Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- if the page was deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion: place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.
Instructions
Steps to list a new deletion review
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. - Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious, it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Early closes
- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as if it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
- Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or by an uninvolved administrator who has vacated a procedurally invalid non-administrative close,[a] and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV has withdrawn their nomination, and no one has recommended any outcome but endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so for them).
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion acknowledges that their close was wrong, and no one has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Discussions may be closed without result if they are entirely disruptive. (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, repeated nominations of the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
- ↑ Challenges regarding whether a non-admin closure was contentious or correctly assessed consensus should be addressed through Deletion Review.
Many of the Keep votes in the AfD as well as the closing statement do not follow the relevant guidlines WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOSOURCE, which require either legal recognition or significant coverage and exclude census tracts from establishing notability. This article was kept despite being sourced solely to census records.
"Once it has been established that the place is or was an actual settlement, we keep the page"
(Closing statement) - This is not in line with GEOLAND; we do not keep pages simply because the place has been shown to exist.
- The first Keep vote uses the faulty premise that Gredine is a "census settlement" which isn't typically considered to pass the "legal recognition" bar. Several other Keep votes cite this and should be discarded as well.
- It's unclear whether the census actually refers to a distinct settlement in this case, since Naseljeno mjesto) appears to be a type of statistical district that can encompass one or more settlements.
- The claim
"When I googled it, I found plenty of references to the village."
has not been substantiated with actual sources.
- None of these concerns were sufficiently addressed in the AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment from closer: page two of this official statute, and page 79 of these plan amendments indicate that Gredine was indeed a legally recognized settlement. These sources weren't brought up during the AfD, but they were presented to the appellant by Katzrockso four days ago. I find it curious this isn't mentioned in the appeal here. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think the appeal is fair. The point is to evaluate arguments that were present in the discussion, in particular, how the community interprets WP:GEOSOURCE. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Absolutely. As I mentioned to the appellant on my Talk page, I'll be happy to hear the community's interpretation of GEOLAND, and hopefully see the guideline amended, if needed, to reflect our common practice. But while we don't have a formal discovery phase at DRV, I find it odd that the appellant chose not to mention the two vital sources establishing legal recognition, the absence of which is the sine qua non of their argument for deletion. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think the appeal is fair. The point is to evaluate arguments that were present in the discussion, in particular, how the community interprets WP:GEOSOURCE. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse-ish you may have made a sufficient case for overturning a keep to a no consensus close, but that is a de facto identical result--the article is kept. Given that two new sources favorable to inclusion are discussed above here, they would have to be discussed and addressed in any renomination, which reduces the chances of a delete closure significantly. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that these sources have the same issue that I pointed out above where it's unclear whether "naseljeno mjesto" refers to an actual settlement or to a statistical area. I'd like to ask that we evaluate this AfD on its own merits and allow the community to evaluate the new sources in a future AfD, instead of basing our decision on how we think such a future discussion might go.
- –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse close. There is much more that could be said about this appeal, so I will keep it as brief as possible. At best, the appeal presents a case to overturn to no consensus, any other closure would be a supervote. Given that the closer already told dlthewave that they can treat the close as a no consensus close and renominate in 2 months, there is no point in formally changing anything.
- Additionally, OwenX's point is well-taken here: much of the appeal and the complaints presented on OwenX's talk page rest on the purported discrepancy between the discussion and close being based on census results and the wording of WP:GEOSOURCE. That argument falls apart when non-census sources are presented. Is DRV expected to overturn the result to delete on this basis, only to allow immediate recreation based on the additional sources? Such ludicrous bureaucracy would be an insult.
- Finally, Dlthewave questions these new sources with the worry that they represent statistical constructs. It begs the question what type of source is sufficient to them to establish that a locality is notable under WP:GEOLAND.Katzrockso (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment (nom) - Regarding the two additional sources: Statut Opcine Bugojno lists Gredine as one of the naseljeno mjestos (populated areas) that make up the municipality of Bugojno. The entire municipality divided into naseljeno mjestos; there's no indication that Gredine is a distinct settlement and not simply a statistical area. IZMJENE I DOPUNE PROSTORNOG PLANA KSB/SBK 2005-2025 GODINA mentions Gredine in a list of many places where water tanks are located, in the context of addressing a water shortage. Although we don't have consensus on what exactly qualifies as "legally recognized", those discussions have typically leaned toward some sort of incorporation or the existence of a local decision-making body. A mere mention in a goverment document is certainly not sufficient since these often use various localities etc for statistical and planning purposes. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - In my opinion, either a close of Keep or a close of No Consensus would have been a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. So Keep was a valid close, and overturning the close to No Consensus would do nothing anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Keep and no consensus were the only viable outcomes here, with both having the same practical outcome. There was not consensus to reject the sources brought up in this discussion. Frank Anchor 13:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse-ish I think based on the discussion, delete had the stronger position on our policies and guidelines, and should have been accorded more weight, and a no-consensus close is proper, as it would recognize that more editors felt that the article should have been kept. That said, as was brought up on OwenX's talk page, there were better sources that indicate that Gredine was legally recognized (recognizing dlthewave's concerns) and the spirit of the project is that the article should be kept, even if those sources were not brought up in the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Straight endorse. User:Dlthewave !voting delete arguing GEOLAND and WP:GEOSOURCE failed to persuade. He was challenged by Joy, who was supported by others. User:Mangoe argued a line for deletion, but also failed to persuade. The consensus was to keep. Guidelines are not law that AfD participants have to respect, but predictors of AfD. If AfD doesn’t match your reading of the guideline, fix the guideline. Read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- The amount of wikilawyering and cherry-picking here is downright silly. I don't see any sense whatsoever in this sort of an arbitrary crusade against small Bosnian villages, that isn't actually supported by evidence. For example, it'd be reasonable to assume that the Bosnian census practice which dates over a century back, over a variety of administrations, has seen its fair share of scholarly criticism - but these complaints aren't actually based on any such thing, but a capricious reading of Wikipedia and Google Search output, it seems. Bizarre. --Joy (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe categorizing box set releases in its own category is useful. A box set is a very specific type of compilation that generally consists of compiling entire albums of artists, and not just specific songs like most traditional compilations. I believe having a box set category helps with that difference. While this is a very common type of release, it is very specific, and I don't think just putting box sets in a generic compilations category is particularly useful. There is even a box set category for a specific artist already: Category:David Bowie box sets, which makes sense as Category:David Bowie compilation albums was already filled with his traditional compilations and he released a bunch of box sets, so the distinction makes sense. Skyshiftertalk 00:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- A G4 based on a 13-year-old discussion with effectively no participants other than the nominator would be beyond the pale in any other venue. And that's before considering that between this title and the original, it's gotten recreated by more people than have voted to delete it. —Cryptic 17:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. I was surprised to learn that "categories for discussion decisions do not expire". Skyshiftertalk 17:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 as a reasonably contested speedy deletion for the reasons described above, anyone may re-CfD it... and I would say should so that this can be addressed for a larger and more current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn per above. While the recent deletion meets the letter of G4, I think forcing a DRV due to a decade old, minimally participated CFD is unnecessarily bureaucratic. In situations like these, there's a good chance that consensus has changed on the matter, and the best way to see if that's the case is through a new CFD, if anyone wants to open one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse the G4 but Allow Recreation of the category. It is my understanding that the closer was correct that CFD closes do not expire. That rule is stupid, so should be ignored, but it is the rule. The closer was right in saying to take it to DRV, so DRV should say to take it to WT:CFD or to WP:VPP. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, and another stupid thing seems to be that WP:Categories for discussion, despite its title, does not seem to provide a forum for proposing category creation. Indeed technically it requires the category to already be in existence. Thincat (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Even if it did allow those, a discussion arguing for "keep" would be closed per WP:SK, which applies to all XfDs. FaviFake (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, and another stupid thing seems to be that WP:Categories for discussion, despite its title, does not seem to provide a forum for proposing category creation. Indeed technically it requires the category to already be in existence. Thincat (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment If WP:G4 should be ever be applied to categories at all (and I think it should not), we need to document whether the sufficiently/substantially aspect refers to the category page's edited contents, or articles included, or both. Neither of these "content" criteria make much sense to me but we do need to protect against repeated recreation, regardless of content. We also need to be able to recreate categories under some normal circumstances. Thincat (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse but allow recreation per Robert McClenon. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- WP:IAR overturn. While G4 states
sufficiently identical
copies should be deleted, there is no way to make a new category not be identical to the deleted version, as can be done with articles. An exception or additional requirements should be added for the application of G4 for categories, but DRV is not the correct forum to discuss this. Frank Anchor 12:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Allow the G4 and remove salt: Per Robert McClenon.
- Guythatlikeshorses2talk 02:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This TFD was closed by an involved non-admin editor without a valid TFD closure outcome. The closure was reverted and then reinstated. It's a bit of a mess. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 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. |
|
To be restored in Royal Canadian Air Force, see article revision history Wcam (talk) 14:45, 25 September 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. |
|
<Someone impersonated me to make it look like I was editing my own page> Feraljokes (talk) 07:44, 23 September 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 closer discarded two valid Keep !votes as “LLM-generated” without evidence, verification, or policy-required justification. This materially altered the outcome of the discussion. The closer wrote: “I have discarded the LLM-generated ‘keep’ !vote(s) per WP:AITALK… Discarding the LLM-generated !vote results in a rough consensus to delete.” This was a procedural error: - WP:AITALK does not permit discarding comments based on subjective impressions or guesses. I am not asking DRV to decide the merits of the article. I am asking DRV to review a closure where the closer’s guess about LLM use determined the result. This is a procedural issue appropriate for DRV. For those of us who choose to write thoughtfully presentations rather than hurried responses, it is a bit disconcerting. I request that the AfD be overturned and either:
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I used this figure of speech in a text conversation with coworkers. I was under the perception intentionally ommitting a word when describing that you or someone else (forgot) a word was a well-enough understood use of memetic language. I was surprised however when no one realized I had done this intentionally. I rushed to the internet to justify myself to them, checking known your meme and wikipedia for any sort of page confirming this linguistic phenomenon existed, but the only remnant of it's existence at all that I could find was a long-forgotten RFD page from 2018 denying it's entry into Wikipedia-ic record. Amusingly, one of the editors comments "I can't imagine any user looking it up, either." Hello, from 8 years later, it's me, I'm the user looking it up. - In further support of my request for 'Accidentally a word' to be admitted into the great cultural record that is Wikipedia, I posit that the deletion of this page was made initially on the basis that 'Accidentally a word' is not a sufficiently prominent quirk of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to be recorded. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of 'Accidentally a word.' Accidentally a word is an early internet meme in the sense we understand current internet memes to be. I suspect the understanding of internet culture, the definition of a meme, and their cultural relevance was not fully understood by the editors 8 years ago, as those ideas themselves had not yet calcified in to the extent they have today. For these reasons, I submit that the original definition in it's full text should be restored to Wikipedia. Here is the full text: accidentally a word "(humorous) To unintentionally omit a word." It seems that what is being described here is a grammatical practice (humorously omitting an element of the syntax in order to emphasise an omission of another kind): you can, for example, find deliberate uses of "I accidentally a sentence" in Google. I am a long time user, first time contributor to Wikipedia, I made and account specifically for the purpose of creating this review, apologies in advance for any procedural mistakes I may have made. I hope that an editor with more experiecen takes pity on my review request and may help to lift it to the exceptional quality standards Wikipedia is known for. Accidentally-a-user (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |