 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Steps to list a new deletion review
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial Deletion review requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
- If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc.), use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
| 1. |
and paste the template immediately below the "Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE ..." comment. Before publishing your changes, replace {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following at the bottom of their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to delete, merge, or redirect an article previously kept or slated for merging, place |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review at the very top of the original AfD discussion, above all other content:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page 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
- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
Self referral here as the close has been challenged at my talk page here basically arguing that my close to redirect as an ATD was a super vote and that I should enforce the clear consensus of the discussion. I have some sympathy to this argument as the only real support for the redirect was from the nominator. However, my close was informed by recent DRV discussions where the expectation that admins follow a valid ATD has become a constant theme. So basically what I'm asking for is a steer on whether I should have closed this as direct as I believed the expectation at DRV would be or whether I should have deleted anyway, which would have seen me put a redirect in as an editorial decision. Essentially, the end state is the same but the second more closely reflects the discussion Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse 1) status quo was as a redirect for the past year, 2) Nothing added in the attempted un-redirect and improvement was attack, copyvio, or unambiguously promotional, 3) No one who argued for deletion also argued against the AtD. This is a perfect AtD: clearly not notable, notability/verifiability is the main problem, and there is a notable and sensible redirect target. Mind you, the Psyclones paragraph in the target article kinda sucks at the moment, but that's something to work on without needing admin tools to spruce it up and smooth it out. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse While there were more editors who supported deleting the article, no editor explicitly expressed opposition to the redirect. A delete close would also have been acceptable, but we have frequently given lots of leeway to an AtD. --Enos733 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse – when an ATD is suggested and there's no argument to the contrary whatsoever, I do believe closing as delete would just amount to raw vote-counting. (Thanks for bringing this here. I think more DRV self-referrals would be a good thing.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Yup, that's how almost all of us interpret ATD-R. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. I was the one that raised this on Spartaz's talk page, and I did so because my understanding of policy was that when the question of a possible redirect was raised during an AfD discussion, the result on this was determined there, by consensus on the matter. If this isn't the case, the relevant policy should probably be made explicit in WP:DISCUSSAFD, which as it stands seems unambiguously to state that whether a redirect is created is one of the options being determined by participants. As for the specifics, Spartaz says the content on Psyclones in the redirect 'kinda sucks', which in my opinion is an understatement, since dedicating getting on to a quarter of an article supposedly on one band, which at least has a claim to be notable, to another band which, per the AfD, isn't, seems to me to run contrary to WP:DUE and to the spirit of the AfD consensus. Anyway, I'm not going to make a big thing of this, since it appears the redirect is seen as acceptable, and my time is probably better put into trying to sort out the confused mess at the target, which isn't even consistent as to whether it is discussing a band (or two bands?), an individual, or a 'project' lead by said individual, and which arguably is basing its 'notability' claim around flipping between one and another. If the target was less of a mess, the validity of the redirect might be clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- My sense is that participants at AfD need to explicitly argue against a redirect. And there are many reasons why a redirect, while reasonable, may not be the preferred outcome. Examples include: if a subject is mentioned in the targeted article as the current holder of a position (and might be removed from the article), there are multiple redirect targets, or there is not any substance in the targeted article. In this case, I do agree, a redirect may not be the optimum outcome, but no editor suggested that restoring the redirect was incorrect. - Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse clear consensus not to keep and no opposition to redirect from the delete !voters. Consensus is not required to close as an ATD instead of deletion. Anyone who does not believe the redirect to be correct can start a discussion at WP:RFD. Frank Anchor 16:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. No argument against a redirect was presented in the AfD. I second Extraordinary Writ's notion that closing as delete would be vote counting rather than evaluating the strength of arguments (i.e. determining consensus). Katzrockso (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - Redirects are both cheap and useful. Sometimes there should be a redirect unless there is a reason not to redirect, and no reason was given. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse As I wrote here on Spartaz's talk page, "I agree with Spartaz's interpretation of the community opinion at deletion reviews to supporting Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and strongly support the close as redirect given the discussion at the AfD."
When a redirect is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment about notability: I consider Psyclones notable through the significant coverage in reliable sources I provided at Talk:Psyclones#Sources. Of the eight sources I listed there, I think only one—the 2021 Times-Standard article—was discussed at the AfD. Rather than deletion, Psyclones should have a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Deletion review. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but this falls under the "significant new information" purpose of DRV. Moreover, Cunard didn't advocate for overturning the result to keep, since that obviously wasn't within any discretion for a closer. Katzrockso (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- If " Rather than deletion, Psyclones should have a standalone article" isn't advocating for overturn of the result, what is the purpose of writing it here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Why would Cunard explicitly write just above "Endorse" and then quote their own post
I agree with Spartaz's interpretation of the community opinion at deletion reviews to supporting Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and strongly support the close as redirect given the discussion at the AfD
(emphasis mine) if they were advocating to overturn? Katzrockso (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Why would Cunard explicitly write just above "Endorse" and then quote their own post
- If " Rather than deletion, Psyclones should have a standalone article" isn't advocating for overturn of the result, what is the purpose of writing it here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but this falls under the "significant new information" purpose of DRV. Moreover, Cunard didn't advocate for overturning the result to keep, since that obviously wasn't within any discretion for a closer. Katzrockso (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Deletion review. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. The AfD nom mentioned the prior redirect, and User:UtherSRG explcitly supported the redirect, and no one argued against redirect, so the close was not a Supervote. The target mentions the topic, so the redirect is appropriate. It was a pretty obvious ATD-R, although unusual in the number of clean and simple “delete” !votes.
- The inclusion of Psyclones at the target feels clunky. Hopefully that will be fixed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Per my statement on the closer's talk page: "
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a source assessment page for keeping track of which sources would serve the argument that the target of a once-unwanted publicity campaign by bad actors may be considered notable under Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Spartaz impromptly deleted it yesterday with the rationale Wp:blp. Enough of using Wikipedia to hold information on this person. Before then, an RfC discussion had been taking place on its talk page since early May over whether or not there should finally be a Wikipedia article about this person. This is the first time that a source assessment page has been deleted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article appears to be a hoax. There's not a single available source confirming this person's existence, and, furthermore, Gorky isn't a given name (at least, not a name that would have been given to someone baptized into Eastern Orthodoxy in 1874).--Eliatxo (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Topic is listed at WP:DEEPER, but an existing assessment on sources wields a non-trivial level of coverage from reliable sources, on top of articles on other languages as listed in the entry on Wikidata, and in the event of recreation, we can prevent further WP:BLP violations by protecting the page when needed. ZeroJaguar (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
while this doesn't matter that much, there is a good chance this talk page was legitimate, in which case the question comes to mind of should it be undeleted or not User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 01:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not the most controversial page around, but a problematic WP:NAC nonetheless. There were three extant opinions voiced in the AFD; the delete of the nominator, a keep and a merge. The discussion was then closed as merge by User:VerdictByLogic, which is problematic for three reasons: (a) the user is inexperienced and currently has slightly more than 2,000 edits (b) the consensus does not appear clear at all (c) the choice to merge looks like a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE since VerdictByLogic argues for this choice, with it being VerdictByLogic's own opinion that the subject "does not require" a standalone article. The user also did so when I first asked about this on the talk page. I suggest that the closure be overturned to relist. Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is my first DRV listing, so apologies for any mistakes. I believe this closure should be overturned to merge or the discussion should be at least relisted. While in the discussion there were a total of 2 !votes in favour of merging and 1 opposing, the supporters' rationales were clearly founded on policy-based arguments, while the opposer's only comment didn't mention any policy-based argument. The opposer even agreed with the nominator on the fact that
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi there, this is my first time doing a DRV listing so my apologies for the mistakes in this. I thought I'd make sure to give this a try in regards to the topic as the topic at hand is somewhat controversial due to the indefinite deletion decision. So for those who are unaware, from 2017 to 2018, there were a few users on the website who attempted to add an article for a professional wrestling promotion known as Defiant Wrestling. Obviously enough it was deleted for persistent disruptive editing and failed to meet WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. This time however, since 6 years have passed since the final deletion, I've decided to give the article a try and see if I can piece together anything from various sources and the official website for the promotion. It's still work in progress but you can see the work I've done on the draft here. If anything, I do believe that enough time has passed that it may be time to re-examine the deletions and potentially reinstate the Defiant Wrestling article. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
(If I remember correctly...) This is a useful meta-reference template for how to categorize various categories & articles related to Jews & Judaism which are not necessarily intuitive to, or easily confused or forgotten by, lay editors. The template was nominated by a now-blocked editor @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 26#Template:Jews and Judaism category tree, was transcluded on over 1,000 pages, protected for 13 years, and only received 1 vote in the TfD. A next-to-WP:SILENT-consensus I think is insufficient to have warranted a closure, let alone an immediate closure with no relisting. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |