Wikipedia:Deletion review

If you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if they want to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.

A page should stay listed here for at least 5 to 7 days. After that time, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do, and take appropriate steps. If the consensus was that the discussion was closed correctly, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days. For the archive overview, see Archive.

Current requests

Allamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi

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

Bless.

Sources.

[[1]] all pages,

[[2]] page 186,

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

[[4]] 4th

[[5]] page 195.

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]] page 56.

[[10]] all pages

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

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

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

overturn support undeletion fr33kman 01:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Griffinofwales: Now that you're an admin, you can look at what was in the article. :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse deletion - Sources aren't INDEPTH, I cannot find any evidence of any notability, Certainly fails GNG. Given Enwiki deleted it due to lack of notability imho this should follow suit as nothing appears to have changed since our RFDs and the Enwiki AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorse deletion per dave Raayaan9911 16:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! So DRV is here to condone if a deletion is a suitable response to the discussion that was had, not on the viability of an article

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Allamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi, suggests there wasn't really a consensus either way, only a W:WP:NOQUORUM result if you remove both SPA !votes.

In this case, as there's not really been much of a discussion in the RfD, I would be open to offering a W:WP:REFUND with the aim of seeing if a suitable article can be made. I don't think this was inadequately closed, but also don't think the article is without merit, just perhaps in it's current state. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The SPA / sock accounts have really not helped things. The sources they posted above are challenging to use at best and their use of "all pages" for many when clearly that is false is really stretching good faith. The original article was not very neutral from my memory. I think the deletion discussion on enwiki for the same article has some good points pro and con with some good analysis, it's worth a read of you haven't already.

I'm still at Endorse but moving a copy to use space for a good faith editor to work on could be an option. Ravensfire (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)