Wikipedia:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 10:35, 16 November 2024

If you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if they want to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.

A page should stay listed here for at least 5 to 7 days. After that time, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do, and take appropriate steps. If the consensus was that the discussion was closed correctly, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.

Archives
2007–2012 2013–2016 2017–2019 2020–2021 2022–2023 2024–current

Current requests

AboFlah

But my article why has been deleted, since i disagreed with deleted i really cannot find any reliable and notable sources Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because that was the consensus at the RfD, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/AboFlah. If you can't find any reliable sources, that's a good indication that it isn't time for an article about this subject. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 please undelete my article and add me reliable sources Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 The consensus of the community to delete can only be overturned by a consensus to undelete by the community. Since there was a consensus to delete the article in the deletion discussion, it was deleted.

I endorse deletion. The sources in the article were not particularly good. Some are user-generated content, some are too short/not in-depth enough. You can post the sources you want to add here so we can review them. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My article has been deleted mistake, I reviewed my article and my article was not notable and my references are unreliable, Can you undelete me please, I want bring my article back and don't forget to add me a reliable and notably sources Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 10:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raayaan9911 Do you mean that your article is notable? If your article is not notable, then it's normally deleted. I'd like to see the new sources first before the article can be restored. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i mean my article was notably Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 10:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaja Adeoye

Note: I am moving this request here from Talk:Adelaja Adeoye. That talk page will be deleted because the main article doesn't exist (having been deleted). --Auntof6 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly want to ask for the undeletion of this page. I believe it was deleted without considering its amendments. @Ferien nominated the page for deletion stating that the subject's mention in the top 50CEOs was difficult to locate even though it was there (the last name); he said the list was too long. I provided more sources to solidify that claim but it was finally deleted by @Auntof6. Please, I solicit for the page to be restored so it can also be improved. Also, I apologise for the initial disruption that led to the blockage of my account. 2C0F:F5C0:620:685D:42D3:568E:1DE2:4C42 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originally deleted at an AFD - Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2024/Adelaja_Adeoye where three obvious socks all voted to keep the article. This feels like UPE / COI editing here. Sources have promotional tone, and questionable if the list itself is notable. Right now, I'm not in favor of restoration. Perhaps if they can get a draft accepted on enwiki where the main account (assuming it's only three accounts, main plus the two obvious socks). Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP^ever 06:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eloho Oyegwa

I wish to request for the undeletion of the page Eloho Oyegwa so that I can improve on it to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page was previously deleted due to a lack of reliable sources, but I have since gathered additional sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Below are the references I have compiled:

- Source 1: [News Article] https://guardian.ng/news/empowering-through-tech-the-inspiring-journey-of-eloho-oyegwa/

- Source 2: [News Article] https://guardian.ng/news/why-i-never-considered-joining-japa-bandwagon-eloho-oyegwa/

- Source 3: [News Article] https://guardian.ng/news/webcore-nigeria-ceo-eloho-oyegwa-reflects-on-impactful-journey-in-nations-digital-industry/

- Source 4: [News Article] https://guardian.ng/business-services/oyegwa-shares-strategies-on-how-digital-businesses-can-survive-nigerias-economic-challenges/

- Source 5: [News Article] https://thenationonlineng.net/webcore-nigeria-leverages-expertise-to-develop-digital-solutions-for-companies-eloho-oyegwa/

- Source 6: [News Article] https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/03/how-businesses-can-survive-economic-challenges-in-nigeria-eloho-oyegwa/

- Source 7: [News Article] https://dailytrust.com/webcore-nigeria-has-created-impactful-outcomes-for-its-clients-eloho-oyegwa/

- Source 8: [News Article] https://independent.ng/meet-webcore-nigeria-ceo-philanthropist-eloho-oyegwa/

- Source 9: [News Article] https://dailytrust.com/how-transitioning-moved-webcore-nigeria-from-struggling-to-profitability-eloho-oyegwa/

- Source 10: [News Article] https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/02/how-we-maintain-loyal-customers-webcore-nigeria-ceo-oyegwa/

- Source 11: [News Article] https://thenationonlineng.net/why-webcore-nigeria-is-thriving-amid-harsh-business-environment-oyegwa/

- Source 12: [News Article] https://thenationonlineng.net/how-my-parents-shaped-my-personal-professional-values-oyegwa/

These sources demonstrate that the subject is notable, and I am ready to update the article with this information. Elohothedon (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC). Thanks![reply]

Why not remake the article in your user space and move it to main space when it's ready? fr33k man 18:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: This is well noted. I will remake the article shortly. Elohothedon (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC) . Thanks![reply]

You were told to remake it in your user space THEN move it into main space and not just recreate it in main space. The subject is not notable. fr33k man 20:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The original page was basically a promotion/advertisement of the subject. Feel free to create it in the userspace and consult the deleting admin for review.--BRP^ever 06:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Javed

The article was closed as delete by Auntof6 even though there was no consensus as no one voted delete other than the nominator. I shared a list of in-depth reliable articles about him and later Cactusisme was interested but never found time to review the references. I'd like to request the community to review this case of supervote by Auntof6 and restore the article. 185.182.52.104 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that though, I just said I nominated it for QD and asked @Ferien to look into the comments. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a comment in the AFD about a lack of an article on enwiki - w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mudtoonz2012 is the reason for why it's been deleted over there - promotional editing from a the two accounts and a variety of IP's to push this person. Are they notable? perhaps, but a promotional article is not exactly helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with @Auntof6. I see no notable subject here. fr33k man 01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was one !vote, Auntof6's decision to delete would have been two. fr33k man 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: An admin's decision to delete is not a !vote. It is an evaluation of the discussion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True fr33k man 16:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to restore. I would have liked if there was more discussion on the RFD, but this doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO due to high number of recipient and would also need to meet WP:GNG. I'd say this is still borderline case so if any user requests, the page can be restored in userspace for further work, or can be recreated with improvements which would then need to be discussed in another RFD.--BRP^ever 06:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Dassoukine

The page Mustapha Dassoukine was deleted via WP:quick deletion by Auntof6. The page included multiple significant coverage references that were reliable sources and independent of the subject. So according WP:GNG the person is presumed to be notable. Besides of that there was stated that the person is seen as one of the comedian pioneer in Morroco. So the article shouldn't have been quick deleted without a discussion. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, with some English language sources I actually would like to expand the stub I started. SportsOlympic (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id have to say with the line stating him being a pioneer of comedy in Morocco, the author does ''claim'' notability. It's thin but it's there. Overturn ''then'' RfD. fr33k man 01:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Restored and taken to RFD at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Mustapha Dassoukine. @SportsOlympic: Please feel free to expand and improve the article and comment on RFD during the discussion. Thanks,--BRP^ever 06:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RobinRafan

This article was deleted by User:Macdonald-ross, reason (QD G5: Created by a blocked or banned user). But I am not a blocked or a banned user. Or have violated any rules. I want this article to be reinstated. Also the subject has multiple in-depth coverages which meets WP:GNG. Here are some of the links-

So I would like to request to reinstate the article. Thank you. Iccuggattu (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a careful look at some of those sources - [1] and [2] are pretty obvious paid/sponsored articles - over-the-top promotional in tone, formatting issues (especially the first one!). I suspect the rest are in similar. There's a reason the article is still a draft on EN - w:Draft:RobinRafan_(Obidur_Rahman). Ravensfire (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is from The Bangladesh today. It seems to have formatting issues, but I don't think it should be a solid reason to say that it was a paid/sponsored article.

Second one is from Daily Janakanta, a famous news portal from Bangladesh. Which is considered to be a notable news portal.

Here, most of the news sources are reliable. As,

9= Bangladesh Pratidin

All of the above are considered reliable, notable sources. As I have seen, if any article published by them is paid/sponsored, they declare these articles as paid/sponsored, directly or indirectly by saying, that is a subject generated or directly paid/sponsored article.

But in this case, I couldn’t find any affiliation declared in any of those newspapers. I have rechecked it. Even if the ill-formatted article link is removed, other sources are enough to establish notability.

And according to the deletion Admin, it was deleted for QD:G5 on SEWP. So notability or neutrality was not an issue here. So as the subject passes WP:GNG. It should be reinstated.

Iccuggattu (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the Dhaka Tribune article - "'RobinRafan,' a renowned content creator and musician, has seamlessly immersed himself in the dynamic realm of content creation and music, captivating audiences across various social media platforms." "His multi-niche approach sets him apart, as he actively engages in social awareness, tech, freelancing education, and music simultaneously." "With a goal to spread positive vibes in society, RobinRafan remains dedicated to creating diverse content that not only entertains but also contributes to the betterment of society.". That's pure promotional fluff and a sign of a sponsored/paid article. The south asia region is seeing more and more of this as news sites seek more revenue sources. The jamunaprotidin.com source - blatant sponsored/paid piece. This [3] from DhakaTribune - sourced to Tribune Desk and another clear promotional sponsored article. "His music creation showcased a veritable powerhouse of talent. RobinRafan has the ability to deliver creative storytelling content and has proven herself to be a force to be reckoned with." Really? Very poor quality sources like this is why the draft on EN is languishing and why this should not be restored. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you strike out 1 or 2 news articles, that you have mentioned. There are still multiple news sources to support WP:GNG. Again quick searching on google, you can find news articles on him, as the person is well-known locally/nationally.Which is a very good reason to restore the article. Iccuggattu (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And those are the only bad sources? Hardly. I'm disinclined to do much further research when I quickly find three bad sources, and a glance at the translations of some others are equally bad plus the draft on EN is currently declined. I'd be much more inclined to see it here if the draft gets accepted on EN where there are more editors with time available to review. Ravensfire (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only the three that you have reffered might seem dull, but there are multiple sources that supports the notability according to SEWP GNG. And on ENWP the draft was rejected as per WP:NMUSICIAN. But till then, the article was modified, but not been posted for review again. So SEWP has strong reason to get reinstated. Iccuggattu (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The broad statements you make about enough sources is easily challenged by the number that a short review makes very obvious are NOT reliable sources. Add on that you've got a declared COI on this article, and I'm going to take your statements with a significant skeptibility. You haven't shown that you can do a good evaluation of the sources yet, in part because that COI makes you want the sources to be good. That's a problem, I hope you relize.

On EN, the article was rejected for more than just NMUSICIAN issues, it also didn't meat GNG there as that is ALWAYS a criteria for acceptance. So SEWP has mutliple good reasons to not reinstate the article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After it got rejected on ENWP, it was updated but not submitted for review. And as his brother I do have COI. But I have read all the criteria after getting rejected and improved the article and submitted on SEWP. And according to the guidelines, I believe and clearly can see that, this good to go again. I am not forcing, I am just showcasing the facts. Iccuggattu (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~endorse~~ incorrect deletion fr33k man 01:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman: Then I think you mean "overturn". "Endorse" means you agree with the deletion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant overturn fr33k man 02:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor note: There is currently a RfD discussion for the page at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/RobinRafan.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there was consensus to delete there, this topic should probably be closed and archived.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Per RFD consensus.--BRP^ever 06:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi

A prominent religious scholar and Khilafatist from Sindh, he had millions of religious followers, and his teachings deeply influenced Muslims in the Indian subcontinent and Arabia. These facts are well-supported by sources, even though understanding non-English sources can be challenging for many Westerners. Recently, I found out that it was taken to AfD but had no proper consensus, as most people couldn't read or understand non-English sources, which is understandable. So, I'm asking for a review of sources and calls for the restoration of our Sindhi literature. Our Sindhi History is very rare and precious for us. Thank yall For your time

Bless.

Sources.

[[4]] all pages,

[[5]] page 186,

[[6]] pages 41 43 275 34 25 15 ,

[[7]] 4th

[[8]] page 195.

[[9]]

[[10]]

[[11]]

[[12]] page 56.

[[13]] all pages

[[14]] [[15]] all pages

CaptVII- (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the page is sourced it actually meets WP:GNG we should consider removing contents which lacks sourcing. Articles like that contains sources should be improved instead. Jinglingzone (talk) CaptVII̟̠- 11:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

overturn support undeletion fr33k man 01:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - relevent AFD from enwiki - w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sayyid_Ihsanullah_Shah_Rashdi, so some questions on the right article name to avoid honorifics and a sock that was also active here. Ravensfire (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The sources aren't significant in-depth sources and the article is clearly not neutral. Most of it is based on single source which isn't reliable. This request itself demonstrates COI.-- BRP^ever 06:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently closed requests