Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive 5

< Wikipedia:Deletion review
Please list newer requests at the top.

2022 requests

change

Impact of World War II in mathematics

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

I'm sorry for my late response to the RFD, but was there any helpful and referenced content at here that can be moved to history of mathematics ? This is not a request for full page restoration, but this entry may work as a redirect to a relevant sector. Below are my summarized thoughts of the relations between WW2 and science:

Area/Discipline Related WW2 topics
Chemistry Biochemical warfare
Physics Nuclear weapons
Computers Enigma machine
Mathematics ?

What I want to say is, I can hardly imagine any direct or substantial connection between mathematics and WW2. Due to this viewpoint, Ferien's RFD nomination reason looks reasonable for me. Although, a massive historical event like WW2 can possibly affect any kind of scientific areas including mathematics, so I thought something could be taken from here. Of course, POV pushing opinions or original research must be eliminated.

Again, I'm sorry for taking time after RFD closure, but I'm looking forward to hearing thoughts from admins. MathXplore (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore: Yes, there was a section titled "Advances" that had some info in it, and there was a little in other sections. If you have a sandbox, I could put a copy of the article there for you to cannibalize. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:MathXplore/sandbox, here it is. MathXplore (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MathXplore: Done. I removed stuff that wasn't applicable for a sandbox (the RFD notice, a maintenance template, and the categories). -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Enigma machine and Manhattan Project story to the main article. These are topics which I may understand their importance. These are my thoughts for the other topics:
  • Scottish Café, Nicolas Bourbaki, Trachtenberg system can have their own article rather than writing them in somewhere else. Each of them has enwiki pages.
  • ICM related topics should be written in International Congress of Mathematicians.
  • It is said that the Spanish mathematician Faustino Antonio Camazón created a mathematical code, but I do not understand what this "mathematical code" means or works, and I may not be able to understand the given references. Seems to be related with es:Antonio Camazón.
Thank you very much for the response. MathXplore (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MathXplore: If you're asking for help with it, I guess I can look at it in the next few days. Aside from that, I suggest moving this discussion since we aren't actually restoring the article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have done what I can do, and I didn't mean to ask for further help than partial restoration. I just wanted to leave explanatory notes about what I added and what I decided not to add for now. I agree to move the discussion outside from here. MathXplore (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Sorry to say so: It doesn't make much sense to make a difference between mathematics and computing at the time of WWII, the real differentiation probably started in the 1960s and 1970s. As to Enigma: the thing was developed in WWI, it was just the deciphering (which was largely done by Alan Turing) which falls into this period. Also don't forget: The well-known things Kurt Gödel is known for roughly fall into the period of 1930-1950. Schrödinger's Cat was first mentioned in 1935 (by Erwin Schrödinger). Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, their work was in the 1930s. --Eptalon (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, mathematics was used in many ways in WWII. One could write a long article about it, and several people have already done so! Amongst the consequences are various advances in codes and coding, signals, bombs, gunnery, attrition rates, atomic weapons... The editor thinks a modern war can be fought without mathematics? There are sources for most of these topics. Don't forget, WWII was not over until Japan was bombed with... [you fill in the gap!]. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Mohammad Abdul Khalek

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

A4 says, "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." The creator of this article disagreed and put a {{wait}} template on, therefore not everyone agreed the subject wasn't notable and A4 doesn't apply. I think let's send to RfD and let the community decide. --Ferien (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement "Chittagong's first Muslim engineer, editor, publishing-entrepreneur and founder of Dainik Azadi, the first newspaper of independent Bangladesh" constitutes a claim to notability that makes this article ineligible for A4. Whether that claim holds water is a question best left to RfD indeed.
Also, QD A4 is really only concerned about whether there was a claim to notability in the article (i.e. EN's CSD A7 "credible claim of significance"). Whether the subject of the article was in fact notable is not relevant to the A4 judgement - it is possible to QD A4 an article about a notable person, and it is also possible for a non-notable person's article to fail QD A4. Now that I look at it, I am not quite sure why that last sentence is included in our QD A4 policy - if we are at the point of asking whether the subject is in fact notable, then it is by definition a discussion for RfD, not QD. Chenzw  Talk  17:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a credible claim of significance if the author says it's significant? No, because the author is voting on his own case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the use of the {{wait}} template matters here. What matters is the claim that is already written in the article. Chenzw  Talk  02:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse undeletion - the claims of notability of enough merit to be discussed at RFD, if someone so wishes to nominate the article for that. Griff (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Priyanka Rani Joshi

change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • The outcome of this review resulted in a RFD review. --09:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted by one of the admin but i don't understand why? She is the winner of Miss Nepal world and representing Nepal in Miss World. Clearly notable enough and has many independent reliable sources.  DIVINE  13:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)ex[reply]

  • Overturn deletion: The editor who requested WP:QD#A4 gave the additional reason "Winner of a single local beauty pageant". The beauty pageant mentioned was Miss Nepal World. Miss Nepal World is a pageant at a national level so I don't think it should be considered a local pageant even though Nepal is not a large country. The "Miss <country> World" pageants are the national beauty pageants that choose countries' representatives to the international Miss World pageant, and this person is going to represent Nepal at Miss World 2022.
I do, however, think we might need better references than this article had, but there are good references in the enwiki article. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Nepal world is not a local beauty pageant. I had added notable references as enwiki article is also created by myself. As they clearly passed notability guidelines. I was just concerned with QD. Best Regards,  DIVINE  13:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Varun Pradip Dave

change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • The outcome of this review resulted in continued deletion. --09:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

As per I have seen the speech was always given a quick deletion as vandalism without any reason And after that not proper reason was given infact the page was having reliable sources and references the notability of the person was also question marked but it seems to have highly searched profile on various sources and the person is youngest person to hold the title of “Strongest man of Gujarat” and leading news sources articles are also been seen on sources and according to all study of sources it was proved that the persons page is right and a authentic he is an powerlifter who plays for the Indian powerlifting team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Materisk (talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Susovan Sonu Roy

change

I am requesting restoration of the article Susovan Sonu Roy, the article now meet all notability guidelines and also have reliable sources. I want to edit this page. Thanks. 2409:4060:38F:52B7:0:0:29E4:70B0 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No significant coverage found for subject during independent Google search. Previous iterations of deleted pages contained largely the same material. This has been and continues to be misc, boring spam. Operator873 connect 06:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Operator873 This article is about an Actor. Can I create this page again with neutral point of view writing and with reliable sources ? 2409:4060:381:13CE:0:0:41:F8B0 (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources.... so no. Operator873 connect 08:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you show the reliable sources you have? --Ferien (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2022(UTC)
Ferien I've enough source in newspapers about this article but i can show you later when I restart the page and publish it then. 2409:4060:E8D:F4BB:0:0:5808:F80A (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operator873 Please give me permission I will create an account and start this article on Sandbox and when it have reliable sources then I'll move to mainspace and I promise. 2409:4060:392:C47F:0:0:27E8:D0B0 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operator873 can I restart this article to create an account ? I've enough source in newspapers about this article. 2409:4060:E8D:F4BB:0:0:5808:F80A (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weather, conditions the coming of the end wasn't a test

change

Weather, conditions the coming of the end wasn't a test, it was the equivalent of ; the text was copied from there but changed to Basic English using Simplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.88.245 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional relevant discussion found here Operator873 connect 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobik Platz, Sphere Matchers and SM Billiards

change

All three articles has been deleted; one for being RfD'd, another one deleted with A6 (Hoax), and lastly with A4 (Not notable/requires reliable sources). I certainly believe that Bobik Platz and games they develop is real or not a hoax. Unfortunately, these links, which are all from IGN are dead links and I can't find anything besides the FANDOM wiki about this first two.

Related discussion: Deletion review/Log/2022 August 4 on English Wikipedia

I hope your doing well. 36.74.42.66 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and only contains things that have already happened and/or have significant and independent coverage by reliable sources. Additionally appropriate in this circumstance: Wikipedia is not for advertising. Operator873 connect 06:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Operator873 Now, I'm done with Bobik Platz and related things on Wikipedia because these pages are fanons misrepresented as real things thus it certainly doesn't belong to the encyclopedia. As goes with @Trade's baseless accusations of me being an LTA, according to Bbb23 on the same DRV on English Wikipedia, the IPs involved in editing by User:LiliaMiller2002/User:Angelmunoz50 were in Spain according to the SPI archive of the aforementioned vandal on English Wikipedia whereas IP involved in creation of Sphere Matchers and Bobik Platz pages on both Wikipedias are in Indonesia, from what I understand, I'm certainly not an Angelmunoz50/LiliaMiller2002's sock. More information is available on the relevant AN discussion here and the relevant ANI discussion on enwiki. 36.74.42.211 (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaFlia Contenidos

change

I request the restoration of the article LaFlia Contenidos, the article meets all the notability guidelines to remain on Wikipedia, the company appears in more than 10 journalistic articles with independent sources, in the most important media in Argentina, Infobae, La Nación among others.

(I have taken care to add it in the references), This production company has significant coverage in the media. Julian AR (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian AR Please provide your sources. Media companies can usually be included if they have significant coverage outside of social media and websites that users can update (like fandom, wikipedia, et cetera). Thanks, Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Long standing and robust article in the native language along with significant coverage in local press. Restore the article from QD and take to RfD if required. Operator873 connect 06:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Sonu Roy

change

I am requesting restoration of the article Susovan Sonu Roy, the article now meet all notability guidelines and also have reliable sources. I want to edit this page. Thanks. 2409:4060:38F:52B7:0:0:29E4:70B0 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

สมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวมหาวชิราลงกรณ บดินทรเทพยวรางกูร and วชิราลงกรณ

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. 89.8.168.158 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Request to retrieve Ali Tajdary article that has been deleted

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Fehufanga I added my comments :) Thanks for the heads up! PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Youssef Rzouga

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 89.8.77.222 (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You confused me because you linked to that essay which didn't talk about articles :) --Ferien (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Perhaps I should include that as well in future revisions. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien upon further thought, I would like to point out that following en.wikipedia.org 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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. 89.8.131.154 (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Cat racism

change

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, RfDs stand at 57 at the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross If there are that many RfD-worthy articles, then that's not a problem. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Arguments made at RFD seem reasonable. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Ram Ranch

change

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)[reply]

see the RfD Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
The content you originally moved to article space has been restored to your userspace. Griff (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Restored to Ram Ranch - make sure to add the necessary sources to indicate notability. Thanks, Griff (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loro Horta

change

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]

Swelling

change

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oedema or soft redirect to simple.wikt. Griff (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Third Street Light Rail Project

change

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)[reply]

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

Alfred Beit

change

Beit was a leader in the De Beers Company and an employer and business partner of Cecil Rhodes. He is notable for contributing money to Rhodes's scholarship and his role in politics. RegrettingMistakes777 (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of that was included in the article. The entire text of the article was "Alfred Beit (1853-1906) was a German-born South African industrialist and business partner of Cecil Rhodes." The things that make a person notable have to be stated in the article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am voting to overturn: He controlled 37 per cent of the gold produced at the Witwatersrand's goldfields in Johannesburg in 1913; He had an immaculate art collection that was sold piece by piece to raise money; In 1905 he founded a chair of colonial history at the University of Oxford, which is now the Beit Professorship of History of the British Commonwealth; In his will he set up the Beit Trust through which he bequeathed large sums of money (£1,200,000) for infrastructure development in the former Northern and Southern Rhodesia, later modified to university education and research in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi.; Significant infrastructure projects financed by the Trust include the Birchenough Bridge in the former Southern Rhodesi. This is just a short list of what he did. There are also numerous books written about him WorldCat, snac, ISNI. You can reference more at EN:Alfred Beit. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 01:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved. Article was restored to a user sandbox. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thx auntie PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 03:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


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

Farhad Garashov

change
  • There was rudeness towards those who commented on saving the article, the discussion was quite rude, most users from Azerbaijan and Russia were in favor of saving the article, I think it would be better to reconsider the discussion.
In other en wiki - Whether the creator is a sock or not doesn't matter. Sources appear to be sufficient for WP:GNG. If an objective decision is made, the issue will be resolved and the article will be restored, because the person is one of the most popular in Azerbaijan. This person is familiar to everyone who lives in Azerbaijan. --Bəşir İmanov (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The article has been deleted as a community consensus was reached. Yes, what happens on enWP does have an effect on simple as well. The decision was objective and despite everything sent to the discussion, nothing ever met the notability standards that are required to have a Wikipedia article. There was no rudeness involved. What we saw was a bunch of editors saying keep, IP users removing comments, and striking out comments from named and trusted users (especially one who is an administrator on enWP and saying they were canvassed). This was a huge disruption to the project. Socks do matter. It is called cross-wiki spam and block evasion. It is pretty simple. I apologize for the way you feel, however, the discussion happened, it went almost a week over the initial 7 days to allow more time for any sign of notability and that did not happen. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a block of the cross wiki sock puppet EN:User:Bəşir_İmanov. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 18:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Account was globally locked as an LTA. I feel this can be archived with no action. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 01:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

Josephs Quartzy (actor)

change

The mentioned article was currently nominated to speedy deletion because the article with the same content (and name actually) was once deleted because it did not provide enough references to stand. I suggested it to be reviewed before all and gave a reason that, it had all the requirements for an article but I was never replied and the discussion was a seen a waste lastly, it was deleted. Could you please reconsider and review it?..Though the requirements for an article may vary among wikipedias of different languages. I think notability stands as a pie for all. The entity has got several articles on different wikipedias. NHWX (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the original article that was at RFD, as well as this article, I'm not seeing any one thing that is stated in the article that makes Mr. Quartzy notable. Can you tell me, in short and direct statements, why Josephs Quartzy is notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Griff (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not happen to see the original article at RFD though I think it was written poorly, but Mr. Josephs Quartzy is an actor having worked with big names in several notable movies&Tv prog (you can check at his Fimography or prove them at search engines, news, articles and movie data bases). Also he his an author with a notable book nominated in several accordance. He is a performer too. We could keep on improving if article was still alive. NHWX (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked IMDB and none of the credited roles he was in were *not* in notable movies as defined by our guideline on movie notability, nor did I see any indication he met the notability guideline for actors and performers. It is the responsibility of the user requesting a deletion review to show why the reasons the article was deleted were not valid, and you have not provided sources or evidence that it was. At this time, I support continued deletion. Griff (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support continued deletion - After reviewing the links below:
  • The Los Angeles Times article does not mention Josephs at all. He is not covered by that article.
  • The casts section of the Netflix page does not indicate that Josephs played an important role.
  • No indication that he played an important role in Madagascar 2.
No indication of importance, fails NACTOR. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: the editor who started the deletion review has now been blocked as a sockpupppet... --Ferien (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
notability.

Per my research I can testify against 'his credits not to meet our guideline on movie notability'.

I could find a large number of his credits on english and other languages wikipedias too. I thought they might meet requirements.

For notability guideline for actors and performers he's got a huge following in his social medias. He is featured in few articles are referenced on the deleted article, He is featured in other wikipedias like fr and esp also he is well established in search engines like Google and Yahoo NHWX (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Oppose undeletion. According to the original Request for Deletion, the article was deleted because the topic failed to meet notability guidelines. That RfD also had issues with multiple sockpuppets being used to try and sway the result. There is currently nothing about this person that makes them any different from a multitude of other unknown actors. He has had no significant roles in any significant projects. Zero references or 500, no number can make him notable. Only being notable does that and he simply is not notable. Pure Evil (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


1930 Women's World Games – triathlon

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

The page was speedy deleted, because the page would be “a copy a page from another wiki”. That is not the case. On my talk page was also mentioned it was the same article as 1930 Women's World Games. That is also not the case, as the article was part of a series of Athletics at the 1930 Women's World Games.

I will explain: The 1930 Women's World Games consisted of several sports (like the Olympics). So see Athletics at the 1930 Women's World Games, Basketball at the 1930 Women's World Games, Fencing at the 1930 Women's World Games and Handball at the 1930 Women's World Games. There were 12 athletics events. One being the triathlon (that is now deleted). See all events at template:

Athletics at the
1930 Women's World Games
 
Track events
60 mwomen
100 mwomen
200 mwomen
800 mwomen
80 m hurdleswomen
4×100 m relaywomen
Field events
High jumpwomen
Long jumpwomen
Shot putwomen
Discus throwwomen
Javelin throwwomen
Combined events
Triathlonwomen

SportsOlympic (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Restore_1930_Women's_World_Games_–_triathlon (as this was my fault), however, I suggested to SportsOlympic on their talk page that they should merge all of them into the main article 1930 Women's World Games so all information is one page and can be linked across wikipedia, because commons only has one cat for it which includes images from all events and wikidata has only one item related to it and the ac is also linked to the wikidata item. We would be unable to link this page (or any of the other pages they created) to wikidata as the main page is already linked and only one article can be linked to the WD item. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 18:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


2023 requests

change
NOT RESTORED:

Advertising only (per del log)

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

Nileshpatelxyz

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


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

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

Hatsune Miku

change

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

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


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

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

Justin Jin

change

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

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

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

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


RESTORED:

Per request

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

Category:British King's Counsel

change

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

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


RESTORED:

Restored per request

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

Permaculture

change

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

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


NOT RESTORED:

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

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

Nvidia RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

change

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

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

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

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


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable and requester check-user blocked

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

Murders of Linda Gibson and Cody Lee Garrett

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


RESTORED:

Not right place for a merge discussion

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

Lover Fest

change

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

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


NOT RESTORED:

Consensus reached that it is not needed.

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

Template:Wtf

change

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

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


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

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

WorldWide CDI Organization

change

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

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


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable and advertising

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

Request Undeletion of Yoanna Gouchtchina

change

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

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

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

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

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

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


NOT RESTORED:

Non-notable

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

Charles Ndukauba

change

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

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

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

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


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

Minnesota Zoo

change

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

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


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

Vespa velutina eradication

change

Eptalon deleted QD A6: The page is a fake or a hoax. Undeletion was requested User talk:Eptalon § Vespa velutina eradication on User talk:. Eptalon has not replied. Fr33kman replied It may be a hoax or it may be a goal. I couldn't find anything on Google to indicate there is a concerted effort to eradicate this species. There are a large number of results on Google and in any case a search is unnecessary. The article has WP:RS WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. The WP:PRIMARYs provide links and budget information for multiple current eradication campaigns on 2 continents – including the most recent discoveries [6][7]. The WP:SECONDARYs review them. WP:QD#A6 shows Quick Deletion of sourced articles as hoaxes is not expected Articles that do not have sources. It is not stated explicitly because this is considered so far outside of the realm of possibility. I suggest changing it to state this explicitly. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

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


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

Susovan Sonu Roy

change

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

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

Candy Bleakz

change

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

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

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

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


NOT DONE:

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

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

Byel

change

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

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


Adhamonir

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

This page was deleted because it was added in the obvious Advertising section. However, I think this was a mistake although I may have overwritten it but in my defense I simply did that because when this platform actually launches it will over take the whole fashion industry in Egypt and so this online platform which aims to promote local clothing brands in the country but not only that it also offers a comprehensive directory of all local clothing brands and connecting consumers with designers and providing them with a platform to showcase their work. The name of this article is TAITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhamonir (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion. Not only was the article written like promotional material with a lot of peacock terms, but this deletion review is written the same way. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

William Smith

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

This page was deleted because it was lacking notability. However, I think there are several things that make him notable, one of them being the fact that he was a high school valedictorian (Though that reason alone doesn’t make him notable). So, I think that the article should be restored for the time being so that I have more time to add sources and information that shows that he is notable before the article is deleted. BayPackers1444 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

C. E. Taylor

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

This page was deleted with the believe (I don't think...) that the person didn't need notability. An AfD didn't take place. I think this article should not have been deleted quickly because

  • 1) The articles deletion was based on her achievement, however WP:GNG is about coverage, not about achievements.
  • 2) The person is from the earliest women's fencing history. There have been in the 1910 only be a few international women's fencers. With covereage on women's fencing in that era in national newspapers, you are quickly notable when fencing internationally.
  • 3) It's about a British fencer, with the information in the article only based on Dutch language secondary sources. It's likely there is more coverage about her in English newspapers or offline sources, already because she is mentioned as a "famous fencer".
  • 4) Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes states: “Sports people may be notable if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level” SportsOlympic (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She was rated 8th best in a competition with a single country (Holland). That's not rubbish, but it's not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good that you reply here, as you didn’t reply to my message about this on your talk page. The reasoning you are giving is a reasoning for AfD; not for a quick deletion. Note it's was not a competition with a single country (Netherlands, Belgium, UK). These were the only three nations competing internationally in women's fencing in the 1910s (next to 1 German fencer living in Belgium and 1 American fencer living in the UK). It was one of the top-3 international highest level competitions in the 1910s. If you want to state it in achievements, she was the third ranked British fencer of 1914.SportsOlympic (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep Endorsement - Taylor competed in a sports competition at the highest level. Requester is indefinitely blocked, so I doubt the article will be reinstated. Friendly Human (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete: Endorsement by blocked users. I repeat: She was rated 8th best in a competition with a single country (Holland). That's not rubbish, but it's not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards overturning this decision. No QD criteria was provided and I do think their part in a national competition is a credible claim of significance. Whether the subject is notable or not is a discussion to be had at RfD. --IWI (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take to RFD - I struggled to find any links to prove anything but the claims seem to be notable enough to consider. Probably didn't meet the requirements for a quick deletion. Needs further investigation. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Category:People with dyslexia

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

This category was deleted for not being defining, with a few other categories. However, we have categories about cause of death, which are not as defining as this category, in my opinion, as Lights and freedom pointed out here: User talk:Lights and freedom#People with dyslexia. Before I get any comments about this category already existing, I created it as I didn't realise it had been deleted on creation. By the time I realised it had previously been deleted, I had already added the category to about 60 pages. Instead of quickly deleting it and rollbacking all my edits, I thought it'd be best to ask the community's opinion first. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with keeping this category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Sari Katha

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

It is tribe history documentary animated platform. I request to our team. Please join and discussion this decision. 2409:4061:4E0A:4F8F:0:0:2A4A:BE0D (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The closest I could find that still exists is Santal people, an ethnic group/people mostly in north Indian states; Of the 7 million total, about 130.00 are in Bangladesh, and about 50.000 are in Nepal, the rest are in India. The article you mention was deleted at an RfD, and the huge consensus of the RfD was to delete. So, what new information is there, that we ould re-consider this (The Rfd was closed end of November 2022)? - I currently see on reason to undelete the article.
Eptalon (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Age of Catastrophe

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

@User:Macdonald-ross If one looks at the authorities, they can see that the page is about a true and important event and I can join more to the page to make it have more that is.Climatepedia (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remain deleted - A4/A6 by multiple administrators, does not appear to be a credible subject. Griff (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Mesopotamia achievements

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

Not a test page. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remain deleted - the article would have been deleted under other criteria. As a re-worked article, it would be titled differently. The subject itself can fit within other existing articles. Griff (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Could not have been deleted under any other criteria. While the article certainly isn't perfect, particularly the title, this is not what quick deletion exists for. --Ferien (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why we would restore this. I don't think I could ever argue for the restoration of an article that begins with the phrase "One of the most biggest things". I'd argue it may be a case of A1, as even reading it a few times I don't have a clue what its about. The meaning of the page doesn't exist. I don't think the deletion criteria is 100% correct, but I think it needs to stay deleted.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

2022 WhatsApp Outage

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

So 2022 WhatsApp Outage needs to undeleted. Also it's not a test page. Bakhos2010 (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why everyone ignore me? Just undeleted 2022 WhatsApp Outage. PLEASE Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010: You aren't necessarily being ignored. Entries on this page are discussions and might not get comments right away. Discussions generally stay open for at least a week. Maybe people haven't seen this yet, maybe they're thinking about it; we don't know. Let the process happen. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, very clearly I think this is not a test page. Nothing about it is a test. I think @Macdonald-ross: should perhaps be more careful in selecting quick deletion criteria. This article, in my opinion, would be an easy candidate for RfD. That said, Deletion review is supposed to be for reviews of RfD, not reviews of QD. I do have half a mind to restore the page and send it to RfD just to push the point that proper procedure must be followed. In any case, I expect it to be deleted.... but that's a discussion we should have had at RfD. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with Gordon's comments regarding the process of the deletion, after review of the article content, it is my opinion the article would not have been kept in the RFD process. For this case, I don't see a need to conduct a process for process' sake. Griff (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse undeletion - Was clearly a notable event with multiple major news coverage. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Yaduvanshi Ahir

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

undeletd Yaduvanshi Ahir page, copy content will be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by विक्रम सिंह बनाफर (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mona Ghan

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

Mona Ghan is well known in Ireland and there was a reliabe source provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.57.2 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The subject, a supposed superhero, is likely a hoax. Even if real, nothing in the article indicated any kind of notability. It had a misleading link (supposedly to a related character, but actually to an astronomical object). The only source given was a link to a YouTube video of "Never Gonna Give You Up". --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete Endorsement The "reliable" source was just a link to a YouTube video. I agree with @Auntof6. Also the ip is currently blocked for 1 year. Friendly Human (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Susovan Sonu Roy (actor)

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

Hi, Can I start this article or get refund this article which have deleted ? 117.227.42.222 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone see my request yet ? 117.227.3.50 (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted because it did not show notability. If the article is created again, it would have to show that. Even the article on Nepali Wikipedia was deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

All Drafts by 119.95.96.0/19

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

all articles delete by Bbb23 see [8]

  1. 10 and more
  2. Bbb23 was Blocked Block evasion, User:Navajcmer

Pages

change
  1. Draft:SM City Sorsogon (mall)
  2. Draft:List of rulers of Brunswick and Welf
  3. Draft:Lists of monarchs by time
  4. Draft:History of Spain (before 1808)
  5. Draft:List of fomer Monarchs
  6. Draft:List of Video games by date

in enwiki 119.95.115.26 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the venue for you to complain about deletions on other wikis. Please contact the administrators on enwiki if you wish to appeal those deletions and blocks. --Ferien (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i im Blocked to edit enwiki @Ferien 112.209.14.63 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Xbox 720

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

Old revisions can now be restored. 96.18.106.49 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sun Moon Lake

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

Please undelete the page Sun Moon Lake. I am new to Wikipedia and am working on translating it from the Chinese traditional (zh) Wikipedia. Weng8 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a recommendation: you should make a sandbox page in your userspace (mine is for example User:InfernoGaming46/Sandbox). This will let you edit the page there, as the current times you've created the page it has been too complex and required simplification, which is why it was deleted. Some other helpful articles to help you get started are WP:HOW and WP:MOS. InfernoGaming46 (IG46) (talk / changes) 18:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Weng8: Sun Moon Lake has never been deleted here. I see that Sun Moon lake (with the word "lake" in lower case) was deleted, but it seems that we already have the other article so I don't see anything to do here. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as no action fr33kman 10:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics nation sweep

change

This category was RFD'd on 18 June 2023. On 26 June 2023, the RFD was closed by Ferien with a result of delete. Yesterday I noticed that the category had not yet been deleted, and asked Ferien if it was still on their to-do-list. Ferien replied that they hadn't deleted it yet because they hadn't found how the category was populated. You can see our conversation about that at User talk:Ferien/Archives/2023#Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Category:Comics nation sweep. The end result is that it looks like this category should be kept after all, for the following reasons (further detail in the linked conversation):

  • The category is populated by a process that we now understand. We could change that process, but if and when the templates involved are ever refreshed from enwiki, as we sometimes do to keep ours up to date, the process would revert to populating the category again, or at least trying to.
  • On the RFD, the reason given for deleting the category was "Copy of an enwiki maintenance category". That doesn't seem like a valid reason to delete something; it may be a copy, but that's not a problem if we need it here, too. The RFD had only one comment, which just said "not needed".

So even though the category hasn't been deleted yet, I thought a deletion review would be appropriate because a decision had been made to delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should not be deleted. This can be closed fr33kman 10:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Made You Look

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

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

I looked at the text, and I agree that it still needed much simplifying. In particular, there were a lot of sentences that were not simple sentences. I suggest restoring it to a user sandbox for further work. If that would be acceptable, please indicate which user would like it in their sandbox and what they would like the sandbox to be named. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. My sandbox would be okay I think (and anyone interested is welcome to help simplify it while it's there).--NØ 23:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: You can find it at User:MaranoFan/Made You Look. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Archive_5&oldid=9854574"