Wikipedia:Deletion review

Shortcuts

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.

Archives
2007–2012 2013–2016 2017–2019 2020–2021 2022–Current

Current requestsEdit

AdhamonirEdit

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. The argument for restoration did not address the deletion reason. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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 SmithEdit

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. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

I looked at the article. There was nothing in it that established notability. Also, the only source was the person's own Instagram page, and Instagram does not support notability even for a claim of something notable. If you want to work on the article to make it notable, I recommend doing so in your userspace.

What is there to add that would show notability for this person? Remember that to show notability, you need two things: a claim of something that would meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and a reliable source supporting that claim. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
William Smith was a National Merit Semifinalist for getting a near perfect score on his PSAT test. He is also an athlete and the best player on the high school soccer team. Additionally, he designed a creative science experiment in his chemistry class sophomore year. He’s notable, so stop saying he is not, and restore the article so that I can add these things to it and show that he is notable. BayPackers1444 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe any of those things are notable, either. When we talk about notability, we're talking about Wikipedia's definition of notability. We all have someone we know that we consider notable for ourselves, but they aren't necessarily notable in a larger sense no matter how much we might personally admire them. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people), please read those for information on what makes someone notable for purposes of articles here.

Another way to look at it is this: would you expect to see an article on this person in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, just like any other, except online where anyone can edit it. The guidelines for inclusion, though, are the same. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can reply but Peg + Cat can do it. 86.14.28.64 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remain deleted: these things definitely don't make someone notable. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes they do. BayPackers1444 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now please restore the article. Just give me more time to add stuff to it and prove it’s notable. BayPackers1444 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BayPackers1444: I have restored the comment from Lights and freedom that you deleted. Do not delete other users' comments. If you do so again, you may be blocked from editing here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. I won’t do that again. BayPackers1444 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The channel was called Timothy Goes to School 86.14.28.64 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
remain deleted - there is nothing about this that is close to being notable. Being notable within the school is not the same as being notable for an encyclopaedia. No need to verify anything as the claims just aren't there. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

C. E. TaylorEdit

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 request for deletion. Discussion should continue there. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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 dyslexiaEdit

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 undeletion. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

I'm OK with keeping this category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Sari KathaEdit

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. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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 CatastropheEdit

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.

No consensus was reached to undelete. The outcome of this review resulted in continued deletion. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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[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[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 achievementsEdit

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.

No consensus was reached to undelete. The outcome of this review resulted in continued deletion. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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 request for deletion. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Why everyone ignore me? Just undeleted 2022 WhatsApp Outage. PLEASE Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]
Endorse undeletion - Was clearly a notable event with multiple major news coverage. Blissyu2 (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Yaduvanshi AhirEdit

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. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

Mona GhanEdit

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. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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)Edit

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

The outcome of this review resulted in continued deletion. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

Can anyone see my request yet ? 117.227.3.50 (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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 119.95.96.0/19Edit

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 [1]

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

PagesEdit

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

i im Blocked to edit enwiki @Ferien 112.209.14.63 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Xbox 720Edit

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.

No action was required. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Sun Moon LakeEdit

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.

No action required. Griff (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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.

Nvidia RTX 4000 SFF Ada GenerationEdit

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

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

WorldWide CDI OrganizationEdit

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[reply]

I went through both the revisions of the page (before and after deletion). The content in both revisions are different, but the addition mostly seem unsourced and somewhat promotional in nature with no significant claim of notability. The new version is significantly more complex as well. I think the page should remain deleted, but if anyone else agrees with restoring the page, it can be taken to fresh RFD.--BRP^ever 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]