Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- 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.
- 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.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
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 policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines 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.
Temporary undeletion
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.
Closing reviews
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.)
Speedy closes
- 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".
The editors seem to have shown undue hurry to close the issue. Please see given link which mentions that the said company alongwith one more (from same country Austria) - they both together hold 82% of world's GLOBAL SHARE of wafer bonding for chipmaking using silicon wafers (https://www.ft.com/content/1c4fe3f0-7d44-4346-833b-e1beca9298c9) - is there anything more needed for NOTABILITY - apart from another internet find earlier given in the deletion discussion already. Another user @Cameremote had tried to burnish the article - but no editor seems to be willing to listen and just reverted. I have nothing to do with this company or their product - and I simply came across this article - because probably what caught my eye was the text "2nd nomination for deletion". Jn.mdel (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd have just reverted Cameremote's edits too. They took a neutrally-written article and turned it into something I'd have speedied as spam if not for its history (choice sentence: "With a global presence, EVG is recognized for contributing to the semiconductor industry and delivering cutting-edge equipment to fabs worldwide.") —Cryptic 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I think you may be confused about the term "notability" - it's Wikipedia-specific jargon in this context, and doesn't have its usual meaning of "worthy of note". The short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nearly every word of that is jargon too: see WP:Notability for the long version, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for how we specifically apply it to companies (short version: more strictly than for most subjects). —Cryptic 11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying - I cannot now see /access what Cameremote may have specifically updated - but if as per you the article was neutrally-worded before those updates (which were later reverted) - then so be it.
- My limited point for this review request is that the company seems "notable". Jn.mdel (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, I think you may be confused about the term "notability" - it's Wikipedia-specific jargon in this context, and doesn't have its usual meaning of "worthy of note". The short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nearly every word of that is jargon too: see WP:Notability for the long version, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for how we specifically apply it to companies (short version: more strictly than for most subjects). —Cryptic 11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This biography needs an independent page (Article), opposes being merged into another, requests to restore this page to its current state
- reason :- The deletion discussion of this page ended quickly, could not participate in the discussion,
another one did not participate in this more editors, the editor who raised the redirect argument did not say the reason. the editor who raised the keep argument brought references but the closing editor did not consider it.
This living biography was born and raised in India, acted in Malayalam cinema in India
[1][2], and has references.
Another, biography is a notable K-pop (X:IN)[3] singer , dancer and Idol in Korea (WP:SINGER WP:NACTOR) - -
- reference:-
[4][5][6][7] [8][9][10][11] [12] ~ ~ Spworld2 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It does not consider requests that merely constitute an assertion that the AFD was wrong and seek to re-argue it. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also endorse what Jclemens said below about spinning back out the redirect as a normal editorial action if sufficient sourcing is added. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- AfD was a mistake, doesn't mean. It was mentioned as a fact, this is not a reason,
- I could not attend it, so I could not argue, the editor who voted to 'redirect' on AFD did not give a reason for it,
- It is a fact.
- I request to restore this, this should remain an independent article, X:IN is a music group (K-pop) in Korea , both are different, this is an Indian singer, dancer and Actress working in a Korean music group, and this biography is also about an Indian film Actress in (Malayalam cinema), the notable being WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR Pass. Spworld2 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relist Nom, and one each delete, keep, and redirect makes consensus rather iffy to call. Now, if that were after 2+ relists, I'd see the NC close as more reasonable, but the appellant here is asking for more time on an AfD closed without a relist. Alternatively, anyone can edit the redirected page, expand sourcing significantly--and I would warn against poor quality sources here, which seem to plague Asian pop culture--and undo the redirect without needing DRV consent. Again, this is to improve the encyclopedia, not a shortcut to get one's own way. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The article is still in the simple english version, what is the problem? On the search engine Bing, Peter Fiekowsky has more than 2 million views, and it is just about having this valuable scientist and author on wikipedia: the article started as follows: Peter Fiekowsky is an American author, physicist and founder of the field of climate restoration and author of "Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race" (Rivertown Books, 2022). He has founded the Foundation for Climate Restoration, Methane Action, Stable Planet Alliance, the Climate Restoration Safety & Governance Board, among others.'
I contacted the administrator who deleted the article, with no answer from him or her. Is it an action of hostility towards the climate policies? Thank you if you can help to restore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adumoul (talk • contribs)
- Procedural Close - The statement that there has been no answer from the deleting administrator is incorrect. User:Deb has replied, and says that the originator of the article was a sockpuppet, and the article read like a CV. We review G11 deletions, but we don't review G5 deletions when the opening statement is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing to do here unless someone can make a convincing argument neither G5 nor G11 applied. The title isn't salted, so any user in good standing is welcome to write a non-infringing article on this person, which will be subject to future deletion processes normally. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll endorse the G11, but its author wasn't blocked until months after creating this. —Cryptic 07:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion because G11 applied, judging by the allegedly same article on the Simple English Wikipedia.—Alalch E. 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article here had very little in common with the one at simple:Peter Fiekowsky - the Education section of the first few revisions was sort of similar, but that's about it. Ours was much longer and much more promotional. —Cryptic 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Request temporary undeletion. Both the G11 and G5 justifications are in doubt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn G5, but note that it is a discovered UPE product.
- Mild overturn G11 to Draftify. It is not obviously G11 eligible, only close, better to send to AfD, where I would be leaning “delete” or “Draftify”, but go straight to “Draftify” due to it being WP:UPE product, and like any COI it must use AfC. I have not examined every reference, but those I have are unimpressive with respect, particularly to independence, in meeting the GNG. Possibly all the defences are not good, as happens with WP:Reference bombed paid product. There are claims to notability, but WP:Notability is not clearly met. I considered “Redirect to Climate restoration” but the subject is a mere tangential mention there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly, this is a case for WP:TNT. Encourage User:Adumoul to start again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Request temp undeletion per SmokeyJoe. Hobit (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've temporarily undeleted. This clearly isn't a G5, but for Cryptic's reason (created in October 2024, earliest sock blocked January 2025) and because Adumoul's edits are substantive enough to make G5 not apply. It does look very spammy, though, so inclined to endorse as G11 only. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Adumoul’s edits are moderate, and Abumoul should be invited to rescue the page in draftspace. It was written spammy, and would need work to rescue, probably throwing out most of the content. It’s possibly unsaveable, but determining that is work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
i just want the page to please be added to my user space, so that i can edit it. i thought the deletion would be a redirect, so that i could stil edit the pages. this is also for 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, and 2000s in history. Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question - Did the filer request refund to their user space? The titles have not been salted. The first stop in this case should be Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Yes, they did, and it was declined at RfU - permanent link. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel, understood; i have now notified the admin who deleted these. Sm8900 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm fine with user spacing these. I think my issue is that the "(decade) in history" titles are redundant, though, so would prefer reworking to restoring. SportingFlyer T·C 05:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Closer's comment: I don't think my interpretation of consensus is being questioned here but having re-read the discussion I stand by it. If there are questions I'll answer. I have no opinion about whether or not to userspace refund and since SM8900 skipped that part of the instructions at REFUND, I don't need to come up with one and I can leave it to the editors here to find a consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Refund to Userspace although I will again wonder why editors are so intent on getting deleted articles restored to diddle with. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was some sense in the AfD that maybe they could be merged. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: Please elaborate on
so that i can edit it
. Namely: edit to make which changes and for what purpose.—Alalch E. 17:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- i would like to take these articles, improve them, rework them, and then put them into draft space, to get communuty input on a new approach to these articles. Sm8900 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- to elaborate further, i would like to accept and accomodate all of the concerns raised at the AfD discussion. and then make sure to present this intially only as a draft, in order to gain input from the community. Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Decline the request to undelete. It's time for Sm8900 to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against them. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was deleted twice over 6 and 15 years ago when the player didn't meet WP:NFOOTY requirements of the time (since outdated, but would pass now based on that criteria), and there were numerous repeated attempts to recreate the article by various different people which led to an admin protecting the namespace. Since then however, he has arguably met WP:GNG just as much as the articles of his teammates at Bromley as a recently created draft page has shown. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
DJ Hollygrove grammy winner https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/hollygrove-of-the-chopstars-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-news-photo/1463285516?adppopup=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Create as a redirect to The Chopstars (the page is salted), and we'll see what happens following that. About "grammy winner": This individual did not win a Grammy.—Alalch E. 02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- clearly it says "Grammy Winners" on that publication
- https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true <== does it not say this? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The producers were there at the ceremony because the entire marching band can't fit in. They accepted the award on behalf of the band[13][14]. But some of the producers and the engineer have got a mention on the Grammy website: The official 65th Grammy awards page has the following: "Winner: 'The Urban Hymnal'; Tennessee State University Marching Band; Dr. Reginald McDonald, J. Ivy, Prof. Larry Jenkins & Aaron "Dubba -AA" Lockhart, producers; Audri Johnson, engineer/mixer". No mention of DJ Hollygrove. DJ Hollygrove is not a Grammy winner. —Alalch E. 12:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually this is FALSE, the grammy only listed to EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, they didn't list the over 100 instrumentalist that played on the album, non of the vocalist either. DJ Hollygrove was one of 10 producers whoh were apart of this project, that is why he is HOLDING the Grammy trophy is MEDIA area backstage at the awards. NO ONE is allowed to take photos with trophy unless they are winner. Should I reach out to DJ Hollygrove so that he can send me a copy of his certificate from recording academy? Would that help? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE, no, this will not be helpful.
- To have a meaningful conversation with you, it would be helpful if you would WP:Register.
- Would would be helpful to adding coverage of Hollygrove is coverage of Hollygrove, meaning comment on Hollygrove not just facts, published in reliable sources. Wikipedia only covers what others have already covered. Find what others have already publish, and Wikipedia will cover it too. Wikipedia will not lead in the coverage of anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So IMDB isnt a reliable source for what films/tv programs he's been apart of? I just see too may of our texans legends not getting credit! Same with BeatKing! TexanTone (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before asking if IMDb is a reliable source in the context of proving a topic's eligibility for a stand-alone article, we should consider whether IMDb even counts as coverage. IMDb is not coverage because it's a database and databases do not provide coverage, they provide data ("just facts"). And it's not a reliable source because its data is crowdsourced, and Wikipedia does not recognize such websites as reliable sources. About Texan legends getting credit, Wikipedia is not for making sure people get credit for their accomplishments, that is not its purpose and mission. —Alalch E. 13:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- IMDB hosts user-generated content, and as such is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. See WP:RSPSS for comments on lots of sources.
- Maybe you should be contributing to IMDb. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So IMDB isnt a reliable source for what films/tv programs he's been apart of? I just see too may of our texans legends not getting credit! Same with BeatKing! TexanTone (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually this is FALSE, the grammy only listed to EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, they didn't list the over 100 instrumentalist that played on the album, non of the vocalist either. DJ Hollygrove was one of 10 producers whoh were apart of this project, that is why he is HOLDING the Grammy trophy is MEDIA area backstage at the awards. NO ONE is allowed to take photos with trophy unless they are winner. Should I reach out to DJ Hollygrove so that he can send me a copy of his certificate from recording academy? Would that help? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The producers were there at the ceremony because the entire marching band can't fit in. They accepted the award on behalf of the band[13][14]. But some of the producers and the engineer have got a mention on the Grammy website: The official 65th Grammy awards page has the following: "Winner: 'The Urban Hymnal'; Tennessee State University Marching Band; Dr. Reginald McDonald, J. Ivy, Prof. Larry Jenkins & Aaron "Dubba -AA" Lockhart, producers; Audri Johnson, engineer/mixer". No mention of DJ Hollygrove. DJ Hollygrove is not a Grammy winner. —Alalch E. 12:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this comment isn't clear about salting/protection, I am saying:
no protectionyes protection (create a redirect and protect it; changed my mind on this after seeing Draft:DJ Hollygrove and reading the DRV nom's comments here) —Alalch E. 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the 2008 AFD close, but this doesn't seem to be a request to overturn the 2008 result. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- so how do I submit a RFPP for DJ Hollygrove 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I don't see a 2008--or any--AfD. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 12:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove —Alalch E. 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I added the link to the DRV template above. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove —Alalch E. 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Allow Creation and Review of Draft - The album, The Urban Hymnal, won the Grammy, which went to the Tennessee State University Marching Band. The Chopstars were involved in the production of the album. If the draft shows that DJ Hollygrove satisfies any of the musical notability criteria or satisfies general notability, the reviewer can submit a request to RFPP to unprotect the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It can't be a red link in the meantime because of the need to at least have a redirect. And provided that the page exists as a redirect, since there is no ongoing basis for applying protection to the page, there shouldn't be a need to use RFPP. —Alalch E. 11:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsalt immediately There was never a finalized deletion discussion. There was one PROD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove was closed A7, then once G4, twice as A7, and then almost 14 years ago FT2 deleted it as PROD again (out of process) and salted it. In that time, it doesn't look like anyone looked at the whole process and said "Wait, did we do this right?" because... we didn't. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a formal opinion on what to do next after unsalting, but certainly no objection to the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the AfD and other deletions and the create protection. Create the redirect to The Chopstars, but protect the redirect. For anyone who might wish to recreate the article, use draftspace first, and follow advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Take no action. The DRV request is unintelligible; it consists of two words and a link. An actionable DRV request should indicate which action should be taken and why. This is lacking here. Sandstein 08:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This DJ is a well known DJ, works on Shade 45, was featured on Vice TV as well as a producer on Black Market with Michael K. Williams. Formerly a DJ on KQBT Houston, is a Grammy winning producer with Tennessee State University Marching Band. He more than meets musical notability criteria. 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect he may be notable. I can find no reliable source, however, to say he won a Grammy. He is not credited on the album as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- No action per Sandstein. Unintelligible request. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A WP:BADNAC: The page creator closed the discussion as "keep" on the same day it was opened with the only !votes for "delete." Requesting an uninvolved administrator to relist the discussion. (Mea culpa: I originally reverted the non-admin closure erroneously, seeing it as disruptive, before I had reviewed the provision at WP:NAC stating |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am not convinced that notability was adequately established. The article subject is a WP:CASTE topic, where many print sources are low-quality, partially based on oral tradition, or ethnically biased — so the nom's statement in a reply that the existing information "is all folklore and no authentic sources are available" is credible. See also WP:RAJ for more background. Not all of the existing references were checked, but we identified several that are clearly unreliable, and two users failed to find substantive online sources. One user claimed to find various print sources, but did not identify any by name. None of the Keep !votes provided new sources that prove notability, or asserted the reliability of existing references; some users made unjustified assertions of the subject being "well-known". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It seems a bit too early to close this discussion, especially when three relatively new editors, who may not be fully familiar with the notability guidelines, have voted to keep the article with very vague rationales - "plenty reliable sources are present", "added two books that provide significant coverage." (which do not actually provide significant coverage), and "I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia." While I suspect UPE activity, that is a matter for another day. Requesting a re-list of this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga) shows that the article was deleted in 2009 due to lack of sources establishing notability. I have since found some sources for the article, such as reviews from Anime News Network (1, 2) and Da Vinci (1). I have also found an old interview from 2000 from the creator of the series here. I have done a full rewrite as a draft. The admin who deleted the article has not been active since May 2024 and the person who nominated the article for deletion is no longer active on Wikipedia since 2010. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Consensus has been reached, but could use review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2025 2601:483:400:1cd0:a1a4:fd62:9508:f4eb (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
While I'm suspecting that the result of closure will not be changed, I'm asking that an admin review the closure, as its the manner is troubling in two ways.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award. A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc. There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants. Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Wikipedia pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs. It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page. RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |