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 he or she wants 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

Global Goal Live: The Possible DreamEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben DoverEdit

This article was speedily deleted under A4. That policy mandates that everyone agrees that the subject is non-notable. I do not agree, and I think there was another user that also disagreed. I am requesting that this article be discussed at Requests for Deletion. 103.83.36.53 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That criterion does not require everyone to agree. (No QD criterion requires that.) As a quick deletion criterion, all it takes is one nominator and an admin that agrees. In this case, the article was quickly deleted by User:Vermont, then recreated, then quickly deleted by me.
That criterion doesn't say that the subject isn't notable, just that there's no claim of notability in the article. What was in the article that you believe claimed notability? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The criteria for A4 says "Is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead. " 103.83.36.53 (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You are correct; if a QD'd article is contested, it (usually) should be restored. I've restored it and nominated it for deletion. Vermont (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

James LangevinEdit

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

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