Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

African Wild Dog Conservancy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted page is suitable to describe another relevant organisation (not the one it was initially created for). "African Wild Dog Conservancy" was originally created for an US-based NGO and rightfully deleted after AfD discussion. The same organisational name however is also used in Namibia for a government gazetted conservation area. I propose that the page is used for the Namibian entity. My initial edit for this purpose was reversed, with reference to the deletion discussion. The page currently exists, but serves as a redirect to "African wild dog". If agreed, my edit of African Wild Dog Conservancy can be restored. Calidumpluviam (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. What the OP wants is not within the scope of Deletion review. They were given incorrect advice. This is about an entirely new article about a topic that never had an article. Creation of new articles is allowed. Creation of new articles over redirects that have content about a different topic in their history is allowed. If someone thinks that the new article is not suitable for inclusion, they should start an AfD.—Alalch E. 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This is a bit of a dilemma for the appellant -- undoing a redirect established by an AfD is generally going to be reverted, and a discussion on the talk page is likely to be lightly attended (or at least it would have been until brought here). It seems to me like the prior deletion will need to be overturned prior to having a new stable article under this title. However, based on the appellant's sourcing and a BEFORE search, I don't believe the Namibian African Wild Dog Conservancy would qualify under GNG or NORG, which would ultimately result in a second deletion decision should the first AfD be overturned. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with Dclemens1971 that while technically outside the scope of DRV, the appellant is unlikely to be able to create the new article on the page the old AfD (correctly!) placed a redirect. Instead, I suggest they create it at Draft:African Wild Dog Conservancy (Namibia). If it passes AfC, a move request to the current page will be better attended and far more likely to reach the outcome the appellant is seeking. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, this is the best approach to be recommended along with a procedural close of the DRV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Jackson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe the consensus was correctly interpreted in closing this as "delete." Besides the nomination, there were two "delete" !votes and two "keep" !votes. One delete !vote addressed sources in the stub-length article but not sources that might be found in a WP:BEFORE search. The other !delete vote sought to rebut my !keep vote, which cited WP:NACADEMIC criterion 7(a) (rebutting the nomination, which claimed no passage on NACADEMIC) and offered links, by applying a criterion ("particularly substantive") that is not in the SNG, and which I rebutted without further response. A second !keep vote cited WP:NAUTHOR and offered sources to back it up, and this vote was unrebutted. The AfD was closed after just one week without relisting, but if it had to be closed, I think this would have been a "no consensus" close. However, when I asked the closer to elaborate on his rationale, I and the other "keep" !voter became convinced that the close was a supervote. The closer made a WP:NOEFFORT argument ("That two-sentence stub of an article? ... After 7 years, the stub remained just that.") and claimed that the delete !votes "did not refute the other arguments and did not address this key issue: What exactly is Jackson supposed to be notable for?. This is untrue; delete !votes received substantive rebuttal in the discussion and as I pointed out in my response to the closer, my !vote made clear that the sources supported the subject's notability in “his area of expertise, which is celebrity influence on politics.” (I sought to resolve this at the closer's talk page but he has not responded to my and Goldsztajn's most recent comments, even though he did view them since he archived the talk page after they were made, so I am bringing this to DR.) My request is either to relist or to overturn to N/C to allow the article to be improved. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the closing admin: Any response would have been redundant and therefore simply argumentative. You expressed yourself, and your remarks are still on my talk page. Regarding the RfD itself, I stay out of it. Either the close was correct or it was not. Although, I will answer the question below about self-creation. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla, you did not respond to my asking if you would be open to relisting or re-closing as N/C to allow expansion without the threat of a "delete" result hanging over it; I guess your answer is "no"? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It would be helpful for non-admins to be able to see the admission of self-creation. Request temporary undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page creation information: (diff) 13:27, 4 July 2017 . . Professorjackson1969 (talk | contribs | block) 587 bytes (←Created page with 'David J. Jackson is a political science professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.<ref>https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/political-science/faculty...') - Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While self-creation is obviously the most probable reason for someone with that username creating that article, there are clearly other possibilities. Absent username filters, anyone can pick any username at any time. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly looks endorse-able from here. I don't think the first keep !vote is necessarily good as you can't really become notable from being interviewed, but the last keep !vote shows he may pass NAUTHOR. I probably would have relisted given the last comment instead of closing as delete, though, so a relist may make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer Not trying to relitigate the AfD here, but WP:NACADEMIC criterion 7(a) specifically gives a path to determining notability based on media interviews. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." As far as I know it is the only SNG that allows this path. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it'll likely be relisted. I just don't have a problem with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Try as I might, I don't see a consensus either way, and there was no rush to close the AfD. The closer's response to the appellant on his Talk page presents a valid argument to delete the page, but if he felt that way about the article, he should have !voted and left the closing to someone else, rather than impose his own view and force a consensus that wasn't there. If some of the Keep views were discarded in arriving at his decision, a brief closing note would have been helpful. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. There was consensus that the topic is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews were found for one book, but reviews for other books were sought. And they were found. The appellant was also correct that NACADEMIC criterion 7a does not establish a SIGCOV-style test for “substantiveness” of quotations. This could have been disagreed with in some way, but it wasn't. The first delete !vote and the nomination have little weight in context.—Alalch E. 22:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (involved; the "other keep") Close appears a supervote given talk page responses; no consensus whatsoever for delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, while there was sufficient input that it wasn't necessarily required, split input there and here seems to indicate more time would be helpful. That said, the close isn't wrong, just the discussion is incomplete to my read. Star Mississippi 02:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, closely balanced debate that would benefit from more input. Stifle (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. In any case, the arguments for keeping were much stronger than for deleting. But more discussion would be helpful, so relist is the better close. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist While I would normally want to see the text before opining, I see that such a request has been made, seen by the closer, and not done. The strength of the arguments are not sufficient for a delete outcome to be considered consensus. It looks like it could be a "must kill all self-promo with fire!" response, for which I have some sympathy, but our P&Gs expect due process on any topic considered, unless the author was a banned sock at time of creation. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens FWIW the full text of the stub is quoted on the closer’s talk page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I hadn't looked, so thank you for that. One of the reasons I prefer full restoration is to see the trajectory of a page--what was added, when? What was deleted? Who all did what to it around the time of the AfD?--I tend to find those issues more telling than the discussion on the closer's talk page, which is usually a less well formed version of the appeal statement here... but in this case, those aspects of the page don't appear to be germane to this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The content just isn't promotional. No WP:BEFORE was done by the deletes. Secondary sources exist as was proven. When you look at it, the delete case is nonexistent. —Alalch E. 23:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Although the Delete arguments were numerically stronger at 3 incl. nom. to 2, both the Keep and the Delete !voters gave sound arguments, so that more input is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments for Keep weren't very policy-based; I think it should have concluded as Delete. Jruderman (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pings: Hello @Grayfell:, @Generalrelative:, @Biohistorian15: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jruderman (talk • contribs) 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jruderman: Those attempts to ping will have had no effect, because you didn't include a signature when you posted them. I also suggest that selectively pinging three of the participants in a discussion in which seventeen people took part is questionable. JBW (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no specific critiques of keep !votes are articulated, and none are immediately obvious to me. Obviously, people disagree about how to portray this appropriately, and whether we're doing more harm by having an article than not, but absent a key policy-based objection, this does not present a clear case for DRV to overturn the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. There was clearly no consensus in the discussion, and the close was "no consensus". JBW (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close of No Consensus. Sometimes when there appears to be no consensus, the closer does not have an obligation to tease out a consensus by evaluating strength of arguments, and is allowed to conclude that there really was no consensus. I agree with the close, but I am not required to agree with the close in order to find it a valid close.
  • • The history of previous AFDs shows no consensus, and is further evidence that the closer was reasonable in concluding that sometimes no consensus really is no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That was a really tough discussion, and given there were calls to draftify and the keep !voters even basically said it needs work, I probably would have tried to move it out of mainspace. That being said no consensus is reasonable and considered. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we need to WP:TNT again, we can do it in another AfD, but nishidani gave good reasoning in the AfD that the past AfDs have generally all agreed in notability. this article, like related Race and Intelligence articles, remains notoriously difficult to write and find consensus on. I see no way we can avoid no consensus again unless we give others time to polish this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while I personally have very strong sympathies for deletion, that's not a reflection of the discussion, which the closer rightly had no option but to interpret as no consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. We could have a good article, but every attempt to construct one meets with deletions of perfectly acceptable, sourced material. The topic is out there, with dozens of reliable sources, but until this ostensible campaign to erase any shape of such an article ceases, they cannot be used. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This is a reasonable interpretation of the consensus from the discussion. I'm not sure I'd fully sign on with Nishidani's argument in that discussion, perhaps because of my own unease about the topic, but it was clearly a policy-based argument and other editors were sufficiently persuaded to concur with it. I think the NC was a fundamentally reasonable conclusion to draw, and certainly falls short of the stiffer standard to overturn. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While it's true that some of the Keep views were weak, I don't see how you could find a consensus to delete there without imposing a supervote. Bear in mind that a "WP:TNT" !vote effectively says the topic meets our notability guidelines, but the content needs rewriting. This is equivalent to a Keep !vote, and should be read as such. I also agree with the closer than an additional relist wouldn't have changed the outcome. Owen× ☎ 11:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]