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.

Current requestsEdit

Sari KathaEdit

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)

Age of CatastropheEdit

@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)

Remain deleted - A4/A6 by multiple administrators, does not appear to be a credible subject. Griff (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Mesopotamia achievementsEdit

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

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)

2022 WhatsApp OutageEdit

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

Why everyone ignore me? Just undeleted 2022 WhatsApp Outage. PLEASE Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Yaduvanshi AhirEdit

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

  • There is an EnWp article en:Yaduvanshi Aheer, but that also is quite cryptic: What are we talking about? - a tribe, a clan, a caste...? - Compare that to for example en:Fugger family or en:House of Medici (both were important families in Medieval Europe). So, uless there's a clear idea of what the article should actually cover, there's no reason for restoring it. --Eptalon (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Eptalon makes a good point about defining the subject of the article. It should be noted that the article was deleted due to G12, and as a result, there is no issue with starting a new article with content that meets Wikipedia's policies. I believe the DRV process is unnecessary. Griff (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Honestly, the article's existence on enwiki is spurious at best – it's poorly sourced, don't see how it passes WV:GN, FWIW. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)