Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DELREV)
 |
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 there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- if the page was deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion: place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- 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 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);
- to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.
Instructions
Steps to list a new deletion review
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.
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. - Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
- Disclose any paid editing relationships or other conflicts of interest you have related to the subject you are appealing about, if you haven't already.
| 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
|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.
The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} 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 that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. 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, 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.)
Early closes
- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as if it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
- Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or by an uninvolved administrator who has vacated a procedurally invalid non-administrative close, and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV has withdrawn their nomination, and no one has recommended any outcome but endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so for them).
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion acknowledges that their close was wrong, and no one has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Discussions may be closed without result if they are entirely disruptive. (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, repeated nominations of the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
|
Request for relist or overturning according to DRVPURPOSE4, following request denial at the closer's talk page, based on the following sources that I found post-closure that were not raised in the discussion, which I feel deserve deliberation on GNG qualification / lasting coverage (that would add to the singular piece of coverage that appeared to already have consensus for GNG qualification): CSGinger14 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Requesting reopen for a more thorough discussion. IMO the closer imporperly itnerpreted !votes and the discussion was closed too soon. I have an answer to the last !voter: ":::Yes it is undue weight and WP:PRIMARY; who the heck is " Brunnert et al"? The fact the the term didn catch up is telling. Also there is no "extensive research" about "Performance management work", ony about performance management. The articles cited are of marginal relevance to the subject proper, and only cited by " Brunnert et al" to put their work in context." --Altenmann >talk 17:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. "Merge selectively" can mean anything from what we used to call a "zero-byte merge" to a full merge. The actual merging work hasn't even started, yet the appellant somehow already knows it will end up being "undue". The actual content that will end up being merged is an editorial choice that can be discussed at the target's Talk page, not a valid reason to reopen or overturn a valid close. If any content ends up being merged, we likely need to keep the history behind the redirect left over for attribution reasons. If no content is merged, and the appellant finds the redirect useless or offensive, he is welcome to nominate it at RfD, although I doubt any of his reasoning here would be seen as convincing against WP:CHEAP. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Addendum: the appellant disruptively reverted the admin's close in an ill-advised attempt to force a different outcome. I believe this should be grounds for a procedural close of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Assume AGF. It was an ill-advised attempt to undo the ill-advised premature closure. I started the DRV following the advice of Spartaz, otherwise I dgaf. --Altenmann >talk 20:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- That would be the good faith you showed me when you summarily reverted my close without even a notification? Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Point taken. --Altenmann >talk 21:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- That would be the good faith you showed me when you summarily reverted my close without even a notification? Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Assume AGF. It was an ill-advised attempt to undo the ill-advised premature closure. I started the DRV following the advice of Spartaz, otherwise I dgaf. --Altenmann >talk 20:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Addendum: the appellant disruptively reverted the admin's close in an ill-advised attempt to force a different outcome. I believe this should be grounds for a procedural close of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse Just about the only alternate possibility that could've happened was that the page was deleted, then made a redirect anyway. Either way, it would not have made a single stitch of difference, the consensus was that the article should not continue to exist as-is. The nominator's unilateral reversion of a closure is also troubling as it indicates a lack of desire to collaborate or cooperate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:48, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- I was not a nominator. The animosity and personal attacks of admins is appaling. On the contrary, in my opinion, premature closing indicates a lack od desire to search for a proper consensus on a far from being non-controversal issue. --Altenmann >talk 20:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't agree it was a premature close. Spartaz was doing everything by the book here. WP:ATD is a policy of Wikipedia and states pages should not be deleted if it can be avoided through merging or redirection. When someone brought up that an ATD existed, Spartaz was obligated to redirect there instead of delete. Misunderstanding policy is one thing, but also accusing the one who is correctly following policy of personally attacking you is another thing entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- There appears to be only one person here who was desysopped by the arbitration committee for abuse at afd Spartaz Humbug! 20:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- <Sigh>. I am aware, I am asocial. That's why I almost completely stopped editing articles on visible subjects. --Altenmann >talk 21:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Altenmann any chance you can withdraw this to prevent wasting any more time Katzrockso (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
- <Sigh>. I am aware, I am asocial. That's why I almost completely stopped editing articles on visible subjects. --Altenmann >talk 21:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- There appears to be only one person here who was desysopped by the arbitration committee for abuse at afd Spartaz Humbug! 20:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't agree it was a premature close. Spartaz was doing everything by the book here. WP:ATD is a policy of Wikipedia and states pages should not be deleted if it can be avoided through merging or redirection. When someone brought up that an ATD existed, Spartaz was obligated to redirect there instead of delete. Misunderstanding policy is one thing, but also accusing the one who is correctly following policy of personally attacking you is another thing entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- I was not a nominator. The animosity and personal attacks of admins is appaling. On the contrary, in my opinion, premature closing indicates a lack od desire to search for a proper consensus on a far from being non-controversal issue. --Altenmann >talk 20:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse as the right close. We don't want to give a trout to the appellant because that implies something minor. I already have one conduct report pending, and so I will only suggest that the appellant, who hasn't learned after 16 years, be admonished. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: an admonishment would be a waste of time. The appellant was sysopped in January 2004 under his "Mikkalai" account, back when all that took was 2.5 months of editing and ten supporters. In 2010, he was found to be operating a sock farm, which he used largely to ensure he got his way at AfDs. As a result, he was desysopped and blocked by Arbcom. Two years later, the block was removed, leaving in place some editing and account restrictions. I don't know if the most recent disruption qualifies as a violation of the terms of his parole, but you're welcome to file an Arbitration Enforcement case at the appropriate venue - a more efficient process than AN/I. Owen× ☎ 16:44, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse That was a good assessment of the process outcome. Nothing was going to get that article kept, nothing guarantees a relist. ATD was reasonable, and the caution in the closing statement indicated awareness of potential drawbacks. Not even sure why we're here. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Good close - in effect a redirect close but as for all redirect closes, it permits selectively merging any pertinent content. Katzrockso (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. WP:ATD is policy. FaviFake (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse agree with @OwenX FestusBashara (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse My take is that if a redirect/merge is proposed, editors who believe the content should be deleted or if the proposed target is problematic (like if there are multiple plausible targets or there is no content/context for the reader at the target), then comments during the discussion need to articulate those concerns. This is especially true if the nominator themself suggests an ATD. In absense of a reason why the redirect is problamentic, a closing editors should strongly consider the ATD. --Enos733 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Look ... I'm not going to jive around here. I started creating the Wiki page for my old business, doing edits like syntax and citations where appropriate. Saving it to resume editing for another day. And it was INSTANTLY DELETED under "suspicion of AI integrated use" Which was incorrect and unnecessary, as NO WARNING or email informing me of such. That is unacceptable as Wiki used to be BETTER THAN THIS in the day. Allowing starters of new articles to be DRAFT for later publish. But somehow went political or gangbusters over time. Scrutinizing everything without proper warning. I've created/edited many posts over time WITHOUT ISSUE. So to state that I can "submit a delete reversal for consideration of reactivation, including my removed Sandbox" is horrendous and unacceptable. No one has the time or patience to deal through PAGES of ridiculous "syntax" and Wiki "code" to simply PUBLISH or edit a page honestly. Which was what I was intending. I am NOT "AI" nor did I use any AI program or system to generate the article I was doing for publish. But a REAL PERSON who's written many things over time, including Fanfiction.
|
| 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 article is about one of the most important electrical substations in Sri Lanka. It has recently gained more press coverage due to Sri Lanka's first and largest BESS system being installed at the same premises. The article is well written and sourced, and in my opinion well Wikipedia-worthy. The BESS facility warrants its own article (as other BESS facility articles on Wikipedia), but I feel this combined article compliments a better coverage of the subjects, instead of having two separate articles. This was my response to alleged AI-use. For what it's worth: I work in the energy industry, and have been writing about the subjects since 2008. Rehman 03:45, 26 October 2026 (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. |
|
Many of the people saying merge did so before the article was expanded, and a relist was probably more appropriate in this instance.~2026-57013-66 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2026 (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. | ||
|
During the discussion, there was a consensus that the subject meets GNG and a disagreement among editors whether it should remain as a standalone page, with 8 supporting retention and 7 preferring merge. The discussion was closed as "merge selectively" because Keep participants failed to address the merge rationale. The nominator (and 3 "per nom") provided three reasons for their proposal, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, disagreement with article content, and that
| ||
| 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. |
|
In this sidebar, preserved here, which had the corollary article Far-right politics, there were many articles included within it that explicitly have "far-right" in their titles:
In it were other articles like Right-wing dictatorship that also clearly belonged, despite not explicitly saying "far-right" in their titles. Can we honestly say that all of these articles are not clearly enough related to warrant a sidebar connecting them together? I believe this sidebar was deleted in violation of WP:BEFORE ( If you want the truth I am a bit uncomfortable with how the deletion, started by User:PARAKANYAA, was replied to by User:Sirfurboy 6 hours later. I am going to assume these two editors, who have been going from sidebar to sidebar making mass WP:BIDI deletions and defending those deletions on the sidebar talk pages, are purely interested in keeping our sidebars tight and on topic. That being the case, there appears to be an understanding among them that WP:BIDI can now be aggressively applied beyond the norm to take down any sidebar they don't like (either to damage it in part or to remove it in whole), because no sidebar in Wikipedia follows these standards so stringently. We need to be reasonable with our deletions. And the consensus that has been reached in this discussion exceeds reason. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2026 (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. |
|
I know I haven't been really active lately due to Wi-Fi limitations, but I'm coming on behalf of an article that was nominated for deletion back in 2023. I personally think the close was terrible because it did a lot of damage for users who especially have the possibility to clean-up and merge. At best, the AfD should have ended as Redirect. Alternatively, someone else could have done a bold redirect before the debate even started. However, I didn't have time to vote, nor was I aware of the it. Taking to this deletion review, should we restore the page's original revision, so some users (including me) finally have time to merge the list into the parent article myself? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 22 October 2026 (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. |
|
Hi. There should be a reconsider for this merging. The article should be a standalone, the White genocide in south Africa is different from the main White genocide conspiracy theory. I think most of the other editors forget that actually this article is about South Africa only. It documents the topic in regard to south Africa, it should not be merged. The selective merging is not a good idea because that will show selective context, it will cut important sections. If a reader wants to know the full white genocide context, they should read the main white genocide article, this article doesn't attempt to classify what the white genocide claim is, it just talks about it in relation to south Africa. I would like more opinion on this and a reconsider, for the article to be standalone. Omniking2100 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
