Wikipedia:Deletion review

Administrator instructions

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

Shortcuts WP:DRV WP:DELREV WP:DELREVIEW

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result 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[edit]

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Discuss the matter with the closing editor and try to resolve it with them first. If you and the closer cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review. See § Purpose.
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[edit]

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=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{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[edit]

Any editor may express his or her 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[edit]

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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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).

Active discussions[edit]

23 March 2019[edit]

22 March 2019[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ok so this is a bit of an odd one... I was the one who nominated this template for deletion and the outcome of the discussion WAS to delete it. So... Why am I challenging? As I started to actually look at performing the conversion, I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a deletion review may be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. I want to be clear, I do not believe that ANYONE acted in bad faith here. Hhkohh I am NOT questioning that you acted in good faith when you closed the discussion. At the time, I obviously 100% supported it. I think the only fair thing here is to reopen the discussion. At the end of the day, I want to make sure we get this right. If anyone has any questions or would like me to explain something more, please {{ping|zackmann08}} and I will be happy to answer! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked" Perhaps you could share those findings with us..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: great question. The biggest thing was the discovery of Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality/. While in general I am opposed to the use of templates to store data in this way, right now it is the best solution there is. Until such time as all that data is able to be ported over to something like Wikidata in a more supporting way, I think that converting the infobox will cause more harm than good. Whether or not you agree with that, I strongly believe this point warrants further discussion. In the interest of fairness and transparency, I think we need to hash out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Endorse there is nothing that needs changing here; there is clearly consensus to not use a wrapper infobox, and it seems like there is consensus to continue to use the data subtemplates. Those two outcomes are not incompatible, as data subtemplates can be passed directly to the infobox, see Template:Metadata Population BE for an example. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

21 March 2019[edit]

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine[edit]

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the new settlement template are all (standardised) blue, while the old Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine was green, matching the Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This is a colour that we have decided on after many discussions over the years. Unless the settlement template can be modified to include the old green colour, then please undo the deletion decision for Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine Huldra (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Good close. Settlement infoboxes don't need to have a green colour. Number 57 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• No reason to reopen I'm trying my best here to WP:AGF but based on everything I've seen and the numerous messages left on my talk page, this is a pretty clear case of someone who didn't get their way and therefor is challenging the outcome. The TFD ran its course. The decision was to merge. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Seriously? The color issue was not raised by you or anyone once in that discussion, and in fact, "standardized" was an argument 2 editors used, which in this context means "use the standard color and not the green one". Don't try and game the system. --Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse (!voted in the discussion). I too do not recall colors being discussed. The whole rationale was to use a project wide infobox and standardize - abandoned settlements exist everywhere and there is no need for separate infoboxes types. Even if there was some local long ago consensus somewhere for the color green, that would not have affected the discussion and should not affect the DRV.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area are immensely contentious and difficult, and that's why I'm cautious about treating this purely as a standardisation issue. I note that, for example, the national flag of Israel is blue and white, and the national flag of Palestine is black, green and white. I don't know if this change could be politically sensitive? The nominator is invited to give us more reasoning to work with, if there's any more to say.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Israel is a darker blue, although it would be trivial to add a #switch based on the value in |subdivision_name= to change the colour for |subdivision_name=[[Mandatory Palestine]]. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh, thank you. I didn't know it was so simple. Why don't we do that?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Mandatory Palestine used the Union Jack (as well as a very blue postal flag) which is red, white, and blue - the later being most of the flag. There were abandoned Jewish settlements as well in the Mandate. Not that color is a DRV issue - I would wonder (irony) if we want to color code settlements by ethnicity (should we color historic African American towns in the deep south)?Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Looking at Template talk:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - it is mainly Huldra agreeing with herself it should be green - vs. challenges from other users (deviations, accessibility) Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • The only rationale for the infobox heading being green seems to be WP:ILIKEIT – see the comments here when a related template was first created – it wasn't done for any particular purpose. Number 57 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Lets just do that, make a switch for Mandatory Palestine. I think that would satisfy everyone's concerns. nableezy - 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Nableezy: this really isn't the place for that discussion... Discuss it on the template's talk page. This is for deciding if the closure needs to be undone. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We discuss closes here; if a consensus to amend a close happens here, we would normally enact it. You could certainly could pop a pointer on the template's talk page, that's a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• I've not looked closely, but if I'm understanding correctly, this merge resulted in a color change some might find controversial without directly discussing that in much detail. If that's correct, a technical solution which keeps the colors the same but does the merger seems optimal. Sorry, wanted to give my 2 cents but not sure I'll have time to put into this to be sure I'm understanding correctly. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: there are whole academic books written about the blue vs green issue, take Petersen, Andrew, 2018,

Bones of Contention: Muslim Shrines in Palestine gives a good introduction, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• • • Personally, I just read Wikipedia's articles on Blue in Judaism and Green in Islam. That gave me enough context to understand how a change from green to blue could be controversial when applied to a template in the I-P topic area.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
      • The colour in and of itself isn't a reason to overturn the deletion discussion, but if we can change the colour of the new template, I agree we should do so. Thank you S Marshall for taking up this viewpoint on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 01:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Dorothy Hague[edit]

Dorothy Hague (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hague was Ontario's first female reeve, and the first female member of Metropolitan Toronto's executive council making her one of the most powerful politicians, and perhaps the most powerful female politician, in Metro Toronto in the 1950s. Deletion occurred after minimal discussion, that was not unanimous, and was premised on a misunderstanding of what Metropolitan Toronto was and the false assumption that Metro and Metropolitan Toronto council were less significant than the current amalgamated city of Toronto. They were not. Metro Council was an upper tier municipal government and its executive council was even more so. Hague was accordingly a significant local figure in Canada's largest municipality. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Plenty of participation at a 5-1 vote from experienced AfDers, I see no reason to overturn or relist this. SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse delete as reasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
• Overturn and relist - the nomination is reasonable but the other delete comments are variations on WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM. Since AfD is not a vote, I do not see sufficient consensus to delete at this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• I think it's sad that we don't have articles on topics like this. I view it as a failure of our inclusion guidelines. I suspect with enough work a short and reliable biography could be assembled. I hate to see history like this removed from Wikipedia. That said, the close reflected the discussion and the discussion appears to reflect our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

20 March 2019[edit]

File:VinesauceJoel.jpg[edit]

File:VinesauceJoel.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

AwesumIndustrys (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well the F9 deletion isn't technically valid because there was a fair use rationale, but it clearly wasn't a valid rationale. The subject is a living person and that alone is usually taken to mean that the image is replaceable (because it is possible to take a picture of him and release it under a free licence). You said on the deleting admin's talk page that "he seldom shows his face", this isn't typically considered sufficient. Also the image was only being used in one page, Draft:Vinesauce, and we don't allow fair use images to be used outside mainspace so it shouldn't have been in the draft. We do also delete fair use images which aren't being used in articles so it would have been deleted for that reason anyway. Hut 8.5 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• This would be an F4, too, give or take the week-long timeout; the source given (https://vinesauce.fandom.com/wiki/File:FabulousJoel.jpg) is plainly invalid. —Cryptic 02:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

19 March 2019[edit]

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users[edit]

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I contested the speedy deletion, and the page was restored. Another admin has speedily deleted it without addressing the reasons for contesting its deletion and has thus far not responded to my attempts to communicate with them. If it is the consensus of the community that this page, which is in user space, should not exist, then that's okay, but I would like for consensus to actually be established before a deletion occurs. At the very least, it shouldn't have been speedily deleted without a consensus being built. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn CSD. WP:G4 requires that the page be substantially identical to the deleted version, and that it is not a user space copy. This fails both of those. I can't see any reason why somebody wants to maintain this list, but I also can't see any reason to object to it. And, even if somebody does have a good reason to object to it, take it to WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Roy, where G4 discusses userspace, it says it excludes things in userspace "...for explicit improvement". I can't see this article, but my sense is this isn't an article being improved, but something intended to live in user space. Would you agree with that? Hobit (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• The lead is identical except for paragraph breaks. The idea that you can claim a list is nonidentical in substance because, while you don't include any of the entries that were on the deleted version, you link to an offsite archive of the deleted version, is patently absurd. And while G4 exempts material moved to userspace for explicit improvement, listing "newer bans" is not an improvement in the context of the discussion at MFD. This isn't even a close call. Endorse. —Cryptic 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee, where the consensus was to place Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee under the sole discretion of

  "of any Arbitrator or Clerk. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)".

As ArbCom has purview over all banned users (note that Wikipedia:Clean start excludes clean starts for blocked or banned users), that decision should apply to all lists of Banned Users. Other's maintaining live lists of banned users are too much of a privacy problem, and no random user should have good reason to maintain this negative list (cf WP:POLEMIC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Or is it a WP:LTA matter? compare Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse The intent here is obviously to maintain, in some form, a list of banned users. The community said very clearly it did not want that in a series of MFDs. Normally userfying stuff that was in project space is fine, but this case is an obvious exception as we have a pre-existing consensus that this material should not be hosted on Wikipedia at all, and that discussion was clearly cited in the deletion log. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I may be missing something. I see 6 MfDs. I believe all but the last resulted in "keep". Was there some other discussion I missed? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • You're not missing anything. It's kind of crazy that a single MFD can result in a deletion of an article and past decisions can be ignored. It's like retrying someone in a court of law until you get the result you want. I really disagree that there ever was consensus for it in the first place. But of course, if consensus is against me, I'll have no choice but to abide by it. I still think whether or not WP:LOBU should be recreated in the project namespace should be discussed somewhere where more eyes can see it, though. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:CCC. And it did. If you want to change it back, fine, but this is not the way to do so. If you look at those old discussions, you'll see me arguing to keep in one of them, but in the end the community decided it didn't want it. In retrospect I do now agree, but even if I didn't consensus is the primary means of decision making here and the current consensus is that we shouldn't have this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think the consensus did change, as the margins were 33 keep 35 delete. However, that's all in the past, anyway, and consensus could of course change again. I'm not sure where to post if I want to change it back, other than the village pump, where I already posted it. Rockstonetalk to me! 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Cryptic, Beeblebrox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee etc. -- Begoon 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - This seems to be a straightforwardly-valid G4 speedy deletion. The community legitimately decided to delete the log of banned users as harmful, so continuing to maintain it in one's userspace would seem to directly betray the community's intent, and is undoubtedly an improper use of the userspace anyway per WP:POLEMIC. So, the argument that it's "in my userspace" is not valid. Secondly, the argument that "it should be discussed" is not valid either. The whole point of CSD is that they're uncontentious "quick fail" criteria for pages, and do not require "discussion". If the CSD applies, which it does in this case, then there is nothing more to discuss. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - Banned users are people too, even if their editing puts them at odds with the creation of an encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse The close was a correct interpretation of the MfD and a correct reading of community norms. Maintaining lists of bad people provides no benefit for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• I can't endorse a speedy deletion enforcing a MfD that old. Also, I can't agree with the fallacy that deleting this stuff off the encyclopaedia is in any way helpful. The practical effect of deletions like this is to drive discussion about Wikipedia's governance and procedures off-wiki.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• It has been 4.5 years since the MfD. That's long enough it seems reasonable to discuss again, especially considering it was kept 5 times before that deletion in 2014 and the discussion was close (close enough NC was the most obvious close). Does G4 apply? Maybe, I can't see either article. But after 6 tries to delete over the years, one successful one shouldn't end the discussion forever. overturn speedy Hobit (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the previous discussion pages? It requires more assumption of good faith than is healthy to call them six tries to delete. —Cryptic 02:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean. I'd not looked closely before, just at the bold !votes and the closes. But it *was* kept and #5 was a pretty darn strong keep. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly I think reversing the MfD should be discussed again, although I have a feeling that the discussion should not be done here in WP:Deletion Review, but rather somewhere that more people can see it. I really was disappointed when the list was deleted the first time, as now it's impossible to tell why someone was banned. It's always possible that someone could make the ban reasons more neutral (perhaps simply a link to the discussion that resulted in their ban, and nothing more). Rockstonetalk to me! 05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• comment.

The contrast between MfD5 (20 July 2013) and MfD6 (2 October 2014) is startling. However, the last formal discussion was this (23 October 2014), which although addressing a slightly different scope, and involving far fewer people (including me), I believe should be considered decisive. If it was the wrong decision, that the community generally should not be maintaining this list, then I think it needs a serious discussion, not a unilateral recreation, from unknown sources.

A small number of people at Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse#Lists_of_Banned_Users seem to also be saying that such lists are not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable thing to send back to MfD after 4.5 years, that's all I'm saying. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I second this notion Rockstonetalk to me! 06:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

18 March 2019[edit]

17 March 2019[edit]

Talos the Untamed[edit]

Talos the Untamed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was taken to AFD before the release of the film and concluded as a merge. I have since added a few sources, and I will note that there are many more about both the film and comics version of the character on a simple Google search. This should be overturned to Keep, although I am not disputing the original close, only noting that it has not been invalidated. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC2A:AD59:8F97:77DE (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse I believe this should have been closed by an administrator. The close was accurate, though, and I do not believe the merged content could stand alone at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 06:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse the AfD result looks fine, alll participants were happy with a merge outcome and this is the sort of uncontentious cose which non-admins are allowed to do. Regarding the question of whether the merge should be undone, in theory this is something to be discussed at the relevant article talk pages (although in practice there may not be many people watching that discussion). I am a bit dubious about having an article on a fictional character whose only claim to fame is appearing as a secondary character in a high profile film. Detailed discussion of the character's portrayal in that film is normally done in the article about the film and the rest of the OP's version was only sourced to comic books. Hut 8.5 19:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse. Good close. The merge and redirect should until there is a consensus at the target talkpage to reverse the decision. Do not come to DRV to reverse old merge decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment In general I do not believe non-sysops should be closing any AfD except SNOW keeps. There was basically consensus among participants so maybe it's an exception but maybe not. I will note, as I don't have the article watchlisted, that I don't see any substantial change in notability from when I made the nom even with the release of the film. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Often I will agree, but in this case the AfD should have been speedy closed due to lacking a delete rationale. AfD is not for proposed merges. Remind User:Barkeep49 of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Struck after reviewing the article history and reverted redirection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: What do BEFORE and ATD have with any of this? The topic is not notable. I know this because I conducted a BEFORE in addition to looking at the sourcing that was present in the article. However, because I believe in AtD I attempted to implement a redirect. When challenged I went to a community process to establish its notability (or not). The community agreed with me the topic was not notable but also agreed with me that there was a suitable AtD. BEFORE and AtD were thus fully honored. What you really seem to be saying is that AfD is not a place to use to make non-notable topics into a redirect. Because it's late I where I live I'm not going to find more recent examples but will simply reuse this from the last time I was challenged about the appropriateness of using AfD to have community consensus for redirect as a proposed outcome, the point of which was later agreed to by the sysop who had challenged me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

BEFORE requires you to consider merge/redirect targets. You obviously found at least one. WP:ATD requires you to redirect, not delete, unless you have a compelling reason that would justify deletion of the history behind the redirect. If you were challenged in making the redirect, that is a good reason for AfD, but, the onus is on you to mention it in the AfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_72#Has_AFD_become_"Articles_for_Discussion"_?. Ping User:Masem, to ask if there is confusion in the advice being given. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• You were right to use AfD to enforce the disputed merge and redirect, but please mention the dispute in the AfD nomination. Some regularly check the history, but it is very helpful to mention it when so relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

15 March 2019[edit]

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes[edit]

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarcho Syn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Lib Soc (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Darwinism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Roma Indep (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/SAC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Taste (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/UBX War (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Clearly inappropriate speedy deletions. Previously restored through this venue, see here. These are also transcluded on many userpages. Discussed here. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a speedy criteria stated as a reason for the deletion. And I don't see how waiting for MfD would be harmful--these have been around for years I believe. overturn for now, but I'm open to the idea that there may be an applicable speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn the rest of these deletions by me. As a Quaker I find the sentiments expressed in the No Gun Ctl and SAC templates totally abhorrent. However as a Wikipedian I say that since both these templates are used by several users, they should be allowed to remain. It simply does not matter who created them.

Same principle goes for all the others. I have not restored Anarcho Syn, Lib Soc and No Darwinism because my deletion of these was done in response to speedy tags placed by Legacypac. All the others I deleted without anyone else's suggestion.

I have left Taste, UBX War and Userboxes deleted because they are only minimally used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Several of the deletions cited U5, which I don't think is actually unreasonable. The author has 153 contributions, all to user or user talk space and almost entirely to userboxes, particularly those associated with contentious political or philosophical views. I suspect that a lot of them were created to make a point about Wikipedia's stances on userboxes, which were controversial at the time. If an editor made only this type of edit now and didn't make any attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia then I think they would probably be deleted under U5 and that wouldn't be questioned. Yes, they were discussed at DRV in 2006, but that might as well be ancient history now, the deletion policy has changed since and the discussion was about whether they met criterion T1 (which was repealed ages ago). I'd be happy with restoring any that someone wants to claim as long as they are moved into that person's userspace. Hut 8.5 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. There may be a need to discuss these, but that should be at MfD , not here. Speedy is for use in uncontestable deletions, not for those which "may not be actually unreasonable", which is much to low a criterion. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn Unless my detective work is mistaken, these all survived their most recent deletion discussion. So, speedy deletion is not allowed except where WP:CSD explicitly makes an exception. None of the exceptions apply here. Thincat (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Leave deleted I tagged a few U5 because the user had zero controbutions outside their own userspace and no interest in developing Wikipedia. Crating a Nazi userbox is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. It is a good example of using wikipedia to host stuff no one needs or wants. U5 is used for a lot more possibily useful but unused random pages then these "userboxes" no one is using or needs. Legacypac (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• I recommend an RfC on userboxes for social-political expression vs editors’ declaration of biases vs POLEMIC. XfD and DRV are ill-suited for developing community consensus. It has been a very long time since the userbox wars, there is no rush. In the status quo, there is nothing wrong with User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl on a userpage, and tranclusion of userboxes is probably better than a proliferation of altered substed userboxes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Overturn all, not speediable, very far from IAR justifiable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Grudging overturn. These userboxen don't help us build an encyclopedia, so I agree they should be deleted. I also don't think the prohibition against CSD for pages that have survived XfD should have force if the XfD was 13 years ago. And, looking at TMoT's contributions, it's pretty obvious they are/were a WP:SOCK. But, the real bottom line on CSD is that it should be for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that this has generated controversy should be enough to overturn. There's no rush. After all this time, a week at XfD won't hurt. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

14 March 2019[edit]

ThinkMarkets (closed)[edit]

13 March 2019[edit]

French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports (closed)[edit]

Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities (closed)[edit]

12 March 2019[edit]

11 March 2019[edit]

10 March 2019[edit]

9 March 2019[edit]

Archive[edit]