Skip to: Active discussions Recent discussions Archive (purge cache)

Shortcut WP:DRV

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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 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".

4 March 2024

27 February 2024

24 February 2024

What Do I Have to Do? (Stabbing Westward song) (closed)

22 February 2024

File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg

File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I originally approached the deleting admin, but they were uncomfortable with unilaterally undeleting it after a discussion and told me to take it here. I don't think this image should have been deleted.

1) the assertion that it was a press agency image was false, the victim was a child not known before he died and the context and distribution of the image make it clear that it originated from his family, who it is perfectly permissible to use a minimal version from under the project's fair use rules. With cases like these it's often redistributed by agencies, who obviously do not own the copyright. It's also standard to have a picture of the murder victim (see: Murder of Brianna Ghey) on their article if one can be found that isn't a press agency image (which this isn't).

2) It's also particularly relevant to the article in question, as the victim's young age is what made the case notable. Without a picture, a significant aspect of the notability is lost on the reader.

The point over it not being a press agency image was brought up in the discussion, but was not addressed by anyone. There was a single delete vote before this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse I closed the FfD. Re-adding the image to the article in its current state would be an WP:NFCC#8 violation. I also do not believe it is standard practice to automatically insert a non-free image of a person in Killing of ... type articles. Anyways, I'm not opposed to re-evaluating if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth. For convenience: image, description page. Courtesy pings for @J Milburn, @Cremastra, @Davest3r08 -Fastily 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  With regard to the content of the article, it suffers from the common problem where it's under extended confirmed protection so it stops getting edited whenever it stops being interesting to the typical breaking news editors, and later coverage is simply never added. I don't really get why people try to make articles so soon after an event happens, but they do.

  I guess that's a different reason (which I disagree with), but it wasn't the reason the FfD was started, and that reason was blatantly incorrect. In my opinion this is as just as contextually significant to the article topic as any other article about the death of a person which uses a non-free image, which to my awareness is most of them (that don't have usable free images) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question - What article was this image being used in? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Robert McClenon Killing of Wadea al-Fayoume PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The nom appears to be mistaken in the NFCC#2 argument and that was noted in the discussion. The weak delete isn't backed by anything other than an opinion (which is standard in these cases) but is a reasonable reference to NFCC#8. relist as we don't have consensus (which I know is common in FfD discussions) and the mistaken nom just made it hard for anyone to usefully contribute in defense of the article. I suspect the #8 arguments will win out, but I think folks should be given time to realize that's the actual reason that needs to be discussed. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No opposition to this, but honestly I'm quite surprised that there are particular questions when it comes to this article and #8, considering that it seems to be quite accepted in for articles about murders, disappearances and specific killings to have a fair use image of the victim. I don't see how in the Murder of Bianca Devins (a GA) or Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (a FA) or Murder of Cameron Blair (a GA). Of course, other stuff exists and that's not an argument, but it seems to be in every GA/FA on this type of article I could find. I don't the picture of is any less necessary here. Sure, in both cases you could go without it, but that goes for pretty much all images of say, a deceased person as well. The bio of a deceased person is just as comprehensible without a photo of them, and yet it's standard practice to include it on bio articles if one is available.

  But yes relist and get consensus that's good. Just wanted to comment because this surprises me and I plan on getting similar articles to an higher quality in the future, and thought this was generally accepted. And if it shouldn't be done then a *lot* of files need to be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - I would have preferred to have this appeal less than two months after the FFD, but I don't think it was ready for closure. There wasn't enough participation in the FFD to constitute consensus, with the nom, one Weak Delete, and one comment. I am not an expert on Non-Free Content Criteria and will not say what the proper action should be. If I become more familiar with the criteria while the FFD is relisted, I may participate. There wasn't enough participation to read a consensus based on the input, and a Relist is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. I am unclear why Hobit thinks that I was mistaken in my claim that this image was a NFCC#2 violation. No argument or evidence has been provided. It was (in Hobit's words) 'pointed out' in the nom that 'The copyright holder is al-Fayoume's family'; but no evidence was provided for this. On this page, from which the image was sourced, Reuters is selling the image. I'd say this is a pretty obvious shut-and-closed NFCC#2 case. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And before anyone points out that the photo was almost certainly taken by a family member, and not a Reuters employee... Of course. But might Reuters be selling this on behalf of the family? Might the family have given it to Reuters? Might Reuters have bought this from the family? I'm not an expert on how these press agencies work. All I know is that Reuters is selling rights to the images. If I'm 'mistaken', are they mistaken, too? Are they lying? What exactly is being claimed here? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    There are numerous cases where agencies have sold images that they merely redistribute and do not own the copyright of. They in no way own the copyright especially since every other source credits the image to the Central of Islamic Relations of Chicago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Law and Crime cites the image of him to CAIR-Chicago and so does this and The Independent lists the same photo of him as from Cair Chicago, which is the Center of Islamic Relations of Chicago, not Reuters or a press agency. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In fact, of all the sources I see that use this image, I can't find any besides Reuters itself that credit the image to them. Sometimes press agencies do this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ok, it sounds like we are accusing Reuters of being mistaken/lying. If you're right that Reuters are mistaken/lying, then yes, I'm happy to admit that I was mistaken about NFCC#2. But I wonder if there are other ways we could go about this. Are there any images out there that aren't being claimed by Reuters? They might not overcome NFCC#8 worries (on which I'm neutral), but they'd at least overcome my NFCC#2 worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are a few, this one, listed as "Courtesy of Hela Yousef" and this one ("Family Handout/CAIR-Chicago)". The first one is quite a bit better IMO. From searching all of Reuters articles about this case they have never claimed either of those as theirs. Either are listed as from CAIRC or "family handout" (or both) in every source that uses them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ok. I would not oppose one of those pictures being used on NFCC#2 grounds; if we're going to have an image (again, I'm neutral on the NFCC#8 question) let's make it one of them, and not one claimed (falsely or otherwise) by Reuters. So I think the deletion of this image should stand. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's fine, a new image can be uploaded and I'm not bothered, but I would really like to get some consensus on the #8 criterion here because if this is the common interpretation there are probably hundreds of files in this exact kind of article that fail it and should be deleted, including multiple FAs and other GAs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I agree. I fear that may need to be a wider conversation than is possible on this deletion review. I confess I didn't mean to provoke any kind of wider conversation when I nominated the image for deletion; I genuinely thought it a straightforward NFCC#2 violation. Given that you're happy to use a non-agency-claimed image if/when you use another, I'm happy, so I'm going to step back from the conversation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse It does appear NFCC#2 and #8 apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  NFCC#2 does not apply (see my rebuttal above) and if this violates NFCC#8 I don't really see what doesn't tbh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't agree with you there, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What about the usage in this article is any less contextually relevant than other articles of this type? Are they not supposed to have images? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't think that matters as that quickly becomes an other stuff argument and we need to be focused only on the image at hand. FfDs are hard due to minimal participation, but after reading the discussion here and there I'm convinced NFCC#2 applies because the image is clearly for sale and that NFCC#8 applies because the article does not need the image to convey the necessary information. SportingFlyer T·C 17:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The other stuff argument does not apply because FAs and GAs are rigorously reviewed by the community, so I consider the sign that this is present in every high quality article like this a sign that this is an accepted use of a non-free image. With regard to NFCC#2, for sale image agencies often do stuff like that. Getty Images is notorious for selling and claiming the rights to public domain images, this isn't a new practice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Again, I do not agree with you here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  On which part? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• On Wikipedia there's an old and long-standing tension between those who want to build an encyclopaedia using only free content ("free content maximalists") and those who what to build an encyclopaedia by any lawful means ("get-it-done-ists"). FFD as a venue tends to attract free content maximalists, and its decisions tend to disfavour the get-it-done-ists, so here at deletion review we've often seen NFCC#8 overreach. I've often criticised FFD for needlessly and wilfully stopping us from getting stuff done. But in this particular case, I'm not seeing that, and I would endorse this particular example. I note that news sources around the world are using images owned by the victim's family, and I suggest that the family might well be willing to consent to our using an image. And more importantly, I note that for example, the BBC here managed to produce a perfectly clear and accurate article without a single image of the victim.
  And, finally, what the heck? We don't need an image of a six year old child to know that six years old is a horribly young age to be murdered at.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Okay, but then do the images on all these kinds of articles (Murder of types of articles) need to be deleted? What is the standard for when the article about someone dying needs a picture of them? Because pretty much all of them fail it, then. And I'm not opposed to all of them getting deleted but I would appreciate knowing where the line is so I know what files to request the deletion of, considering this affects Good and Featured articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Also, 1, 2, 3 PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I may be missing your point with those links? On my screen, only the first one of those has a picture of Wadea al-Fayoume. We're not making a decision about all the other articles about murder victims. We're making a decision about this specific article about a murder victim. We take these things one at a time because the facts in each case are different.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  For me all three of them do. Weird. Fair enough, but what about this case makes this any less contextually relevant? Yes, case by case, but precedent in high quality articles is a picture is included. I can't find any other GA or FA like this that doesn't include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Wait I think I screwed up the links. Sometimes news sites are really weird about that. Here are the ones I meant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And again, even today, people make articles like this. This article is two days old and start class and has an image of the victim. Every article I've seen does. If this is inappropriate, then sure, but I don't think otherstuffexists applies when it is every article like this PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, otherstuffexists applies everywhere in deletion debates. Why would you think it doesn't?

I mean, to be fair to you, otherstuff is part of WP:ATA so it isn't a policy that binds you. It's an essay that you're free to disregard. I tend to say that ATA isn't a rule at all, it's just a laundry list of things some Wikipedians think other Wikipedians shouldn't be allowed to say.

But in content decisions, it's custom and practice that Wikipedia doesn't do precedent. We take each decision separately on its own.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would just say that if other images exist that need to be deleted, then that is an argument for deleting those, not for keeping images that have been properly recognised as ineligible for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse - Non-free content must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. This image was nominated as failing WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. Press agencies do sometimes claim to own images that they in fact do not own. NFCC#2 was challenged in the discussion, but not NFCC#8. Failing to meet one the two reasons in the nomination is sufficient to establish that non-free content criteria are not met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The FFD appears to have fallen into error by a misapplication of NFCC#2, and did not adequately discuss the NFCC#8 considerations. Given the low attendance (albeit common for FFD) I think it is appropriate to discuss this again with full information. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. There was sufficient clarity in the discussion that this failed NFCC#2. One participant sought additional explanation regarding the application of NFCC#2, but non-fulfillment of NFCC#2 was not serious questioned. The image can be captioned as being credited to the family but deals can be made that give other entities exclusive rights to the image, such as to use it commercially. Various arrangements are possible, and saying that the family is the copyright holder and the agency is selling what is not theirs is not a reliable supposition and not a robust approach to this question.—Alalch E. 15:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21 February 2024

20 February 2024

19 February 2024

Lunatic Lateral (closed)

Michele Evans (closed)

King K. Rool

King K. Rool (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

As the original editor of the page, I was unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. There is nothing in the deletion criteria that mentions relative notability. Declaring that K. Rool is not notable because "he is not on the same level as Bowser"—the most well-known villain in video game history—is not a fair standard to measure against, nor does the general notability guideline make any such stipulation. Every claim in the article is meticulously cited and verifiable, with 61 citations in total—which is more than what Donkey Kong himself has. The article details K. Rool's history in great depth, including his appearances outside of the Donkey Kong video game series as covered by reliable sources.

Furthermore, by merging K. Rool's page into List of Donkey Kong characters, the character is not being documented accurately when a significant portion of his notability and fandom is centered around his appearance in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, the best-selling fighting game of all-time.

Characters derive notability from their source material, not because they are in some arbitrary number of pop culture articles. That being said, the original King K. Rool page is filled with numerous mainstream sources and online news outlets discussing K. Rool at length. His inclusion in Smash was even covered by a local newspaper^[1] and an episode of the Netflix TV series Inside Job.^[2]

Toadster101 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment as the closing admin: contrary to your statement, the King K. Rool page was created in 2004, a full nine years before you joined Wikipedia. Your first edit to that page was in 2015, when the article had already been edited over a thousand times, making you, Toadster101, one of the latter editors to that page, rather than its "original editor".

I am sorry you were unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. The nominator did, in fact, notify the IP address from which the page was originally authored, admittedly a rather pointless exercise twenty years later, but that is how WP:Twinkle works. They also placed the notice on the article itself, but it seems you were on a wikibreak for the past six months. I find it ironic that while you complain about not being notified, you skipped Step #2 for the DRV, and failed to notify the AfD closer (me) of your appeal. Thankfully, the ever dilligent Cryptic did this in your stead.

As for the AfD you are appealing, even if you had participated in that AfD, if your argument was based on the two sources you cited above - a spot in a local newspaper (which?) and a single episode crossover in another show - it would likely not have changed the tide on what was a unanimous consensus to merge. DRV is not AfD-round-two, but even if it were, I doubt we'd see a different outcome. But by all means, let's hear what uninvolved participants think. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies for not notifying you directly as per the recommended guidelines. I don't have an extensive editing history beyond pruning the K. Rool article and I haven't accessed this platform in over six months, as you correctly pointed out.

While it's true that I didn't start making edits until 2015, that's because the original version of the article was deleted for being badly cited and because K. Rool wasn't considered notable enough. However, the article was restored after I successfully plead my case to the editors and remade the article from scratch with well-researched citations and proof of the character's notability. As you can see, it was restored by @user:UY Scuti for "currently meet[ing] notability" less than an hour before my first edit on November 5th, 2015.

This was prior to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's release in 2018, which revitalized the character and increased his notability significantly. For certain editors to suddenly conclude that K. Rool is no longer "notable," despite previously meeting the criteria eight years ago before the release of this major game, feels arbitrary. Has the criteria recently changed? Toadster101 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse there's no other way to close that discussion. I've also taken a look at the last version of the article to appear in mainspace and in spite of 67 references, I don't see any obvious pass of GNG, suggesting the merge !votes weren't in error. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse as the proper finding of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. The DRV nom makes argument that could be relevant in an AfD, but the AfD is over, ending with a consensus to merge, and a merger was performed. Mergers can be reversed by splitting.—Alalch E. 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• relist A) the applicant is correct, he really should have been notified. Yes, he wasn't the creator per se (since it was restored) but still. And B) this is so far past the GNG it's not funny. Newsweek has an article about the character including some history of the character's creation. [1]. [2] is a RS solely about the character. [3] is another. The addition of this character to Super Smash made news in the mainstream (non-gaming) media including [4] Esquire. When the creator tweeted about the character's name and history, it was picked up by what looks like a dozen news outlets. I think we need a new discussion that is actually informed. Heck, the links provided above darn clearly show we have newspaper articles on this topic. Folks might be able to argue "game guide" or ONEEVENT or something, but "not notable" just isn't something we should be entertaining given the actual sourcing. Hobit (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: There seems to be off-wiki canvassing concerning this DRV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @LilianaUwU: I'm not seeing evidence of that here. What are you seeing? Hobit (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @Hobit I've seen a post on Twitter linking to DRV and encouraging to make comments. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Not commenting on whether the close was right or not, but I think this is probably notable enough for it's own article based off the sources above and others that are probably out there. The character has been around for decades. It's section at List of Donkey Kong characters is huge. Should probably be WP:SPLIT. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Folks, while in general we aren't here to relitigate the AfD, have you all actually looked at the sources? We have a 1/3 page newspaper article ([5]), non-trivial coverage in Newsweek and Esquire, and a huge amount of coverage in the gaming press. Yes, most of it is for A) inclusion in Super Smash or B) to discuss a comment by the creator of the character. But the coverage is ignored by the AfD. It's a bad AfD. And yes, the cite flooding of the article contributed to no one being able to find the good sources, but that too isn't a reason to delete. This is way over "receiv[ing] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Recall that "significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In this case the subject *is* the main topic of literally dozens of articles, some in the broader press. @Alalch E., Robert McClenon, LilianaUwU, SportingFlyer, and OwenX: Hobit (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The article you posted had a link which actually somewhat undermines your argument, if a blog is posting that a local newspaper reported on it: [6] I don't think this was incorrectly decided. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Sorry, I find that reaction fairly frustrating. I chose that link because it shows the article in the context of being actually printed in a real paper. The fact the the link of the picture came from a blog is irrelevant to if the article in question is reliable, yes? The article in question counts as a reliable source that has fairly detailed coverage of the topic, yes? So counts toward WP:N? I'm really unsure what point you are making here. Help? Hobit (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Does the notability of the article now rely on a photo of what some blog claims to be a local newspaper? Does anybody else still remember when there used to be a stand at amusement parks and state fairs where you could get a fake newspaper front page printed with your name, photo and a headline? Of course, you can now do all this at home with Adobe or free software. I think we'll need a pretty radical interpretation of WP:RS to accept a photo of a local paper whose name or publisher we don't even know as a source. Owen× ☎ 16:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Adding some two-cents here, GoNintendo is marked unreliable on WP:VG/S, due to no evidence of an editorial policy and many posts being submissions. So even with a relist if it was presented as a source, it'd be shot down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Extended Comment - Replying to @WikiOriginal-9 and Hobit: and others - The real issue here seems to be what should we do at DRV if it is semi-obvious that the AFD was wrong? We at DRV are not here to re-litigate the AFD, but some of the most difficult cases at DRV have to do with an AFD where the AFD was wrong. There are two varieties of such cases, both of which are difficult. The first is where the AFD was wrong, and the closer correctly assessed the incorrect consensus; this is such a case. The second is where the AFD was wrong, and the closer supervoted against the incorrect consensus. Merging and then splitting seems like process for the sake of process. The question before us at DRV should, in my opinion, be whether to overturn the close of Merge and instead Relist the AFD. For the time being, I will strike my Endorse, and consider whether to !vote for a Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Obviously, my opinion is that a significantly flawed AfD should be relisted or (in extreme cases) just started over. I'd hope we'd all agree on that. The question is where the bar is for "significantly flawed" and if this one has that characteristic. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As an uninvolved party who considers VG characters under my area of interest, I find the argument that reliable sources were not considered unconvincing. The examples you provided were largely not something I would use to argue for a character's notability. The Esquire source isn't talking about K. Rool, it's talking about the Nintendo Direct, which, for obvious reasons, requires mentioning K. Rool. The Polygon source says virtually nothing to show notability, and the argument that having this article made is a show of notability is, once again, unconvincing. Looking into it, every character added to Smash Ultimate got their own article in Polygon. The only exception I saw was Richter, who shared an article with Simon (for obvious reasons). This tells me that the article was written not because K. Rool was notable, but because the Smash roster is notable as a collective. Now, where I will admit you've made a good argument is with this - [7] it has a lot to say about K. Rool, it's not trivial, it's not excessively game guide content. It covers a lot of ground, and it's clearly made because the writer considers the character notable, which is what I love to see. However, that's all I'm seeing that would tell me the character is especially notable. If you could present more like this, I would agree that K. Rool's article should exist, but not that the AfD was faulty. The AfD, going off the info it had at the time, was the appropriate decision. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is the first I've ever heard of the subject, and - as you know from my above comment - I don't think there was anything flawed about the AfD. There were 67 references in the article, so there was plenty of opportunity to perform a source review, and my spot check of the most promising ones didn't make me think there was anything wrong with the result. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment While twinkle did inform the IP in question, I will counter the argument that Toadster is the "original editor", as several editors appear to have been working on the article along the way, so it would be difficult to presume they are *the* editor to notify over others. Additionally LilianaUwU is correct that there is an attempt at canvassing going on, as can be seen here, here, and linking to the DRV process here, where the primary complaint is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that they feel are less significant. That second link in particular is interesting because it's boasting that they "created the King K. Rool article from the ground-up during the Smash Ballot", which definitely at least indicates it's an editor on here, and it is questionable the time of the tweets line up with the deletion review.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Relist: With the sources Hobit provided in here, I feel this is worth a relist to gather input from others on whether King K. Rool passes notability for a standalone article or not. MoonJet (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As one of those who voted in the AfD, my opinions are still the same. The merge could definitely have been carried out better, but that's not grounds to relist the AfD. As covered by editors above, very little indicates that notability standards are met, especially so given there are very few in-depth sources on the subject that aren't just random listicles and rankings related to Smash. The nominator should also be called into question here given the very blatant canvassing attempts that interfere with the discussion at hand. In any case, I don't see a need to relist the discussion. The AfD was carried out utilizing what sources could be found, and nothing of note was scrounged up. K. Rool simply does not meet the threshold, as sad as it is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. (!voted above) Too late for anything: The merger has been performed and is not contested at the target page after several days. AfD can't undo this addition to the target page (out of remit of AfD which is not a suitable forum for forming a consensus on matters of editorial judgement on a completely different article) so the AfD bears no promise of a desirable alternative outcome; a nominal AfD 'keep' now would not effectively lead to keeping, it would lead to creating a redundant content fork so we should not reopen the discussion to explore an alterantive that is an aberration.—Alalch E. 02:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If the afd clothes is undone, you will be trivial to restore the article. And in fact the summary at the merge target is fine anyways. So I disagree with that pretty strongly, if this eventually gets overturned it is quite important and quite easy to restore. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The target article contains more detail now than a summary would/should. How much detail it should contain is not an issue of whether the deletion process was followed correctly, or whether the close was reasonable or inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. It's a completely separate question of editorial sense that's outside of the boundaries of any deletion process.—Alalch E. 22:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And that's trivial to fix editorially. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As long as we know that it's something that needs to be fixed. —Alalch E. 08:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse. With 3 merge !votes and no keep or delete !votes, the consensus was clearly to merge. DRV is not for taking another bite of the apple. Yilloslime (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is for things like new information and how to deal with really bad discussions. DRV is not just for nose counting... Hobit (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17 February 2024

Deanne Pandey (closed)

Chikki Panday (closed)

Ivan Katchanovski (closed)

Lion of Oz

Lion of Oz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This non-admin closure says that the consensus found the film passed WP:NFILM and WP:NFO criteria 1. To my eye, the consensus was that it did not meet criteria 1 (or any other NFILM criteria), but that those in favour of a keep considered the sources sufficient for WP:GNG. I think the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the consensus, and I think the discussion overall was too controversial to be suitable for a non-admin closure. I request that an admin review this close. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (disclosure: I was the nom) I agree that this was a poor close. The closer's statement, The sources provided, including reviews, adequately establish the film's notability under WP:NFILM. Additionally, given that the film received reviews from major publishers, it fulfills the requirements outlined in WP:NFO#1, looks to me like a supervote, especially considering that everyone agreed the case for WP:GNG was stronger than the one for WP:NFILM, even the respondents who thought it met both of them. I would grumble at, but accept, a keep closure; however, I agree with LEvalyn that the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I stand by the rationale behind my closure. As highlighted by multiple users in the AfD discussion, the film has received reviews from notable publishers, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in WP:NFO#1, a crucial component of WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬
    • Point one, the question isn't whether your assessment is a correct identification of the film's notability: the question is whether this close accurately summarized the consensus of the AfD discussion. I can understand a conclusion that consensus was for a GNG keep, but no one in the AfD said it was a pass of NFILM#1. That is because, point two, NFILM#1 requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, and this film has zero of those. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It seems you might have overlooked the comments by those who !voted to keep (there are four of them), referencing reviews that automatically point toward WP:NFO#1. GSS ^💬 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse the closure of Keep, which was a valid reading of consensus, and the most plausible reading of consensus. With 6 Keeps, citing reliability of sources, and 3 Deletes including the nomination, this appeal appears to be saying that the closer should have supervoted by ignoring consensus.
  • Comment - It makes no difference whether the film passes film notability if it clearly passes general notability, which it does, since general notability is the encompassing guideline, and film notability is subordinate. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  To be clear, I don’t object (too much) to a closure of keep, which I agree is a plausible reading of the debate, and there’s no need to pass NFILM if GNG is met. However, I strongly object to the closer’s stated rationale, which inserts its own supervote by making assertions about NFILM#1 which are not supported by the AfD. It is the citation of NFILM over GNG that I contend interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I don't think a pass of NFILM#1 should go "on the record"; I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Overturn as a WP:BADNAC, as the close has become controversial, and re-close by a competent administrator. The closing statement reads like a vote instead of reflecting the result of the consensus. I'm not sure there's a better outcome for the initiator of this DRV, though, even with a couple keep !votes that I read as weak. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Overturn and get an admin to close, without relisting. I appreciate GSS's transparency, but this transparency allows us to see the improper reasoning behind the close. An XfD closer's job is not to assess the article and its sourcing, and it is certainly not to come up with their own fresh arguments. Their job is to read the consensus of the participants. And participants excludes the closer, who is expected to be neutral and impartial as to the page being discussed. If we had any doubt that this was a supervote, GSS's comments here, doubling down on their mistake, removes that doubt. This is a classic WP:NACPIT situation. Relisting would be a waste of time, but the current closure cannot be allowed to stand. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My reason for closing the AfD should not be treated as a super !vote. It's a standard practice to summarize the consensus outcome, which is why I indicated it when closing the AfD. Additionally, it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, which is what I mentioned while closing the AfD. Thank you. GSS ^💬 13:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Once again, you prove my claim. If it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, then you should have !voted that way as a participant in the AfD, rather than imposed your view as a closer. You did not "summarize the consensus outcome". You took bits and pieces of the views you agreed with, added a bit of your own view that wasn't reflected in any of the participants' comments, and closed it based on that. That, GSS, is what we call a supervote. And as SportingFlyer mentioned, this was clearly not an uncontroversial AfD, which means that it should have been left for an admin to close. Owen× ☎ 14:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Yeah, your response makes it crystal clear this was a BADNAC close, even if Keep is a viable option. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse keep closure as the correct result, but I agree this close would have been better left to an admin. The wording of the close is more appropriate as a “keep” vote rather than a close, making the close a (likely unintentional) WP:SUPERVOTE. That said, there is consensus to keep, and the discussion does not need to be reopened so an admin can close it the same way. Frank Anchor 15:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - It is true that the close was less than ideal, but any other close would need to be brought to DRV and overturned. Reopening the AFD so that it can be closed by an admin would be process for the sake of process. Either this DRV or the close of this DRV should serve as the non-controversial close of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I may seem to be usually in favor of what seems to be process for the sake of process, but that is because it is important to get the right answer, that is, the answer that improves the encyclopedia, so that it is important to ascertain what the {rough} consensus is if there is a (rough) consensus. In this case, we know what the right answer is, and can ignore any process for the sake of process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse as the only result that could be reached in the discussion (as even a no consensus close would be a stretch). I think the problem here is not with the close but the rational provided. I find it helpful if a closer summarizes the discussion with works like "Participants say" or "Supporters of keeping the article" or something similar to indicate to readers that the closers comments are a summary of the discussion, rather than a statement that appears to be a comment in support or opposition to deleting an article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Overturn as a WP:BADNAC as it was not an unambiguous closure and became controversial. As a side note, I also find some of GSS's non-admin closures problematic and rushed. These two recent closures were also not appropriate as well and bothered me as they were clearly controversial and not unambiguous Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chikki_Panday, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deanne_Pandey Tehonk (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I agree. Both of those should have been left to an admin. The second one should probably have been relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you, Tehonk! I listed both here at DRV. These out-of-process WP:BADNAC non-admin supervote closures need to stop. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There's nothing wrong with a non-controversial non-administrative close, but as soon as there's a delete or it's a close call the correct thing to do is to cast a vote in the AfD! The most valuable thing someone can do at AfD is participate. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Overturn and close by an administrator as a BADNAC. The closer's rationale is an excellent argument for !voting 'keep', but is a distinctly poor rationale for closing as keep - closers are responsible for assessing consensus in the debate, and referring back to that consensus in their closure. I would have done this myself under the provisions of Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ("an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity") but given it's being discussed here with some split opinions, would rather leave to the closure of this debate to take action if that's where consensus lands. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Overturn bad non-admin closure. NOTBURO was mentioned, but vacating closes is not very BURO because it just takes one person to reclose. It is not running the whole process again, and while overturning a BADNAC can also lead to a relist (not in this case), if a relist is truly needed, that would especially not be a BURO moment. So overturning such closes is usually worth the community resources as having more certainty in the correctness of the outcome and a better written closing statement is not quite so insignificant.—Alalch E. 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Overturn for an admin to close. Bad close verging on Supervote. Correct result, but closing summaries must close per the consensus of the discussion, not introduce the closer’s rationale. NACers when challenged should not stand their ground and force a DRV case, that is not a net positive to the project. NAC closes should be restricted to closes that will not be challenged. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Someone please reclose as we seem to be split on leaving vs. reclosing, but that the ultimate result was correct. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This is a case of a non-admin close that shouldn't have been a non-admin close, but was ultimately the correct result of keep. So let's just move on, endorse the end result, WP:TROUT GSS for the BADNAC (and the other BADNACs brought up in this discussion), and trout LEvalyn for the futile challenge to the result. Carson Wentz (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I respectfully disagree. LEvalyn did the right thing in bringing this to our attention here. The two other BADNACs have since been speedily overturned, and hopefully GSS has finally received the message. None of this would have happened had the appellant not spoken up. Owen× ☎ 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  LEvalyn has also been clear that the desired outcome is not a futile challenge to the result. From a reply above: I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I agree with Owen and others above that this absolutely isn't a futile challenge. This isn't the equivalent of swapping keep to no consensus, and the minimal change that comes from that difference. A faulty AfD close rationale is something that should absolutely be corrected at DRV, especially when done by a non-admin. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oyi, closing statement didn't reflect the discussion but the final result (keep) was easily justified by the discussion. Eh, I'm okay with a new closer, new closing statement, or just an overturn so someone else can close it. The NAC doesn't play a role--it's just a bad summary of the discussion and should not stand. Hobit (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Meh. The keep and delete votes were both reasonably strong and had a reasonable disagreement on interpretations of policy. Accordingly, as there is a 2/3 majority for keep, it should have been closed as keep and not NC. But the close is erroneous, it's not up for the closer to decide whether NFILM is met. The closer can write There is a consensus that the references below meets GNG, which would have been fine, but as it stands it is a supervote. I still don't really see whether it's worth it to oveturn and then re-close with a different statement. VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15 February 2024

Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch

Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hidayat-ur-Rehman Baloch is elected ([8], [9] [10]) as a member of the Balochistan Assembly in the recent elections, now he meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Neutral. I closed the AfD, but was asked to restore the bio because of the election. I recommended Ainty Painty to go here, as I'm not sure that being a member of the Balochistan Assembly meets NPOL. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse AfD closure but allow undeletion due to the subject's new position. NPOL confers a presumption of notability to elected provincial legislators in Pakistan, but the sources cited by the appellant don't offer any significant coverage. Hopefully we'll get more soon. Owen× ☎ 12:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It's been a year, but the nom was a sock and the non-weak delete vote may have been a sock, leaving one weak delete. I'm not sure what the article was like before but I don't see any reason to not allow a new article to be created here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I temp-undeleted the page to allow all here to see it. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Eh, there's not much there. If they won an election, it's probably still usable information though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse the closure, which was a valid closure.
  • Allow Recreation either of article subject to AFD or submission of draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Allow recreation per WP:POLITICIAN; a provincial legislator in Pakistan ought to be notable, as Pakistan is a very populous country with very few provinces. The previous version of the article was only three sentences long, so I hope that a better version can be created with appropriate sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Overturn to soft delete as the nom is a confirmed sock and that only leaves two delete votes, which is not a quorum to delete an article. Soft-deleted articles should be speedily restored upon any good-faith challenge to the deletion (e.g. this DRV). Further, with the subject's recent election win, he now has presumed notability under WP:NPOL. However, adequate referencing must be added to the page or it is subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: just as an aside, the fact that socking was a problem only emerged after the AfD was closed. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree, there is no way you were expected to know that when you made your close which was 100% correct based on information known at the time. Now that the sock information has been made available, the close can be modified. Frank Anchor 01:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Restore There are significant RS about Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch. He is elected a member of the provincial assembly. So he deserves WP page. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Undelete to draftspace instead of mainspace because it's an outdated BLP. To interested editors: Update the information while the page is a draft and then move to mainspace. Alternatively, if you don't want to use any of the deleted page's content, just create a wholly new and up-to-date article (if doing it this way, a deletion review wasn't needed).—Alalch E. 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]