Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
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 "procedural close".
Per User_talk:Vanderwaalforces#Template:Authority_control_(arts), there was never really a consensus to merge here. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Vacate BADNAC No way that shows a clear enough consensus for a NAC--I'd argue it hadn't reached consensus at all, so either an admin reclose or relist would both be fine. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Meh I don’t agree that this is a badnac. Some XFDs have to operate in an environment with nacs because there are simply no admins interested in that area who understand it well enough to interpret those arguments. That said it, despite being open two months, I wouldn’t like to have to find a consensus there - but see my previous comment. The argument that we are removing a redundancy has some attraction to me though so I’m firmly in the meh camp. Spartaz Humbug! 10:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- While that claim was definitely true of TfD in the past, these days TfD has at least 3 active regular admin closers and most discussions are closed by admins. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the outcome, though it would have probably been better to be left to an administrator. Policy-based votes show a rough consensus to replace, considering the main “keep” argument is that it would take a considerable effort to replace the thousands of instances across Wikipedia. The closer correctly gave that argument less weight as there is no deadline to complete this task. Frank Anchor 14:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus, or re-open There was never really an explanation of the technical merit of merging. Put the other way, what technical debt or problem is incurred leaving it in place as a shortcut? I wouldn't readily dismiss the argument that a substantial number of edits are required on a merge either; that's not determinative, but it's a relevant consideration. Local Variable (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Battle of Vinland (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was not originally part of the deletion discussion, but added late into the discussion. Open to recreation instead with different contents. This was an dab page to two pages that both redirected to Vinland. A battle in Vinland is already specified at these points in the Vinland article. The existence of these sentences where never brought up in the deletion discussion. Saga of the greenlanders: "The explorers were then attacked in force, but managed to survive with only minor casualties by retreating to a well-chosen defensive position, a short distance from their base. One of the local people picked up an iron axe, tried it, and threw it away." This is also mentioned in chapter 6 of Saga of the greenlanders, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/graens.htm , in Icelandic. I was also able to find another battle in chapter 4, although that one was started with an ambush by the explorers. Saga of Erik the Red: "One day, the local traders were frightened by the sudden arrival of the Greenlanders' bull, and they stayed away for three weeks. They then attacked in force, but the explorers managed to survive with only minor casualties, by retreating inland to a defensive position, a short distance from their camp." This is also mentioned in chapter 11 of Saga of Erik the Red, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/eirik.htm , in Icelandic My proposal is to have the page as an redirect to Vinland#The Vinland Sagas, which is the parent chapter for both of the quotes. Snævar (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Discussed with deleting admin. I believe the there was a significant doubt in the freedom of the file, brought by Altenmann. The precise integration of the tower silhouette and bilingual lettering may reflect a degree of creative authorship (unique layout, proportions, negative space, etc). Whilst Arabic calligraphy isn't protected, constraining it to a space and adjusting it in a way is, in my opinion. Either way, this is a borderline case, and per WP:NOCONSENSUS we should err on the side of caution. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 19:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse keep closure. The closing administrator closed on the strength of arguments and most importantly clear US Copyright Office policy, which the nominator here has disregarded in favor of an appeal to aesthetics. The closing administrator mentioned following the precautionary principle, which requires significant doubt to kick in (note also that this is a higher standard than is required as it is a may not a must under the discussion of WP:PRPR at WP:NOCONSENSUS). IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse, the keep argument was clear as to why this is PD in the US, and is correct. The "tower" logo is text arranged in a simple geometric shape (a triangle), and the US Copyright Office has been very clear that things like that are not eligible for copyright. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle and Seraphimblade: Calling this a "simple geometric shape" is dubious at best. The USCO text linked by Cryptic reads:
Pictorial or graphic elements that are incorporated into uncopyrightable characters or used to represent an entire letter or number may be registrable. Examples include original pictorial art that forms the entire body or shape of the typeface characters, such as a representation of an oak tree, a rose, or a giraffe that is depicted in the shape of a particular letter
- Looking at File:Burj Khalifa.jpg, we can see the tower isn't a triangle. It is a essentially bunch of bundled tubes. The logo reflects this - if you look very carefully, the logo fans out in bumps, which reflects the towers real design. Whilst the Arabic text isn't copyrightable, constraining it in this way is copyrightable, or at least makes this a borderline call in which case we should err in caution. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- It is not more stylized than the Best Western crown, and that was found ineligible. Sorry, but I stand by my assessment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Seraphimblade about comparable ineligible logos. I also see no correspondence between the "bundled tubes" of the real Burj Khalifa and the edges of the triangle in the logo. Using Arabic characters to form a triangle is naturally going to produce edge lines which are not perfectly smooth, but this doesn't appear to be intentional. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- It is not more stylized than the Best Western crown, and that was found ineligible. Sorry, but I stand by my assessment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Calligraphy, even intricate calligraphy, is specifically ineligible for copyright in the US. Artistic elements which are not integral to the calligraphy may be copyrightable; but an isosceles triangle with two slightly curved sides is not. The guidelines published by the United States Copyright Office on the subject are in sections 906.1 and 906.4 of this document.I do agree with the nominator that we're often too liberal in deciding whether something's PD-simple when we really should only be making that call when there's no realistic chance a judge might disagree. I have no problem making that call here. In contrast, the flame outline of File:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg, which was raised in the FFD (and is visible, albeit in a small rendering, here), might or might not be determined to be copyrightable, so it's reasonable for us to treat it as copyrighted and usable only under our stricter non-free use standards. —Cryptic 01:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Covers the listed article and its 29 related pages. The AfD was closed before significant improvements to pages A and B could be discussed. In post-closure conversation, the closer stated, "I disagree that notability alone should determine inclusion...Consensus was that while the subject of hidden tracks was certainly notable...no sourcing would overcome the consensus that the list itself is unencyclopedic." Respectfully, this interpretation seems to contradict WP:NLIST. Furthermore, after a list of potential sources was identified to meet NLIST, there were an equal number of recommendations to keep and delete. While opinions are not votes, this suggests that there was no consensus that this topic was not encyclopedic. Also, all of the articles included in this AFD were not tagged, meaning involved editors may not have been notified of the AfD per proceedure.Rublamb (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Since the last deletion discussion in 2018, Lopez has received significant coverage, most recently due to the SEC investigating him (CBS News and NYMag for starters) for running a Ponzi scheme. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Go to WP:REFUND and request draftification. Use WP:AfC to improve the draft with your new sources. Submit the draft to see if an AfC reviewer agrees.
- Why did you come here to Deletion Review?
- -SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - You know why the appellant came to DRV. You don't need to ask why they came to DRV. They came because of that troublesome DRV Purpose point that is being discussed that tells them to come to DRV if "significant new information has come to light". Please reread the guideline against biting the newcomers. Or are you asking them to get more input that that purpose point is confusing? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please don’t field my questions to the newcomer. You corrupt my purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the 2018 AFD close. Submit a draft to AFC for reivew. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment As others have said, AfC would be the easiest way to get a the subject back into mainspace. According to the previous AfD, the previous version had promotional issues, so I recommend the appellant start from scratch. Even though he is a public figure, please be careful and take note of WP:BLPCRIME as he has not yet been convicted of the accusations. Jumpytoo Talk 00:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! Nighfidelity (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
AccesRail (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There has been significant coverage of AccesRail's air-rail programme in multiple partner airlines and news articles, which serves as secondary sources of the subject. Examples include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miklcct (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 October 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. | ||||||
| ||||||
| 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. |
|
Listed result was to create a Wiktionary page and to target a soft redirect there. However, this was only discussed as a possibility, and as far as I know no action had/has been taken to create such a target (wikt:Tonal whiplash does not currently exist). The actual votes in the discussion called for deletion of the existing page regardless of what may or may not go down at Wiktionary, and that the page still exists, seemingly untouched since the end of the discussion, reads as the opposite of that consensus to me. I think the result should've been deletion with the possibility of recreation as a redirect, not to leave a consensus-delete page sitting around and waiting for a redirect target that may never exist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:29, 5 October 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. |
|
Please can I have the Extra Credits article restored into my personal draft space? The article, in the form it was deleted, was awful but there was at least one better version in the history. I found quite enough valid sources to make a decent short article about it (slightly more than a stub) and having the old article and it's history, poor though most of it was, would make that easier than starting from scratch even if the new article would need to actually follow the sources and not bear much resemblance to old one. Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 2 October 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. |
This image was deleted because it was placed in an inappropriate location. In this revision, I have placed it in the correct location. Please undelete it. Thyj (talk) 11:41, 2 October 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. |
|
The Electroimpact article was deleted on March 31, 2025 after an AfD discussion concluded that it lacked significant, non-local coverage and did not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Since that time, a completely rewritten draft has been prepared using only independent, reliable sources from national news and aerospace industry publications. The draft addresses both achievements and controversies in a neutral tone, resolving previous concerns about neutrality and conflict of interest. The draft can be reviewed here: User:Pollluxo/sandbox Independent sources now establishing notability:
With these sources, the article now clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT and demonstrates broad, non-local coverage. I am requesting that the deletion decision be overturned or that the page be restored to allow recreation using the new draft. Pollluxo (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |