfortunately, if the article is kept the additions would have to be reverted because they are not in simple language. The second response mentions that multiple other Wikipedias have an article on this topic, but that is not a reason to keep this one; the other articles may be in better shape than this one, and other Wikipedias may have different criteria for keeping articles. We have to use the criteria for Simple English Wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees with this decision is welcome to bring it up at WP:Deletion review."
In addition, please note:
  • We do count the nominator.
  • RfD requests are not votes. Sometimes they are not decided according to the number of responses for keeping vs. deleting. It depends on the reasons given in the nomination and in the responses.
Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Once again, can this be recreated based on what exists on other Wikipedias? I believe you deleted this one in error. Blissyu2 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I went ahead and recreated both articles based on their notable versions on other wikis, since you were deleting based on current content, not on topic, which suggests that recreation is appropriate. Blissyu2 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The new article you created wasn't substantially different from the deleted one, so I have deleted it again. Because you started this discussion, please don't recreate it again until this discussion is closed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
If I may ask that you recuse yourself from future discussions, since you seem to have deleted this against policy, that'd be much appreciated. Thank you. Blissyu2 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I decline to recuse myself. All viewpoints should be taken into account, and I am entitled to give mine. Also, you have not explained what specific part of policy you think was violated. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete the recently created page. Deletion is not a clean-up. I believe that the newly created page clearly dealt with the concerns of the RFD -- which was the article being unsourced and information being not credible enough. There have been no concerns about the signifcance of the topic, and it's recreation should be allowed.-BRP ever 04:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. Can you also comment on Youssef Rzouga below? As both were deleted by the same admin with the same issues surrounding their deletion. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete because the topic definitely meets GNG. However !vote count never matters at RfD, and closes are not/should not be based on the number of people who !voted for or against something. --Ferien (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. Can you also comment on Youssef Rzouga below? As both were deleted by the same admin with the same issues surrounding their deletion. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Please be careful of WP:CANVASSING. This might be seen as one. Just a note not saying you did anything wrong. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Page restored - consensus to restore page. --IWI (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

S. Manikchand SinghEdit

This article is about a person who is notable enough. Please restore it. The notability guidelines says a notable person should have good contributions. He is an author of many books. All these info are cited with explicit information from Google Books, a good reference site. Besides, the page is available in other WMF too. Please restore it. We can re-develop it in better way. Deleting is too harsh for the article. Because there is no lack of adequate reliable references. We can't easily say that the arguments for deletion outweighs that of keeping in the RFD for that article. Please restore it. Haoreima (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  •   Oppose No. That article was deleted by community consensus. Only you and one other person opposed to the deletion. SHB2000 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
There's no case of counting heads. And if it's so, then two persons say keep, giving appropriate reasons. Two persons say "delete", where only one gives reasons, and another one (that's you) who gave no reason, even when asked by 3 people in different times. Haoreima (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Those 2 people who said "Keep" were I and @Sakura emad: and one of the people who suggested you to reply the reason of your "reason-less comment-delete" was @Ferien:. Haoreima (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not responding to you any further. You yourself know why it was deleted. They're non notable and fail the GNG criteria. *sigh*. And I presume you're deliberately excluding @Elytrian: here. SHB2000 (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Elytrian is excluded because he is the nominator of the RFD, so his sidewise comments can't be counted. Regards! Haoreima (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I am waiting for admin's reply, not yours. Thanks! And this is not a place for support or oppose! Haoreima (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Haoreima: Actually, this is a place for any user to support or oppose restoring—see the text at the top of the page. At RFD, people can support or oppose deleting, and here they can support or oppose restoring. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Haoreima, your "deliberately exclude people" behaviour needs to stop. This is a collaborative project, and such behaviour is unproductive and unconstructive. SHB2000 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no intention to any particular article, for which please see my comments on the RFDs of articles created by others too. I am just expressing my thoughts. Well, please do not charge false things on me. I don't like that! You can suggest me, that's not a problem but have no charge. Regards! Haoreima (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The delete comments held more weight with me. There doesn't appear to be any evidence they meet GNG. In fact that is a common problem with articles created by Haoreima and his creations should probably be gone through as I am guessing there are a lot of them that don't meet the standards for an article to exist. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    I agree. I'm sure a lot of them can be A4'd although given the fact that they call my nominations "disruptive", I'm a bit reluctant to do so. SHB2000 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support restoration I note that there were 2 for keep and 2 for delete in the RfD, and while Haoreima has a habit of voting to keep articles he has created, the other user advocating to keep it, Sakura emad, does not have such a reputation. Therefore, if we ignore Haoreima, there is still a 2-1 vote, which suggests "no consensus" to me rather than "delete". I note the comments of Sakura emad as follows: "Dear Ely this discussion should not be taken due to your reasons let me explain: i believe having this article on other wikis has nothing to do with Deletion Discussion Policy, we delete pages based on Rules such as -> if the article is Meaningless or copied from another Place (Copyright issue), or if the subject does not claim notable, and if not written in english && An obvious Hoax, Therefore we should not delete any articles if we thought that the article should not be here or if we simply do not like the article, sorry if my explanation sound rude to you i do not mean it 😊 thank you again". These carry great weight to me, and I think that we should restore the page and deem the outcome to be no consensus not delete. Blissyu2 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Just need to remind you that Rfd is not a vote count. An admin can close a discussion opposite the majority of votes at their discretion based on their reading of arguments. And if it were vote counting, you forgot the nomination counts as a vote so it was actually 3-2 anyway. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not done. No consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


  • R2 is only for redirects from mainspace to user or user talk space. This redirect was not to either of those spaces. Naleksuh (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:IAR. -Djsasso (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Or I could have even closed it as WP:SNOW. This seems like a disruptive listing. -Djsasso (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Closed what? Naleksuh (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The Rfd for the above redirect. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I created an appropriate page and redirected it. Cross-namespace redirects are to be avoided as much as possible, especially in cases where they have genuine mainspace use. It's just regular Housekeeping.-BRP ever 13:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@BRPever: Great. Yeah, I personally don't like redirects from article space to non-article space either, just that they do not qualify for CSDQD. It's cool that a new real page, Patrol, was gotten out of it too. Naleksuh (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: It looks like this is a redirect now. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Dc ThemmieEdit

@Gimmelover (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC) dc themmie an article for a singer was recently deleted by the Rfd saying it was not notable, Please am having good reliable sources to add to the article kindly restore or let me recreate it and add secondary sources for notability on wikipedia. pleaseGimmelover (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gimmelover: Some of the issues with that article were that people kept adding references they said were reliable, but in fact they were not reliable. Can you mention 2 or 3 references you have that you think are reliable and would show that the person is notable? Please don't include a long list of references here, just 2 or 3. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, @Auntof6 Here are some references

it remaining the other refernces but these are the only ones i gat for now, i will get the others from scooper news and Opera newsGimmelover (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gimmelover: Those websites seem to be fan-made. Anyone can make a Wix site. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sadly those references weren't reliable (since anyone can make a fan made wix site for free) and the subject fails the GNG criteria. SHB2000 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok i will look for relaible sources to add. What about the Fandom wiki profile of dc themmie, it was protected nowGimmelover (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gimmelover: No wiki is considered a reliable reference, not even Wikipedia itself, because anyone can edit them and there isn't the right kind of control over what gets published. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

ok, @Auntof6, thanks for letting me know, i always like your contribution to wikipedia, bravo keep it on, so can i also cite a magazine or newspaper online to his article when creating, make it clear for me, am confused there little, and then when i will be creating this article some of the deleted content in it are almost the same but not the same content just few of it are in there, for example the infobox and the short description is fairly the same as the one deleted b4 but it will have different references hope it dosent mattersGimmelover (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Given you created Dc Themmi (Singer)‎ when it was deleted via RfD, I've tagged it for G4. SHB2000 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

ok, but can't i create a page deleted via the Rfd when am having reliable references, cant i I like WikipediaGimmelover (talk). 07:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, @Gimmelover:, that the sources that you have provided are all fan-made, and therefore not reliable. See WP:CITE. Hockeycatcat (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No, because he's not notable, and unless he ever becomes notable, then he will not get an article SHB2000 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: We can't say he's not notable. All we can really say is that we haven't seen enough evidence that he's notable. That evidence (for the benefit of others here, because I know you understand this) would be in the form of statements that 1) show notability and 2) are supported by reliable sources. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • ok, thanks all, how can this artist be notable for wikipedia, will i add news,magazines and biographies citation to this article when creating. And then this artist is having over 200k plays, streams and downloads on Audiomack and spotify thanksI like WikipediaGimmelover (talk). 18:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gimmelover: What is needed is to show notability. To do that, it needs two things:
  1. To say things about the person that show he is notable (Some things that are not notable are the number of plays, streams, or downloads.)
  2. References from reliable sources documenting those things
Before you go any further, take time to read WP:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:Reliable sources. It doesn't help to keep suggesting sources if the sources aren't reliable. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see nothing notable on Google or in the references provided. Blissyu2 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this article will be useful on the wikipedia but only if it can be notable, I suggested this article should be recreated after some months cheers -- (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The amount of time that passes is not a factor. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not done no consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Shanooj (musician)Edit

Ferien selected article 'Mohammed Shanooj (musician)' for speedy deletion! The Article seems Notable and there are more references to stable. It contains no promotional, advertising, autobiography, or anything. Its view in neutral point of view. Please Undo/Remove your Block and Republish same article as soon as possible, because its Notable and need to be in wikipedias with policy. If you find any Mistakes or any manner, please edit it & improve you can or for other users instead of speedy deletion. UnknownEditor1234567890 (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  •   Oppose meets A4. SHB2000 (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not done. No consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Brij Kishore SharmaEdit

When the deletion tag added in the wikipedia page I research about him and get more sources about him now I have added all sources now you can review that page now the page has good references and I removed wrong references which are not reliable and I want to say something that when you click first reference you have to create an account to see it but don't fear about it because it is the official website of Government of India and after creating an account you have to reclick it and you will get his imformation which is reliable and notable because it is the official website of India and to make this process I have added achived link Thankyou 2405:201:3000:4110:A1AD:41DB:7329:2F1E (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  •   Oppose not notable. SHB2000 (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Restoration - This is a clearly notable figure who has an English Wikipedia article [6] that establishes notability. (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The article is about a different person. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not done. No consensus to restore.-BRP ever 14:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Los Rios Community College DistrictEdit

Los Rios Community College District is a college district, so it is definitely notable. Therefore, it should be restored. SkeletalDome$ (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @SkeletalDome$: Can you cite a notability guideline that covers college districts? Also, I note that Eptalon QD'd it under QD G4 (Recreation of a deleted page with the same or similar content), but no RFD links to this name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    According to Wikipedia guidelines, all colleges and universities as well as high schools are considered notable.
    • Where does it say this? Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll go further: no institution is notable by simply existing. It's just that some are so obvious that it doesn't need saying. Obviously not all college districts, colleges and universities round the world are notable. Otherwise we should be forced to say that various small places, ridiculous shams, or trivial cases are notable. What the guidance says in such cases is that the institutions may be notable. In other words, the case has to be made each time.
Also, it is absolutely wrong for an ordinary user to close the discussion prematurely, especially when some who voted against were not notified of its reappraisal. It was closed early to prevent further discussion. Shameful.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Since there is an article about this district on the English Wikipedia and it has never been deleted there, we can have an article about this district on this Wikipedia. So, the article should be restored. Thanks! SkeletalDome$ (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • The article I deleted mostly gave numbers; and at the time I interpreted it as a secondary-level (pre-university) eductation network, which seems to have been wrong, in hindsight. It looks like a number of colleges, under a common roof. TO me, this looks between a single university (with many campuses) and a group of universitis. --Eptalon (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Article restored, and nominated for deletion. Let's see what other people think about it.--Eptalon (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Idris of LibyaEdit

Rationale for deletion doesn't make sense: obviously a notable individual as they have an article at enwiki and multiple language Wikipedias. If restored, we can easily add information and citations from enwiki if they are needed. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, most-probably notable, if you look at en:Idris of Libya. The problem is just that what was deleted here was some graffitti, which didnt have to do muh which the subject in question. --Eptalon (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Skirt steakEdit

I doubt whether the article is too complex enough for a deletion. I edited the article in the same format as the other steak articles (listed here). I would like to hear other thoughts about this. Darubrub (Let me know) 18:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: Pinging Macdonald-ross --Ferien (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I would not object to all those pages being reinstated. Having said that, the terminology is basically North American. Why is that? why not pickup at least French terms and make it less one-dimensional? I don't see why we need to have a set of parallel pages, when they could all be put together under one heading. Many of the top chefs use French terms, at least in the UK. There's about 22 of these terms, and they could all be consolidated IMO. Anyway this is all beside the point. I agree the pages can be reinstated, and I apologise for not discussing them beforehand. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there a link to the 22 terms? Darubrub (Let me know) 18:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the French wiki categories at the time. There's 48 pages in the En wiki category; 22 in the French category. I think fewer than ten are regularly met on menus. If I was doing this area from scratch I would list those ten in English and French with a brief explanation of each, and do it on one page. Is it appropriate to do copies of all the separate pages? We know our readership is not sophisticated outside of pop culture! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Restore Definitely was not an A3. -Djsasso (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:SrinivasEdit

Was not eligible for U1. I’m not sure that this page is pure disruption too, so it should be restored. Darubrub (Let me know) 12:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Page restored I’m not quite sure why it was deleted, but it does not appear to be eligible for U1 as a legitimate talk page. --IWI (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


There needs to be an undeleting on the article Zambabi now. ( (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC))

Endorse deletion. The article was a clear hoax, based on the article about Tanzania. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Non-administrative closure - Obvious hoax per Auntof6 (and my research). Any user in good standing is welcome to re-create the article with reliable sources. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hienadz ShutauEdit

I believe the page would be undeleted because a big analytical story about the case has been just written by the Viasna Human Rights Centre.[1] There have been reactions:[2], [3], [4], [5] etc. Many articles have been written about court hearings [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. -- pr12402, May 8, 2021


  1. "Заключэнне экспертаў і аналітыкаў ПЦ "Вясна" па крымінальнай справе Аляксандра Кардзюкова і Генадзя Шутава" (in Belarusian). Viasna Human Rights Centre. 2021-05-06. Archived from the original on 2021-05-08. Retrieved 2021-05-08.
  2. "Европарламент принял резолюцию по Беларуси и вмешательству России" (in Russian). Radio France Internationale. 2020-09-17. Archived from the original on 2020-10-28. Retrieved 2021-02-17.
  3. "Санкции, международное расследование преступлений. Европарламент принял новую резолюцию по Беларуси" (in Russian). TUT.BY. 2020-11-26. Archived from the original on 2020-11-26. Retrieved 2020-11-26.
  4. Williams, Matthias; Nebehay, Stephanie (2021-02-25). Fletcher, Philippa (ed.). "Protester jailed in Belarus for 10 years as U.N. warns of 'human rights crisis'". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2021-02-26. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
  5. Brunner, Simone (2021-04-15). "Weißrussland - Kafka in Minsk: Lukaschenkos Säuberungen" (in German). Wiener Zeitung. Archived from the original on 2021-05-08. Retrieved 2021-05-08.
  6. Служба информации «БГ»; Шатило, Ирина (2021-02-16). "В Бресте судят Александа Кордюкова, который был вместе с Геннадием Шутовым, когда того смертельно ранили" (in Russian). Brestskaya Gazeta. Archived from the original on 2021-02-17. Retrieved 2021-02-17.
  7. "На судзе ў справе Шутава стала вядома, хто загадаў выкарыстоўваць узброеных вайскоўцаў падчас пратэстаў" (in Belarusian). Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 2021-02-17. Archived from the original on 2021-02-18. Retrieved 2021-02-18.
  8. "«Хацеў стрэліць у перадплечча». На судзе ў Берасьці стала вядома, хто забіў Генадзя Шутава" (in Belarusian). Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 2021-02-16. Archived from the original on 2021-02-18. Retrieved 2021-02-18.
  9. "Погибшего Шутова признали виновным, Кордюкову дали 10 лет. По делу о выстреле в Бресте огласили приговор" (in Russian). TUT.BY. 2021-02-25. Archived from the original on 2021-02-26. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
  10. "Александра Кордюкова и застреленного Геннадия Шутова признали виновными в сопротивлении сотрудникам при исполнении" (in Russian). Brestskaya Gazeta. 2021-02-25. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
  11. "10 лет по делу о выстреле в Бресте. Что рассказывают родные осужденных и адвокат" (in Russian). TUT.BY. 2021-02-25. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
  12. "Родные Шутова и Кордюкова назвали суд и приговор абсурдом, правозащитник – ширмой карательных задач" (in Russian). Brestskaya Gazeta. 2021-02-25. Archived from the original on 2021-02-26. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
Link to the RFD; Chenzw clsed as delete in December 2020... --Eptalon (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush and broccoliEdit

This page did not meet G7 criteria. It was not the author who requested deletion but instead, it was merged by someone else. There should have been a redirect, or it could have even been sent to RfD, but there was a consensus to keep and/or merge at the rfd last year here so the page definitely shouldn't have been deleted under G7.--Ferien (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What was the article mostly about? Darubrub (Let me know) 14:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
George H. W. Bush's dislike for broccoli, but it was found that this was actually covered quite a bit in reliable sources. It was merged, yes, but G7 does not apply here, as it was not the author requesting deletion, and, I believe, there were edits from several others.--Ferien (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Who is the original author then? Darubrub (Let me know) 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The author was not the person who deleted it, I know that for sure. That is why G7 does not apply. --Ferien (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, as far as I know, any useful or productive history should not be deleted, so I will just restore the page and redirect it.-BRP ever 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Has been merged, and is not appropriate for a stand-alone page. We can't have a situation where every incident in a long career has a separate page. Regard for the user comes before regard for the editor. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    However, G7 is for when an author blanks the page or requests deletion, not just another editor. And there was consensus at rfd to keep and merge. We have a redirect now, so it is fine. --Ferien (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick delete - asking to restore DaxxEdit

The page Daxx has been quickly deleted and I didn't have time to react. It did have enough notable sources and it was in the process of editing by me. I ask to restore it in order to make it look normal. --InAFlowX2 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User talk:

This page was incorrectly deleted as it didn't meet G8 criteria. It specifically says this cannot be used on user talk pages like it was here. --Belwine (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I support restoring. My understanding is that user talk pages are not deleted. The only exception I've seen is when the only posts that were ever on the page were vandalism, tests, etc. -- in other words, no actual real, meaningful communication. This talk page has had warnngs, so it should not have been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  Done, was restored by Macdonald-ross. --Ferien (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3Edit

An unusual DRV, I am not challenging the close per say as it's correct. I am troubled that sources of in depth review of the subject is provided in the enwp article en:Chicka_Chicka_1,_2,_3 and was duly analyzed in the enwp AFD the same nominator started, per en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chicka_Chicka_1,_2,_3. I am not sure whether a direct re-creation is allowed, hence, I am leaving it here on DRV to seek assistance. Per the enwp, it unanimous keeps with users finding in depth coverage (albeit behind a paywall) as well as saying that something called en:WP:BOOKCRIT is met, I do not know is this valid here but well given that we have a unanimous delete here vs a keep result on en, I am thinking can we re-look at this. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eptalon, Auntof6, Chenzw, Yottie, and ImprovedWikiImprovment: as users involved in the original discussion.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn indeed, the coverage enwiki users found (which we were unable to) is sufficient to meet BOOKCRIT, of course assuming good faith given the paywalls. --IWI (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Just for reference Discussion of 2020, Discussion of 2019. The only source in the EnWP article seems to be a paper/article of 2004; which of course was there at both discussions. 2019 discusssion was a no-consensus keep; 2020 discusision resulted in deletion. I think a re-creation is allowed; however given only that one source you'd probably have a hard time defending the article. Especially since the reference is behind a paywall...--Eptalon (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
EN user Haukur seemed to provide several in depth reviews, although all are paywall. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
There is more than one additional source mentioned in the RfD. --IWI (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
From a policy POIV it would be great if there was at least one freely-accessible source, wthout paywall. --Eptalon (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It would be good, but per en:WP:PAYWALL, this is not a requirement. --IWI (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Philippine Institute of Chemical EngineersEdit

Was deleted by Macdonald-ross for 2 reasons - G4 / G11. This is problematic in all cause. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers as the page had been kept at a RFD, QD requests cannot be carried out at all barring some circumstances (we don't have a local policy but per WP:FOLLOW and en:Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions), none of those criterias applies here. In addition, both QD criterions cannot be true. G4 isn't true as there is no RFD result that lead to delete as well as there is no resemblance here. G11 cannot be true too as the page have a non-infringing version that survived RFD (per talkpage which is also deleted, this cannot be deemed as G11 after community discussion), so it should be reverted to that. Overall the entire deletion was erroneous, and I wish the page can be restored. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Overturn - from what I can see, I doubt there was a valid reason to delete per G11 given the previous discussion, and G4 couldn't possibly have applied in that case either. --IWI (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross, this page was kept in an RfD under a week ago. Please try to be more careful. Best, Vermont (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC) fix ping Vermont (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Can the talk page for the article be restored as well please? PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  Done -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Kaho Naa Pyaar HaiEdit

Hi. There is a page called Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai that I created. For some reason, an admin deleted that page and it was an error. I worked hard on creating that page and none of the content that I put on that page was copyrighted. So can anyone of you please restore the page? Thanks. (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the page because the QD option used was not applicable in this case; option G4 is for use after an RFD, and there wasn't one in this case. This is not to say that the page won't be deleted for another reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6 Both the current version and the previous are copyvio, G4 surely is not valid but G12 does and you also restore a copyvio version. Am I correct to say so? Much appreciated any advices. CM-Public (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@CM-Public: G12 would apply if the text was copied. However, before I restored it, I looked at the IMDB page that was cited in the original request, and I didn't find a match. If I had found a match, I would have immediately deleted the article again after restoring it. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6 What I meant is the 1st 3 versions are copyvio, you shouldn't restore. Last few are full of copy pasting of different parts of the sypnosis, making it still copyvio with close paraphrasing in others. CM-Public (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
For the record, the page was re-deleted by Operator873 per CM's request. --IWI (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
For completeness, now User:Saroj Uprety had created a redirect to a clean, non-copyrighted version of the article which he created. I think this is the best result, copyright offending versions deleted, clean version created. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Gowri NadellaEdit

This page was originally deleted this morning due to a request from a bot asking for deletion of the article as I was trying to revise it. While the original draft lacked credible sources, I was able to find several credible news outlets that have published articles about Gowri Nadella, such as SEEMA Magazine, India Tribune, Nyota Magazine, and several other publications. I also revised the original draft by changing the verbiage to better fit that of a Wikipedia article. This article conveys the notability and significance of Gowri Nadella and meets the Wikipedia guidelines. I kindly request this article be brought back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2601:249:880:ab30:3406:9cf8:8965:9e42 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

see the RfD; the deletion discussion has been there for a week; in this week, 3 people agreed with the nominator, giving reasons. This resulted in 3 delete votes, and no keeps after the week, so it got deleted. I don't see a reason to undelete it, as most arguments are about the person (notability, and seach results), and not the article we had. --Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  (change conflict) Endorse closure - The discussion had a clear consensus, and the person does not appear to be notable at this time. If you can demonstrate some coverage here in this discussion that shows she is notable, the article can be recreated. So far, that has not been provided. --IWI (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Barron TrumpEdit

The page was originally quickly deleted last year by Macdonald-ross, which was contseted and restored by Vermont. Now the page has been deleted again by Macdonald-ross. I think this is a matter for RfD, not QD, especially given the objection by another sysop. It may not have been intentional, but it could be viewed as wheel warring. --IWI (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No comments on the admin part, but if this is a RFD I will per enwp en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barron_Trump_(2nd_nomination) (do see the 1st one too), both ended up with just redirecting which I am also keen to. He isn't that famous as per his siblings, and a redirect and content placed within Trump article should be okay. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I too support deletion/redirection, but I think that the decision should be one for the community and not QD. --IWI (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That's why I say no comments for the rest of the action (yet), I haven't have time to think through it properly. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 (change conflict)    Checking... Chenzw  Talk  11:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No RfDs were found on file for the subject of the article. As a point of clarification, we may refer to EN's AfD decisions for reference (and tend to do so), but we do not automatically inherit them.
  • The article as of 21 May 2020 (before Mac's original deletion) is substantially similar to the current version of the article (as of 14 January 2021, before Mac's subsequent (re-)deletion).
  • An article can be QD'd under A4 only if there is no claim to notability in the article. This is similar to EN's CSD A7.
  • QD A4 does not mean that the subject of the article was found to be not notable. Whether the subject of an article is notable or not, is a decision to be made at RfD, and not summarily via the QD mechanism.
  • The deletion policy explicitly excludes the following from QD eligibility. This is consistent with QD A4 reasoning, which I have also elaborated on ST.
  • Subjects that are obviously unimportant, but claim to be important: Articles that are about obviously unimportant subjects are still not allowed for quick deletion unless the article does not say why the subject is important....
  • A claim to notability exists in the article: the son of US President Donald Trump.
  • Notability is not inherited is an invalid QD reason.
In lieu of above, I am restoring the article and sending it to RfD. Chenzw  Talk  11:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Barron Trump now correctly redirects, but the Donald Trump page says nothing at the point of redirect entry. Even I think it should say a few words there! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

2020 requestsEdit


Hi there, my userpage had recently been deleted due to it being blank, however, I left it that way as I was going to copy some templates from my history, then add them to my global page, then ask for it to be deleted. Please undelete the page, thank you. rollingbarrels (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Restored all revisions, I left the page at the blank revision. Chenzw  Talk  12:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for deleting it, I interpreted it as "user requested deletion or blanked the page".--Eptalon (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
No worries. rollingbarrels (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I have rewritten a complete article please do notdelete it. Thank you


10:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC) 3 or more days ago I Saw My Page called " List of Swallow falls Presidents" Deleted. Could you please undelete it User:ShadowBallX2?,Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat885 (talkcontribs) 19:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kat885: I oppose restoring. The page didn't give any context as to what the article was about. If you can clarify that, we might be able to restore it. I'll also note for others that all of your other page creations seemed related and have also been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I just nominated the page for deletion. I didn't actually delete the page. I just suggested it to be deleted. I am unable to restore it, as I am not an Admin here. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy (view)Edit

The page Philosophy (view) was deleted for being a duplication, presumably of the page Philosophy. However, the two pages differ in that Philosophy is for the definition 'the academic discipline which studies fundamental principles', whereas Philosophy (view) is for the definition 'a set of ideas or theories about a particular subject' (similar to a en:School of thought). For example, ethics is a branch of study within philosophy, but determinism is a philosophy in the sense of being a certain philosophical viewpoint. (For sources see the various definitions at: "Philosophy". Cambridge Dictionary Online. Cambridge University Press. and "Philosophy". Dictionary. Merriam-Webster.). If the verdict is still to delete the page then that's fine too (and granted I hadn't yet cited or expanded much), but hopefully I've cleared things up a little. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the concepts are sufficiently different? - I know that we only have stubs, but look at Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Idealism or Liberalism. Would it not be better to introduce a category in our system; but if we do, but then, why are Liberalism and Liberty not in the same category? - What do you suggest, we do a rgular RfD, to discuss? --Eptalon (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I will agree with @Eptalon, the concepts seems the same here. However, since it's sort of contested, and QD aren't to be contested especially a deletion with reason as (duplicate page - which doesn't fit any of QD criterion - other than G6 but that needs to be uncontroversial which isn't the case here), let's do RFD, my !vote there will be a redirect as redirect seems cheap. If they are ok with just redirecting, just create one and we have one less RFD to do. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think particularly since Simple English is for those with limited English, the difference between the concepts should be addressed in some way. Alternative solutions could be to replace the use of the word "philosophy" in the second sense with "set of ideas" / "viewpoint in philosophy", to link to an entry on Simple Wiktionary that explains the two definitions, or to include an explanation of both concepts in the lead section of the article Philosophy (which is already becoming a fairly messy article). As it stands, enwiki has a page for en:Philosophy as a field of study, and for en:School of thought as a certain viewpoint (however this term is prone to even more confusion). I do think that it can be confusing for those who may not know the word "philosophy" to read something like "Hedonism is a type of philosophy" (this is currently the opening sentence to the Hedonism article). When they follow the link, the article only addresses philosophy as a field of study, whereas hedonism is a viewpoint and not a field of study. Those are my general concerns at least. Oeqtte (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Restored the article since it is now clear that both articles are not exact duplicates. The degree of overlap and whether that justifies a separate article can be discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Philosophy (view). Chenzw  Talk  15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:つがる/Articles CreatedEdit

  • I only wanted the redirect from my old username that led to this page deleted. I think there was a miscommunication from myside, sorry. For the new page (above), can it be restored? --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Jordan ManganEdit

The page was deleted for the reason "Recreation of a deleted page with the same or similar content." To contrast this, the page was created with unalike content and more sources that would only warrant a request for deletion, not a quick deletion. As per Simple Wikipedia's general rules, "Creation of content that is already deleted. It includes an identical or similar copy. Before deleting again, the Administrator should be sure that the content is similar and not just a new article on the same subject." This article was not an identical or similar copy. In addition to that, more sources were integrated that would be in opposition to the initial deletion.

Manorial Lordship of CaldecoteEdit

Hello, I created this page and it was deleted without discussion, appropriate tags or any of the guidelines that the community has set. The deleting admin has a history of doing so and this is, in all honesty, pretty discouraging. A proper discussion for the deletion is the way the community works and I believe one should have been taken up before the page getting deleted. I assume good faith here but the deleting admin's pattern and history of doing the same over and over again suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, I would like the more civil and experienced people to please review the article and also discuss with Macdonald Ross about the right way to going about deleting pages. Thanks. NotHappening3000 (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Deletion review isn't a place to voice your complaints about a user, we have different platforms for that. Focus on the article itself and explain why it shouldn't have been deleted, bearing in mind the reason given. The page was deleted under our quick deletion criteria, which means it didn't need discussion because the community has decided that artices that meet certain critera do not need to be discussed. In this case, it was deleted as a copyright violation. If indeed it was a copyright violation, it will not be restored; you are not allowed to upload copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Administrators can view the deleted page and check whether it was or not. --IWI (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd definitely like to take it up on those platforms too. Would highly appreciate if you can guide me to those places. Nonetheless, I'd like to learn how it violated any copyrights. I had taken up the time to make sure the content was plagiarism-free. If there was anything that violated copyrights, I should at least be notified about it. Or should at least know how the article violates copyrights. This would help me fix such issues and avoid them in the future too.NotHappening3000 (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not finding exact text from the article anywhere. @Macdonald-ross:, as the admin who deleted the article, can you help? Where did you find that text in the article was copied from? Just a note to people who delete for copyvio in the future: it's helpful if you indicate somewhere where the text was copied from. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I humbly apologise for deleting this article. I can only find evidence which is consistent with it, and which does not show copyvio. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Jalal MovgaharEdit

Hi there Je souhaiterais si possible que vous restauriez Jalal Movaghar qui a été supprimé récemment svp. D'après le Wikipédia Français si une personne est le Maire d'une ville avec plus de 100.000 habitants, il a droit à son article dans wikipédia. Jalal Movaghar était sous le Règne du Shah d'Iran Maire et Gouverneur de la ville de Khorramshahr avec largement plus de 100.000 habitants. Donc si vous voulez bien restaurez l'article je vous remercie ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2FE0:D7A0:F94C:65F5:6C58:7D2D (talkcontribs) 05:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As a reference, RfD of March 2020, RfD of April 2018. The RfD of 2018 was to keep (no consensus), the one of 2020 to delete the article.The IP editor suggests the article be restored. According to FrWP (link above): A mayor of a city of more than 100.000 people is notable. IIRC the city we are talking about has about 130.000 people; it is comparable to Limoges, in France. --Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - Firstly the only vote in the recent RfD was delete, so there is no way the closing admin was really in error. In any case, I would not support restoring this article as the subject has nowhere near enough coverage from what I can find. Can the claim that he was mayor even be backed up? NPOLITICIAN requires "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", which this person does not have. Simply being the mayor of a city of over 100,000 is not enough. --IWI (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi there Here references about Jalal Movaghar ː

Books about this person his biography with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi à la Cour du Roi

  1. Sālnāmah-i Kishvar-i Īrān
  2. Namāyandagān-i Shūra-yi Millī dar bīst va yak dawrah-ʼi qānūnguz̲ārī:
  3. Dastchīnī az nivishtahʹhā-yi Ḥasan Ṣadr
  4. Sunh'ati Shudan-i Iran va Shurish-i Sheekh Ahmed Madani
  5. فرهنگ جغرافىاىى آبادىهاى کشور، استان خوزستان
  6. بررسى مراكز فرهنگى شهرهاى استان خوزستان
  7. Kitāb-i nigāhī bi-tārīkh-i Khūzistān
  8. تارىخ دورۀ[MARC+20]صفوية

Réferences ː

  1. Mayor under the Shah
  2. Mon Best Seller
  3. تشکیل هیئت تبلیغات اسلامی در خرمشهر
  4. Unidivers Web Magazine

Pour l'instant c'est ce que j'ai trouvé je vais encore cherché d'autres sources .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e35:2fe0:d7a0:a965:cd01:a305:d4c0 (talkcontribs) 04:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Other References ː

  1. Jalal Business man

Jaleh MovagharEdit

The article Jaleh Movaghar was delete.Pourriez-vous je vous prie le restaurer svp ? Elle a travaillé pour des Emissions super connues en Iran connues de tout le pays et qui ont (les émissions) beaucoup de fans...

voici les références ː
Khabar e Farsi News

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar (TV series)Edit

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.

  • Sandesh9822 Please add your reason for this review below. --IWI (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong to delete the article before the scheduled time. I have added about 40 English and Marathi references to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar (TV series) article, which is enough to prove that the article is notable. If any user does not know Marathi language, then it is not my fault. He/she can take help of any Marathi Wikipedian to check Marathi references. But it is absolutely wrong to invalidate Marathi references. I have added references to each sentence of the article, which are all from reliable newspapers. The article should be reinstated and other users should also vote there, so far only two users have voted. Sandesh9822 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I have some questions that might help us evaluate this:
  • @Naleksuh: What made you think that the sources given weren't reliable? At the time you added the RfD request, there were 22 references listed. Some may have been duplicates, and some were from the same source (for example, The Times of India), but there were still multiple sources. (As an aside, 16 more references were added before the page was deleted.)
  • @Operator873: What was your rationale for closing the RfD early?
Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh my... until this message I hadn't noticed those were due to close on the 25th. That is solely on me and my bad. An uninvolved sysop could/should restore the page and the debate. Operator873talkconnect 21:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I have reopened the discussion and restored the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Archiving this. Deletion reversed. --IWI (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Category:Subdivision of the United KingdomEdit

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.

Not sure why this was closed as delete. Consensus is clearly to keep. The purpose of an RfD is for editors to determine whether an article should be deleted by policies and guidelines, not for the closing admin to choose whatever they want. Naleksuh (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there were two editors who voted: me and Djsasso. I voted keep, and Djsasso seemed to vote for a weak delete (please correct me if different). It was my understanding that we were at an agreement that there was no harm in keeping. Auntof6 also made comments that didn't seem to lean either way. Consensus did not seem to lean to delete. No policies or guidelines were cited by the closing admin Eptalon. I hate to say this, but it does seem like another case of a self-opinion close. I know this is nothing major (as it is only a redirect) but this behavior can't happen IMO. A reminder that you are supposed to determine consensus, taking comments about policies and guidelines into account. IWI (chat) 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: For what it's worth, keep in mind that the nomination counts as a "vote" to delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, ImprovedWikiPimprovemenmt: Once again: Admins are the people who take decisions, a Rfd is not a vote, even if it may look like one to some people. And Rfds need to be closed. So a decision is taken. But what I see more and more: If there is an RfD that is closed in another way than you expect you take this to deletion review, and perhaps get another round of voting. So: Accept the decisions admins take (they were elected for this), and focus on providing better content.--Eptalon (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Its a bit like Brexit: In 2016, 52% (rounded) were in favor of leaving the European Union - the UK left the EU January 31st, 2020. It is irrelevant, if those who voted knew what they'd vote for, or whether the majority of those who were in favor of staying in the EU didn't take part in the referendum, nor even if any of those who voted changed their opinion since then. --Eptalon (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Eptalon. First of all, I did not take this to deletion review, Naleksuh did. Believe me, I know this very well. You don’t need to tell me that discussions are not votes. RfDs are not votes, but they are a place for the community to come to a consensus by discussing the policies and guidelines involved. You have seemed to ignore the discussion entirely and take the decision for yourself. And no, I will not simply accept the decisions taken by admins. They are members of the community like the rest of us. Your opinions are not above those of the community, and thus you can’t simply close RfDs without taking the community discussion into account. IWI (chat) 09:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
in the current case: 1 delete, 1 keep, and one that can be read either way. Plus one comment. Clear keep?

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The admins are supposed to take the discussion into account, but that doesn't mean the decision will go according to how many people "voted" each way. The decision is to be made according the the arguments made for and against deleting. That being said, here are the arguments made and how I would have evaluated them:

  • "Almost zero pageviews." This shouldn't be a criterion for deleting any page, especially a redirect. Even zero incoming links wouldn't be a criterion.
  • "Unneeded category." Unneeded according to whom/what? It's a redirect; you expect it to be unneeded most of the time.
  • "Wrong title." "Redirects can have the wrong name." "In case the wrong name is used, it would redirect." It's normal for a redirect to have a wrong title -- it redirects to the correct title.
  • "What is improved by removing it?" The only thing I can think of is that we'd see one less entry when looking through some of our databases. However, we usually say that redirects are cheap (although that usually applies to articles rather than categories), so that wouldn't be much of a consideration.

If I missed any, let me know. I did leave out some that seemed to me to be personal opinion not based on any kind of policy or procedure, because that does not need to be taken into account.

Based on all of that, I am going to reverse the deletion. In taking that action, I am making no statement about whether I think the page should exist, just that I think the case wasn't made for deletion. Anyone who wishes can open a new RFD if they feel they can make a better case.

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Please do not make an issue of thanking me for this, nor of piling on to the admin whose decision you disagreed with. You are correct when you say that admins' opinions are not above those of the community, but everyone here is doing their best and there will be occasional disagreements. The way you phrased some of your comments border on accusing someone of acting in bad faith. Please try to assume good faith and just make your case without making it personal.

Now I usually stay out of most RFDs so that I'm able to be an uninvolved admin and thus able to close them. However, I will try to comment on them more in case I can add to discussions like this one, in the hope that I can make valid points that will help the closing admins. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, I want to challnge above closure, based on the following: As I wrote further up, in the discussion above we had one delete vote (by the nominator), one keep vote (by ImprovedWikiImprovement), and one borderline delete vote (which can also be seen as a keep, by DJSasso. So, its basically a 1:1, with some interpretation as to whether DJSasso's vote is more of a keep, or a delete. So, you toss a coin, and depending on whether it is heads or tails, you keep or delete the page. I find it totally inappropriate that this page is used to overturn an admin decision, when this admin clearly acted in good faith. Taking the decision to keep is equally problematic, because it all depends on how you judge the vote that can be seen either way. (And its just interepting this vote differently). If there's no gross negligence, but simply an admin taking a decison in a perfectly respectable case, this decision must not be overturned by another admin. Comments? --Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The entire point of this page is to review and possibly overturn admin decisions, and we always assume good faith. It is completely independent of "gross negligence". Also, you seem to have a small misunderstanding of potential discussion outcomes. When there's a split, an admin's close isn't a supervote to decide between the two; rather, it is often best to close as "no consensus" or relist it for more discussion. You aren't forced to pick one side or the other, and your decisions are not uncontestable. Yes, we elect administrators to determine and enact the consensus of discussions, but if people disagree on what the result should have been they have every right to question it. We give trusted community members more buttons, not dictatorial decision-making power. Best, Vermont (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Vemont, that's not what I was trying to say, let's rephrase: In a situation, where one elected admin took a decision to keep, or to delete (which, is irrelevant here), this decision should be respected by the other admins. After all, the admin was exterting a function given to him by the community. Re-voting (or making the community re-vote) an issue until I like the outcome is not an option. This is a small wiki, and the adminsh sohlud act as a team; this involves respectiing admin decisions that were taken in good faith. --Eptalon (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Admins can make mistakes. It is assumed that all admins act in good faith all of the time. DRV is to review any errors that an admin has made. Nobody is accusing you of acting in bad faith. IWI (chat) 14:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not a remotely acceptable reply. Again, you were not elected to have dictatorial powers, and your decisions can be questioned. The same argument you made here can be applied if I were to, hypotheticaly, block your account; would I not be exerting a function given to me by the community? Yes, but that function would not have been exercised in line with community consensus. The point of this page is to determine if a RfD close was in line with community consensus. You're not even arguing that your close was justified, you're arguing that other contributors don't even have a right to say it wasn't. That's not remotely in line with the concept of every administrator and editor being equally valued. If you want the admins to be a happy team, which for the most part we are, don't take criticism as heresy and disagreement as malice. Any administrative action can be questioned by any member of our community, and no one is immune from responsibility. Vermont (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
In future I would suggest you instead vote on RfDs you have opinions on or at least not close them. Your closing message on this one read more like a delete vote than a determination of consensus. And yes, to agree with Vermont, all admin actions can be scrutinised by our community. Your suggestion that the deletion review page should only be for gross negligence or acts in bad faith is absurd, as if an admin was acting in bad faith, they would not remain an admin for very long. Presumably, admins never act in bad faith. Also, admins are equals to other editors; they do not have extra power to decide how an RfD should end up. I will say again that such suggestions from an administrator greatly undermines our trust in the admin toolset. IWI (chat) 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  A few observations from me about this particular RfD, and if you have known me for a while, you will know that this is going to be another mini-essay/history lesson:

  1. RfDs do not override policies and guidelines on the wiki. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion itself specifically requests that nominating editors read and understand "[t]he Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion" (note: not QD policy). This is why we can have RfDs ending up with a SNOW or "speedy keep" result. The takeaway here is that RfD nominations, !votes, and closures must be informed by policy. You cannot, for example (and this is a crude one), nominate a random article with just the reason "I don't like it" and expect it to be gone, even if said RfD somehow gains a majority of delete votes (thankfully, the community has not gone mad enough to make such a scenario a reality). More often than not, disagreements/discussion in an RfD are a result of different editors using different yardsticks and interpretations of policy (particularly the entire umbrella of notability guidelines).
  2. This particular RfD involves the discussed deletion of a category (soft) redirect. The category redirect was created as a result of Wwikix moving Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom to Category:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, and subsequently re-categorizing the child categories to use the plural form of the category name. This action is consistent with the categorization guideline for set categories.
  3. This wiki has an assortment of RfDs involving category naming as noted below. Do note that the list is not to be confused with the other kind of RfDs about whether articles should be categorized in X way in the first place (example: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Category:People who were cremated).
  4. Particularly observant editors may realise that the 2018 and 2019 RfDs above are not strictly about category naming, but these two particular examples do not detract from the main point that I am about to make.
  5. Now, in the above few RfDs, there is a mix of RfDs that (1) closed with a category redirect being created and (2) closed with outright deletion. In my view, the distinguishing factor in those RfD results, was the evaluation as to whether it is reasonably likely that an informed editor would categorize future articles under the old name. Category redirects, like ordinary redirects, are an aid to point to the correct name, except that mainspace redirects are for readers while category redirects are for editors. This is consistent with WP:CATRED and the essay that is linked in the CATCRED guideline.
  6. It is not in dispute that Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom (singular) is incorrect per our categorization guidelines. What should be evaluated is thus, would a future informed editor be reasonably likely to attempt to categorize articles in the same way? ImprovedWikiImprovment and Djsasso appear to disagree on this.
  7. About Dj's vote: this, to me, looks more of a delete vote than a keep vote. What Dj wrote in their vote can be split into three parts:
    • Generally I am only really a fan of Category redirects when they are absolutely necessary.: this is consistent with en:WP:CATCRED, which prescribes "limited circumstances" under which a category redirect is made.
    • There is no harm in keeping it of course.: Djsasso has consistently held the view that redirects are cheap: 1, 2, 3.
    • But I personally would delete it.: If anything, the fact that Dj said this, despite their general view that redirects are cheap, appears to me that this is a Delete vote from him, and that he does not believe that this particular category redirect is "absolutely necessary".
  8. The real question here is, is there consensus in the RfD as to whether this category redirect meets the criteria in point (5)? Perhaps not, but it is also hard to tell when RfD participation is generally low on this wiki. Chenzw  Talk  18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, my vote was clearly a delete because I said I would delete. Little surprised it was confused. And think it was more than ridiculous that this was brought here on a Rfd with only two contrary votes. Very disruptive and the comments above by IWI are shameful and bordering on attacks. Admins describe their reasoning all the time, which often goes more in depth than just saying "Kept", just because Eptalon described why he decided the way he did, does not make it a bad close especially when there was one keep and one delete. I am very disappointed in the ridiculousness above. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict) @Djsasso: Not sure why you have referred to my comments as shameful. Could you give examples? They tended to mirror comments by Vermont. Were his comments "shameful" too? I clearly stated that your vote leaned to delete above. IWI (chat) 22:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes I also don't like his. They appear to me to be misconstruing what Eptalon is saying just so you all can pile on and attack him. That fact that this was even brought here is completely ridiculous. (not that it can't be brought here, to be clear so I also don't get jumped on) But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. -Djsasso (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I was simply adding my views to this (which was not started by me, by the way). I'm not attacking him and neither is Vermont. If you actually read what he wrote, you will see why Vermont said what he did. IWI (chat) 22:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to contribute further to this discussion. I will say that I do not and would never attack people and feel upset that that could have been how it was viewed. I am sorry to Eptalon if he felt attacked by me; that was never my intention. As I said above, I don't think Eptalon acted in bad faith. I don't want any more negativity. Let's just improve the encyclopedia, which is what we are all here to do. :) kind regards, IWI (chat) 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's say someone makes a change to an article in good faith. Let's say it's not even just in good faith. Let's say there is nothing at all against the rules about that change.
Now let's say someone else starts a discussion on the talk page about whether the article was better before and maybe we should change it back.
That's not an accusation against the first editor. That's not disrespect to the first editor. That's just how Wikipeidas work. It's explicitly how they are supposed to work.
So if an admin makes a decision in good faith that's not inconsistent with our ideas of what an admin should do and then someone starts a discussion of "maybe we should reverse that decision," that's not disrespect; it's not disruption. It's what we are supposed to do. Naleksuh didn't even mention the name of the admin who did the deletion (rightly so), because strictly speaking it isn't important which admin made the move. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Except in that scenario a second Rfd would be the equivalent, ie nothing was done wrong we just don't like the outcome, DRV is very much not for "I didn't like result". The other option is a discussion to change the guideline/policy to what the community actually wants it to be. DRV is specifically about "close was done against policy" and is explicitly saying admin didn't do it right. Coming here can also being seeing as implying they were acting in bad faith which is very different than your scenario. -Djsasso (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I was not trying to imply that the admin was acting in bad faith. I think that is a very bold claim, but is not the case here. I simply thought that the consensus in this rfd was to keep, even though it was closed as delete. That doesn't mean that the admin who closed as delete was acting in bad faith. Naleksuh (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Not really all that bold. Your comment here very much is an attack on the closing admin. "not for the closing admin to choose whatever they want" -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Is the horse we are flogging still alive? --Eptalon (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Ilse ArtsEdit

The request here was closed as kept by Eptalon despite there being "zero" keep votes. The article fails WP:GNG per the nominator, Chenzw's, statement. IWI (chat) 19:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the closing admin informed me on IRC that it was a "political decision", based on the idea of treating Olympians and Paralympians equally. If reliable sources don't cover Paralympians as much as Olympians, this is not our fault or problem. We reflect the attitude of mainstream society; not change it (as said by Darkfrog24). We should be as biased as reliable sources, as that is our job. IWI (chat) 00:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
As the closing admin, I'll comment once more: Supposing that we admit that the Paralympic and the Olympic games are equal in notabiliy, then winning a medal in one is the same as winning a medial in the other. Yes, I know, that press coverage is much less in the Paralympics than it is with the olympics.Also note: a closutr of an RfD is a decision by an admin, it is not an automatism. We don't need admins to simply count the number of votes of each side, and then d what the side with more votes wants. So, given our situation, and a comment by a long-standing contributor, Gotanda, I took a political decision: Mrs Arts had a car accident, and has been using a wheelchair for a long time. Not only for Mrs Arts, but also for many other wheeelchair users, it is important to see them for what they achieved, and not look at what they can no longer do. Given my very first statement, about the two competitions being equal, Simple English Wikipedia must not exclude a wheelchair user who won a Paralympic medal (at a team sport). Yes, the decision I took was a political one, but I don't think it was a bad one. --Eptalon (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, the point at issue is that the close should reflect editors' comments. Not to say, of course, that your feelings are not entirely admirable: just to say that in this capacity the closer is supposed to be a mechanism! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
To continue from Macdonald-ross's comment above, there is very little precedent on other Wikimedia projects where the effect on readers of an article's existence has been considered to override the general notability guideline; perhaps it shpuld be discussed more thoroughly in a community space. I will also note that, as you apparently have a view contrary to those of all other editors who participated, it would probably have been better if you added a !vote rather than closing it yourself, leaving it for an administrator with less strong views on the topic to assess community input rather than deciding it in their favor. Best, Vermont (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: Thank you for the reply. While you are correct that the closing admin does not simply count the votes, they do determine consensus. There is no way any person could reasonably determine from that RFD that consensus was to keep. You shouldn’t take into account who did the votes either in my opinion. Comments by IPs should not be taken with any more merit than those by more experienced editors; the content of the comments should be taken into account. The "delete" voters cited the relevant guidelines in relation to the article's notability. For these reasons, I do not see your decision in the closure of this RFD to be reasonable. IWI (chat) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support keeping the article. It meets en:WP:NOLYMPICS, which states "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". Ms. Arts has won a medal at the Paralympic Games, so she is presumed notable. Some of the sports notability requirements are less obvious because they only need to have done a certain thing (as in this case) or played in certain leagues (such as the association football leagues listed here to be considered notable: one doesn't need references to show anything beyond that to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Hmm. It was my understanding from comments by Djsasso at a previous RfD, as well as Chenzw, that the General Notability Guideline overrides any specific notability guideline (hence the name, general). This is because it is impossible to write an article within the rules without enough sources. Are you saying that if there were no reliable sources it could still be kept under NOLYMPICS. Because that does not sound right to me. An article must first have enough reliable coverage to be included. IWI (chat) 22:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: There should be a reliable source to show that the person did the thing (in this case, won a medal at the Paralympic Games). This article has that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: In my eyes, an article should pass GNG and the specific guideline to be included. This one fails GNG. IWI (chat) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I was under the impression that what Djsasso says here is how it should work. IWI (chat) 22:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: en:Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which contains the text I quoted above, says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (The italics are mine.) That says that it only needs to meet one, not both. As for what Djsasso said, if you mean where he said "if they meet GNG it doesn't matter what NSPORTS says", I'd agree, but that just means that a person doesn't have to pass the sport-specific guideline if they already pass GNG. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Well the notability guidelines are ultimately based on media coverage. I think the most important thing in relation to notability is that there are enough reliable independent sources about the person. Everything else is secondary. If the guidelines say that this is not the case, I think they should be amended. Using the logic of "only having to meet one", you could technically have someone with no coverage in any source still being allowed an article, and that is not right. It is important to note that no guideline is a firm rule in any case. IWI (chat) 22:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The guidelines are based on what makes someone/something notable. The way we show that notability is by 1) saying what the notable thing is and 2) using a source to provide evidence of the notable thing. So it's the combination of a notable thing and a supporting source that shows notability. A source alone doesn't do that: people get mentioned in the media for things that do not make them notable (for example, being born, getting married, dying, graduating from high school or college, being in a man-on-the-street interview). This article mentions a thing that the guideline says is notable, and gives a source for it. You're entitled to your opinion on whether the guidelines are adequate, and you are entitled to consider them non-binding because they aren't policies, but as far as notability, guidelines are all we have. If you're going to say that we need more in this case because WP:Notability is only a guideline, then another person could make the case that we don't need any sources at all because en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources is also only a guideline. If you think a guideline should be changed, you're welcome to propose a change. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
You make some good points. In any case, the RfD should not have been closed as keep as the consensus could not possibly have been interpreted as being that. A closing admin's job is to determine consensus from others, not decide it from their own views. It would have been better if Eptalon had voted keep himself. As for the article itself, we shall see what others think. IWI (chat) 22:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
It is also the closing admin's job to evaluate guidelines/policies and the arguments made in the discussion, not just to count how many people say keep and how many say delete. Sometimes that makes the decision go against what the consensus appears to be. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
If the admin can decide for themselves what should happen to the article against a clear consensus, why should we bother with the RfD process in the first place? As stated above, consensus isn't a vote, but in this case, the consensus was fairly clear. Maybe if Eptalon had have added this as a vote, then the consensus could then be considered to be in the opposite direction. I think admins and crats should keep their opinions out when closing anything based on community consensus. IWI (chat) 23:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this case yet so I am saying this in general and not specific to this case. Consensus at a single Rfd discussion can't override policy. It is an admins job to weigh how much the arguments have a basis in policy/guideline. They can in rare cases say there is "no consensus" as opposed to "keep" if the arguments in the discussion do not align with policy. But like I said, I haven't yet looked to see if that is the case here. -Djsasso (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Since my comments where mentioned above, I should maybe make them a bit more clear. As someone who was actually heavily involved in the creation and shaping of NSPORTS (including what is in NOLYMPICS) over the years I can tell you the intention of subject notability guidelines are meant to be used as rules of thumb as to when an article is at a very high likelihood of meeting GNG. They are meant to help people in discussions to realize when there are likely sources out there that aren't already on the article. They meant to do things like protect pre-internet athletes who are notable but to prove it likely means going to physical newspaper archives at libraries or whatever to prove. You can think of them as a bit of a stay of execution, however that stay is not permanent and if challenged they can be deleted as long as the nominator did a good faith search for such sources and could find none. People often think that meeting one of the SNGs means it automatically gets kept, that isn't true. But the opposite is also true, not meeting it doesn't mean that it automatically gets deleted. GNG in the end is the arbiter of all, if it has multiple sources that prove notability it gets an article full stop. There is an FAQ at en:Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ that we created to help people understand the purpose of NSPORTS. I should point out that the quote that Auntof6 quotes is one that has been battled over for years but we haven't be able to find a suitable replacement, it actually means you have to have sources that prove they meet the criteria below. The or doesn't mean they can meet either the SNG or the GNG just that you have to have sources if you say they meet the GNG or SNG. -Djsasso (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I also feel I should correct Auntof6's very incorrect view of what notability is. In wikipedia terms Notability is the presence of sources that talk about the subject in depth. It is not the combination of a thing that makes them notable and a source. The multiple sources themselves is what makes them notable (though of course the sources will be about some thing, but that thing can be anything). What she is referring to when she says being born or man on the street interviews is called routine coverage and would fail the requirement of being "in depth" when determining notability. To be honest I am a little shocked you have edited wikipedia this long and had notability completely backwards. -Djsasso (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I find fault in the closing admin injecting their personal opinion and overriding the community's consensus on this item. Furthermore, policy and guideline changes should only be made with community consensus and should never be considered the onus of a single person, regardless of their status as an editor or administrator. The governing body of any Wikipedia project is the community itself. The guidelines are a historical documentation of the community's will. Those guidelines/policies are able to be changed, and sometimes should be changed, but only at the direction of the community. The current direction is to establish notability with significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources. A subject may, indeed, be notable; however, the burden is on the editor to prove that notability. If the notability is not proven with these sources, then notability is not established. My suggestion is this discussion be closed to further comment immediately, and the article be sent back to requests for deletion should a member of the community find it still lacking proof of notability. Lastly, I remind all of my fellow sysops we are to weigh the statements of individual editors and determine how the scales have decided the issue at hand. Closing sysops should not have participated in the discussion, nor should they have strong opinions on the subject matter at hand. We cannot and should not put our thumbs on the scale to overrule a consensus. Doing so undermines the community's trust in our toolkit. Operator873talkconnect 14:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above by Operator873. I had originally planned to start this as a second RfD, but found DRV to be more appropriate. A second RfD should be started. The main aim of the disussion was not really about the article, but whether it is appropriate for an administrator to close a RfD as kept (against a consensus) from their own opinions. I hope Eptalon, and any other admins, do not repeat such conduct again. Considering the main job of a bureaucrat is to determine consensus in very important discussions including requests for adminship, I find this quite concerning. Should we now have to worry about an RfA being closed as unsuccesful with no oppose votes? I would imagine not, but as Operator said above, such conduct undermines the community's trust in the admin toolkit. IWI (chat) 16:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
An admin doesn't just weigh consensus, but also the arguments have to be weighed against policy. If none of the keep/delete votes in a discussion are based in policy an admin can decide the keep/delete. So yes an admin could very well close an RfA as unsuccessful with no oppose votes. Votes in an RfA have to be policy based. If consensus on a given policy has changed then a discussion to change the policy needs to be made at which point another RfA can be held. But to sum up, yes an admin can close with no votes matching their close if all the comments in a discussion are not policy based. -Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Yes I know that, but I don't see how it applies here. What policy was Eptalon weighing against when he closed the RfD as kept for the reason "I consider the Paralympics to be equal to the Olympic games"? Were the comments by Chenzw and four other editors not based on policy? The reason all of the editors voted delete was because there wasn't enough coverage in reliable sources to consider the person notable, which is ultimatley backed by the verifiability policy. IWI (chat) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say it was the case here, you were talking in generalities by saying "Should we now have to worry about an RfA being closed as unsuccesful with no oppose votes?". That being said I would likely have voted Keep in this discussion because they met NSPORTS and a medalist at the paralympics almost definitely has sources which likely have to be found in newspaper archives from their country although being it was for a team event it might be slightly less likely. Essentially I would have done so for the same reason Gotanda mentions in the discussion (whose comment really is a keep comment). At this point I would however, send it back to Rfa and then vote Keep in it. It is highly likely only a quick google search was done for sources. Likely a more in depth one needs to be done. -Djsasso (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I should also point out there are essentially 2 keeps and 3 deletes in the Eptalon's keep isn't as outrageous as it seems. Remember its not a vote count. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
There are indeed some situations where an RfA could be closed as unsuccessful with no oppose votes, but it was not these situations that I was referring to. I was talking about a clear cut case where someone should be promoted, but a crat has something against the editor in some way not related to policy. I'm sure a decent search for sources was done by Chenzw beforehand. There is no evidence that anyone has found to suggest the person has enough coverage to be notable. Perhaps there is enough somewhere, but none has been found. Thus, it fails GNG. To answer your second point, I don't think we can really count the comments by Slowking4 as they were the author; it is inevitable that the author of the article will want to keep it. In any case, their comments are the same as Gotanda's: that it meets NATHLETES. Neither gave evidence to demonstrate that the subject had enough coverage to be notable. NATHLETES is simply a guide to whether a person is likely to have enough coverage to be notable. I will put it back to RfD and we shall see if anyone can find any more sources. IWI (chat) 19:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Author of article has just as valid a !vote as anyone else taking part in an Rfd. And in general stating they meet NSPORTS is often enough in a discussion as the point of NSPORTS is to indicate there are almost 100% sources for this, we just can't easily get them and invoking it is intended to act as an indication to say "reasonable time" needs to be given to actually get them, and that we should not yet delete, its considered just as strong an argument as saying it doesn't meet GNG usually. en:Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ Q4 talks about this. Reasonable time in some circumstances could be years. And I am not saying everytime it meets NSPORTS it should be kept, far from it. I just think there are certain situations where we need to be careful we aren't being too quick to delete. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Just as a final note: I wasn't suggesting that the author had no right to vote or that their vote should not count, just that it is a given that the author of an article will usually want the article to be kept. I have started the RfD here. The way I see it, if no sources are found in a week to demonstrate notablilty it should not be kept. If more sources are found in the future, the article can then be created with those sources. Doing otherwise on a small wiki like ours will lead to a lot of articles about unnotable people to stay forever. IWI (chat) 19:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thomas AbtEdit

deleted as "‎(QD A4: The page is about a person, group, company, product or website, and does not claim notability)"

meets wp:creative, "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Slowking4 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Meets A4 as the article did not assert why the person was notable. -Djsasso (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexandra HorowitzEdit

deleted as "‎(QD A4: The page is about a person, group, company, product or website, and does not claim notability)"

meets wp:creative, "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Slowking4 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it qualifies for QD A4 to me. A4 sets a lower bar than even notability - the article in question is a mere listing of the person's published works, and does not even assert that the person is notable. Whether the person is actually notable or not, would be something to be discussed at RfD. Chenzw  Talk  16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Jonas LohrmannEdit

Hello, I would like the deletion of the article Jonas Lohrmann to be checked here. In the French Wikipedia 1, the deletion was refused 2 and there are many sources for his awards and honors.--Lepetia (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lepetia: I understand the subject might have been accepted on the frwiki project; however, the community voted to delete this article. I'll also note the article was barely kept on frwiki per your referenced discussion. For now, I believe this article should remain deleted, per the community's consensus. Operator873talkconnect 22:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was a discussion here yet. So the request is now done for me--Lepetia (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Complete end purpose: for Our FutureEdit

Complete end purpose: for Our Future is not nonsense, it is about [ this].Menu Utility CopyText to speech programLanguage translation toolExport to ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d08:d180:4500:b9fe:493b:8b15:87dd (talkcontribs) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is not understandable. I can't understand you. What is your first language? IWI (chat) 18:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
English. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:B9FE:493B:8B15:87DD (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahlem FekihEdit

Hello administrators, I am Tunisian and new Wikipedia user. I am fan of Ahlem Fekih. She is popular in my country.She is the most influential person in 2019 in Tunisia. I wrote a reliable article of this Tunisian person I did not pay attention and I did not understand the discussion. I request a proofreading of my article that I wrote and the restoration of the article. I am sure that my article is reliable. Thank you for your help --Doctor tn (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as a reference: RfD for Ahlem Fekih, 2019--Eptalon (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure how we can possibly proceed with any form of review if you want to continue claiming wilful ignorance by saying that you "did not pay attention" and "did not understand" the RfD. Chenzw  Talk  18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Color Esperanza 2020Edit

color Esperanza 2020 is not nonsense, it is about [ this]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d08:d180:4500:b9fe:493b:8b15:87dd (talkcontribs) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

James LangevinEdit

This article is set to be deleted quickly; however, it provides valuable information about a congressman. I think there should be apage about every congressman/congresswoman, and although much of the information was taken from the regular Wikipedia, I cited my sources. This should be discussed before premature deletion. Furthermore, the reason for deletion: all of the text was copied from regular Wikipedia.That is not true. Only the section named ¨Political Positions¨ was taken from Wikipedia, and in any event, this article should remain following a simplification of the text. I see no reason for this premature and undisscussed deletion of a page regarding an important politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman R MacDonald (talkcontribs) 02:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, the tag was justified, considering a substantial majority of the content was copied from the English Wikipedia. I'm in the process going through a rewrite to make it suitable for inclusion. Note that a majority of the content you've added was removed: this is because most of it was indeed problematic. Hiàn (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Oghlan BakhshiEdit

This RfD has been closed as keep, despite the votes being two to delete (three counting the nominator) and one to keep other than the creator of the article and person the article is about. It seems that the consensus in this case is to delete the page, even with the keep from Peter in good standing. I think the close should be re-evaluated in this case. Naleksuh (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: This page is for deletion review, not RfD review. If you want to try again to have it deleted, you can start a new RfD. You would probably need to give more reasons than were given in the original RfD. Maybe Eptalon would like to comment here. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: At the top of the page, it says, 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 he or she wants to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~. . This is exactly what I am doing here, as I believe the consensus is to delete even in the current discussion, although there were fewer votes than I would have liked. Naleksuh (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Even farther up, at the very top, it says "Deletion review". It wouldn't be appropriate to decide to delete a page based on a discussion here: that's what RfD is for. You might want to ask Eptalon to explain his thought process that made him decide to keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review actually is Rfd review. It is appropriate to come here for a closure whether it is keep or delete. In the case of a keep if it is decided the close was bad, then the result is to resend it to Rfd if it is a close call or outright delete if it should very obviously been deleted. Essentially the admin that would close the discussion here would in effect be "re-closing" the original Rfd. It doesn't happen very often here so you may have just not been aware, but if you look at the equivalent page on you see its pretty common there. That being said I would point out to Naleksuh that Rfd is not simply a vote count. Administrators weight the comments in the discussion before deciding on a closure. I can't speak for Eptalon, but I am assuming he weighted Peters comments stronger than the other two delete comments. I would also point out he wasn't the only editor there arguing keep. There were 2 keeps and 2 deletes. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I stand corrected. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello there, please note: An RfD is not a vote; at the end, the closing admin takes all the statements into account and then decides. In the current case, I decided to keep, for the following reason: One of the sites provided in the RfD discussion is IRNA, the official Iranian news agency, reporting on a festival in Golestan, where Oghlan Bakhshi (together with another person), were among the main acts. You don't get to be main act of a festival, without even a limited kind of notabililty...--Eptalon (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Although I still feel like eptalon's closure of the first RfD did not reflect the consensus (although there is no clear side either way), a second RfD has been started here. Naleksuh (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Global Goal Live: The Possible DreamEdit

That page is not for advertisement, although there were some of material on that page that could probably make come round people to watch the viewing record that the page is about, the page was really just for news given, just like what I am good-looking certain wikipedia 1 pages should be like. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:9532:DB23:A446:E2EE (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

update, I made come true the even though that page is not for giving advertisement, it probably should be re-written. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:4C60:A3F4:95FD:EF8B (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
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.

Ben DoverEdit

This article was speedily deleted under A4. That policy mandates that everyone agrees that the subject is non-notable. I do not agree, and I think there was another user that also disagreed. I am requesting that this article be discussed at Requests for Deletion. (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That criterion does not require everyone to agree. (No QD criterion requires that.) As a quick deletion criterion, all it takes is one nominator and an admin that agrees. In this case, the article was quickly deleted by User:Vermont, then recreated, then quickly deleted by me.
That criterion doesn't say that the subject isn't notable, just that there's no claim of notability in the article. What was in the article that you believe claimed notability? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The criteria for A4 says "Is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead. " (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You are correct; if a QD'd article is contested, it (usually) should be restored. I've restored it and nominated it for deletion. Vermont (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

One World: Together at Home to Celebrate COVID-19 WorkersEdit

I need to have knowledge of who taken out One World: Together at Home. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:1503:F7D0:6B90:979D (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The page you're referring to doesn't seem to have existed here under that name. Hiàn (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, the name was in fact: One World: Together At Home to Celebrate COVID-19 Workers 2604:3D08:D180:4500:1503:F7D0:6B90:979D (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The page was deleted under G11 of our quick deletion criteria. I took a look at the page and am not inclined to support overturning the deletion. Hiàn (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I also looked at it, and I agree that the deletion should stand. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That page is not for advertisement, although there were some of material on that page that could probably make come round people to watch the viewing record that the page is about, the page was really just for news given, just like what I am good-looking certain wikipedia 1 pages should be like. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:1503:F7D0:6B90:979D (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe the creator of the article was trying to advertise. I think it was just a poorly written article. It is a notable topic and does have an article on most language wikis. I have created a stub at Together at Home and may expand it if I have time later. -DJSasso (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Risas Dental and BracesEdit

Hello, I created a page named Risas Dental and Braces. It was marked for being promotional in nature. I talked to the deletionist and they told me that if I want to rewrite it and need help regarding it I should come here. Can I have some guidance please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEngSalSoft (talkcontribs) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally pages here should have some semblance of neutrality, as it's one of the core pillars of the encyclopedia. This means if your goal was to promote the business, the resulting page would probably be unsuitable for inclusion. You'll find that the policy page on the main English Wikipedia gives a more substantive guide to writing neutrally and guidelines on the notability of businesses can give some indication to whether the subject is suitable for inclusion here. Hiàn (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I immediately note you wrote a draft on the English Wikipedia that you blanked and then pasted the contents here on this project, with crosswiki links back to the English Wikipedia. I'd like to ask why you blanked that Draft and did not pursue it if you believe the article you're appealing here is not promotional. Additionally, I will ask you to explain or describe your connection with this business. Operator873talkconnect 21:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Coronavirus: The New RealityEdit

I made come into existence a page named, Coronavirus: The New Reality," but it got taken out for "no content," which makes no sense because it did have what is in 2604:3D08:D180:4500:B92E:7A7F:82D4:C14E (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I Quick-deleted the article, because it was like 2 sentences long, and had little meaning. --Eptalon (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I just looked at what was in it. I agree that it had little meaning. It's even hard to tell what it was about. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Retrieve the deletion-Kingdom of ParisosEdit

Camouflaged Mirage,please help with this issue. The only problem was the spelling of the name of the kingdom "Parissos" or "Parisos". Some sources spelled with double "s" some with the single, but here some users dare to call existence of kingdom of Parisos a "hoax", while there many credible references. (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Review of the close at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2020/BarbekueEdit

I don't see there is a consensus for redirect. 5 delete votes will make it a delete which is done correctly. The redirect part we have 1 redirect vote and 1 vote against redirection. The closer is also involved to an extent. Will seek a second review of the result as this may lead to precedence of unlikely typos redirects flooding the site. Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: This page is for deletion review, not RFD review. The page was not deleted, so this is not the place to discuss. However, to address your point, admins have discretion to decide RFDs in a manner other than what the majority of comments say. Remember that an RFD is a discussion, not a vote, as stated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Discussions. The redirect should stand. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
That would be, technically speaking, going against consensus. I participated in the RfD so would not be in an appropriate position to talk about what the consensus was, but I do note that there have been editors who mentioned the improbability of "barbekue" being a typo. Chenzw  Talk  11:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Switching a C for K is a very common mistake in all sorts of words because in English they have the same sound at times. I catch my kid doing it every other week or so and he is a native English speaker. So it is a very reasonable redirect on a wiki whose target audience includes ESL and children. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap after all. To be honest I am not even really sure why people would argue against a redirect that can help people and not harm anything? Seems counter productive to me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I will, again, request that Eptalon not close RfDs that he has participated in or nominated. Vermont (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,, firstly, please calm down. I deleted the article in question (as this was the consensus). Given that c and k have the same sound in English, I though redirecting was a good idea, even though it might not be the most common misspelling we are dealing with. Therefore: what are we discussing here? - A cheap redirect that helps more than it hurts?--Eptalon (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I think Vermont's point here is that admins should only close RfDs that they're a part if, only if the consensus is very obvious/uncontroversial. Since in this RfD the consensus is very far from that, I agree with re-closure from an uninvolved admin. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
An admin closes an RfD request, three days after its due date. Admins were chosen by the community to close such requests, even if they expressed their opinion. The result is pretty clear (4:1/3:1 in favor of deletion), as to the redirect this helps more than it hurts. So, except for more work for the already small team of active admins, what's the benefit of this discussion? - As I wrote in my first comment, we are discussing the benefit of a "cheap" redirect.--Eptalon (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: I am not saying that admins cannot be trusted to close discussions, but they in general not recommended to close discussion they had expressed opinions in (see en:WP:INVOLVED). If minus your vote, the outcome is clear, and this is a small project, I agree to delete. The delete outcome is very clear as per my DRV statement, just the redirect isn't. I know redirects are cheap but then this is like doing the redirect without consensus of the community (something like a supervote). I hope you will understand where I am coming from. I won't have an issue if you QD the entire article and put the redirect in w/o RFD. I appreciate the many work you had done and seriously, you are one of the best admins here, but this time I am just a little uncomfortable with the close. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I don't think consensus is needed to redirect especially with a small (or new) page, but my side concern is that this is not the first time disputes have been raised about Eptalon closing RfDs they're involved in. I too think they're an amazing admin but just totally ignoring what people say about that is worrying, at least to me. I know that i'm not a perfect editor, but I'm always listening to criticism and trying to improve myself. Computer Fizz (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: The sort of issue here is that I had proposed the deletion of the redirect and then there are people agreeing, and yes, there are people who disagree. So sort of a deletion discussion of the redirect had taken place and there isn't good arguments there (or even discussion) of the suitablity of redirect (where I see it here), but well DRV isn't for this. DRV is to evaluate whether the closer acted correctly, so the RFD should be the point where these are discussed. My 2 cents. Hope you don't mind my long reply. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
DRV is to evaluate whether a deletion was appropriate, not a non-delete RFD close. Nothing was deleted here. Move on. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage:  (change conflict)  Well on simplewiki DRV is DRV, RFU, and everything else combined into one. As PROD, TFD, AFD, and everything else are all combined into one process of deletion, so is undeletion. Anyway, I should also say that I'm not trying to start any drama here or call Eptalon a bad admin. I just wish that they can not ignore the requests to stop closing what they're involved in. Computer Fizz (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
" 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 he or she wants to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure," is the heading of this page, so I think this is the closure also? @Computer Fizz and Auntof6: And there is a deletion done? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The first paragraph on this page states that this is the place to go if "you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed". This is further clarified by PeterSymonds in 2010. In either case, all administrative actions are open to review, and since we are here already, the discussion might as well continue here, unless someone prefers to bring this up to ST. Chenzw  Talk  08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick question: We currently have 4 or 5 active admins, who donate time to the project. There are currently more than ten RFDs open. In most cases, the consensus is pretty clear; in others, there are either no comments, or the consensus is less clear. As I outlined above, the consensus in the request above is pretty clear. I will therefore ask: Who thinks that another admin would have closed this differently? - In my view, this closure is a case of "ovious action" (third section of the WP:INVOLVED guideline linked above). Suppose, there was an admin who had closed this as a keep - this would have brought the problem of two articles about the same subject, which we needed to merge. Merging would have brought the same result; a redirect from the less common term to the more common one.Also note, that at the time of closure, the request was three days (almost half a week) overdue; if one of the other admins had had the time, he or she would probably have closed it earlier.--Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply @Eptalon:. I am meaning that deduct your vote there is still lack of consensus to redirect. I mean the delete is obvious. If like all the people voting says redirect, a redirect will then be obvious. As per lack of admins closing the RFD, I think we just have to wait? I know what you are saying, and we need your vote in RFD still. This is sort of a problem recently with little active admins. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Creating a redirect doesn't require consensus. The two are separate actions. He deleted per obvious outcome which is allowed in wp:involved and then after deleting the article he created a redirect. No official discussion on whether or not the redirect should exist has occurred. You can't preemptively prevent something from being created if no discussion has occurred. The fact you suggested you did not want to create a redirect did not open up an Rfd on the redirect as it was a side comment. Either way we are siting here debating what was very much the correct route to take. And to argue that Barbekue is not a reasonable typo of Barbecue is quite frankly ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I am equally puzzled that no official discussion on the redirect have taken place. I did mentioned in the RFD nomination that it's an improbable redirect and then two other users also feel so. Yes, I know there are people saying that it's fine. Since I raised the improbable redirect argument in the RFD, I just hope it's addressed in one way or the other in the discussion. However, I acknowledge this size of DRV for a cheap redirect is a little excessive. I am not contesting the delete outcome anyway, and I know it's clear and allowed per INVOLVED, just raising the point of involved as a sidenote in the DRV nom.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I mention it because you keep mentioning supervote as though he did something bad to overrule everyone, there was nothing to overrule. The creation of the redirect came from a WP:BOLD action outside of the Rfd. Just mentioning you didn't think a redirect was a good option does not prevent anyone in the future from creating said redirect. The only way an article/page/category etc can be prevended from being created is if it was already created and deleted at Rfd and if the recreation is substantially similar. Being that a redirect is not similar to an article, it is not prevented from being created by any editor who wanted to create it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I am not saying Eptalon did a bad thing. I just mean that if it's someone else who is closing it will be better. I was just puzzled by his closing statement "Delete and redirect as suggested" where I and some other editors didn't suggest. I am effectively in the nomination saying delete both the page and the redirect. Is my language too vauge for this extent. And some other editors concurred the redirect is improbable? So isn't there a sort of agreement that redirecting may not be uncontroversial. I am just puzzled with these points. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
You aren't suggesting to delete the redirect cause the redirect didn't exist to be deleted. You are just saying you didn't want to redirect so you brought it to rfd. Again, even if creating a redirect might have been controversial, you don't need consensus to create a page or redirect etc on the wiki. You only need consensus to delete one unless said page/redirect has already been deleted. But again frankly I can't believe you or anyone else think it should not be created. The whole reason redirects exist are for exactly these sort of spelling errors. It really is that hard to assume those disagreeing are acting in good faith cause it just blows my mind people would argue against it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I understood the first part of your statement. I am ambivalent on the redirect. I will also think the rest of the editors are acting in good faith as I just assume they are as they also have some experience here and did some good contributions? Thanks for clarifying still. Shall we have a list of probable and improbable typos for reference next time for easy reference? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Upon further discussion with Djsasso on their talkpage, I withdraw this DRV. Sorry for the community time wasted here. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Retrieve the deletion of Mambo (artist) pageEdit

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and I am sorry if I did not do the right things, I am trying to learn and publish things properly. A few weeks ago I started the publication of Mambo (artist) page. He is my husband. I uploaded a photo I took of him in his studio and I had the first comment saying it was infringing copyright because it has been published on Facebook (by my husband on his page). I posted another photo, from the same series, that has never been published before. Then I have been traveling and got back sick and I have not been able to connect and Nat said this photo was infringing copyright. I asked why and what I should do and no answer And I understand because I did not do anything for 14 days Mer-C has deleted the entire page. I spent days collecting and structuring all the info, following everyone's advice. Can you please help me retrieve Mambo's page? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemarigny (talkcontribs) Thank you

@Jdemarigny:, I am not seeing that as a deleted page here on Simple English wiki. We can not help with things that did not occur on this wiki. -- Enfcer (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: : @Enfcer:, wrong. It did say that page was deleted at Arthurfan828 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Arthurfan828: Yes, the article is deleted at en, this is simple DRV not enwp one. We can't help with en articles.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Restore the page PediaSureEdit

This page was deleted for not being notable, but I am sure that was notable because it is the 39th most popular/famous drug series. Also, another reason why it is notable and important is because there are reliable sources from its own website. Arthurfan828 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

QD A4 is not a judgement about whether the subject of an article is notable or not. An article is deleted under QD A4 if the article does not explain why the subject is important. For the above article, the article merely explained what PediaSure (as a company) makes. Chenzw  Talk  00:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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.


I created a new page which name is Voyage. But someone wants to delete my page. I want to know about the problem of that page. And please don't delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md Tanbir Islam (talkcontribs)

@Md Tanbir Islam: The page hasn't actually been deleted yet, it's just been tagged for deletion. You can contest it by typing {{wait|your reason here}} on the page. This page is for [pages that have actually been deleted. Computer Fizz (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

Retrieve the deletion - Fuad Al-QrizeEdit

Fuad Al-Qrize is a Yemeni blogger and writer, an active contributor to follow up and document the works of Yemeni artists. He works at the Union of Yemeni Artists.

Sources that may interest you: My page is in IMDB An article about me in Wikipedia Egypt Who is Fuad Al-Qrize? Profile | who are they? – Economy Meet Fuad Al-Qrize at the Post Archived 23 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine. An African seminar on “Understanding the Universe” in the presence of Fuad Al-Qrize

  • Definitely not. Young blogger with no notability advertising himself. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. IMDB is not reliable for most of the case. Having articles in another language wikipedia doesn't mean they will be accepted here as we have different inclusion standard. Rest aren't in depth sources and do take note that undisclosed Conflict of Interest or advertising is against the TOU. No reason to restore--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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.