674:
Mass nominations are hard to do well. If you make a plausible case that the page had individual reasons for keeping (in accordance with
Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines) that weren't addressed by the group discussion, the regulars are likely to relist for individual consideration, be prepared
600:
is a policy that can require a specific article version (and versions derivative from it) to be deleted. Showing that the original version of an article is a copyright violation is the canonical example of an argument for deletion that overrides all other issues in a deletion discussion. Because it
356:
If you want a copy in your user space for a short time 1) to move the content to another wiki, 2) to evaluate whether it is worth opening a full review, or 3) after writing a replacement article, to see if there is anything in the old that would be useful for expansion. Pretty open, except for pages
771:
Only about 1 in 3 contentious reviews (those not settled amicably with the deleting admin or cases of PROD) result in an undeletion, and at least 1 in 5 undeletions is deleted again (usually via AFD) fairly quickly. Don't think of a deletion review request as a guarantee that the article will come
569:
Did the closing admin explain their reasoning? Comment on that. Admins are expected to always follow policy, normally follow guidelines, and generally follow the discussion, while being free to disregard opinions that are votes without reasoning, single purpose accounts, and IP contributions that
543:
When done properly, the page has been redirected to the new location for the content, with all history in place. How much (if any) content to merge, and how long to keep the merge in place is a subject for the talk page of the destination article. Due weight should be given to the opinions in the
445:
A request that says "things have changed, the topic has now been covered by sources AAA, BBB, and CCC" will likely result either unprotection or in being told to write on a user sub-page and then contact any admin. Depending on our evaluation of the sources, it might be listed on AFD immediately -
253:
often leads to disregarding the votes of those who came because of the canvassing, or are believed to have so come. About the only form of notification that is tolerated is notifying all participants in prior AFDs and DRVs, or in a neutral forum on
Knowledge (XXG). Whether the canvassing is on or
173:
It is easier to make good arguments if you know why a page was deleted. Look at the deletion log, by going to the deleted page and clicking on the link where it says, "check the deletion log" (or for any page, go to history and click on "View the log for this page"). See what the reasons given by
116:
Civility is expected behavior everywhere in
Knowledge (XXG). It is expected when making your request directly to the administrator and at deletion review. Requests that are not civil set the reader in a poor frame of mind and make them less likely to agree. If you are in a huff, consider waiting
59:
new article. Not even if the deletion of the old article is endorsed. "Better" means, at the very least, solving the problems leading to the deletion of the old page. Frequently, an article on a worthwhile subject is deleted for having worthless content. The solution is to rewrite it with better
86:
Deletion review is the final place to appeal. Less than 1% of deletions are discussed at deletion review, and more than 90% of undeletions occur when the deleting admin chooses to change their mind. Give them time to respond to your request; admins are human volunteers with lives, not automatic
126:
Consider using a question with a link to the evidence, rather than a statement. A question invites a response, and if the evidence is convincing they may realize that while responding. If the evidence isn't convincing, their explanation why not may help you to learn and improve as an editor of
562:
Remember that deletion discussions are not votes, they are discussions to determine how policies and guidelines apply to a given page and whether or not that page should be deleted. Policies govern regardless of consensus within the discussion. Guidelines normally apply, but a discussion that
593:
is a policy where a deletion discussion could show that it is impossible to have a compliant article on a topic. If this is actually done in the deletion discussion (with explanation of research undertaken, and no reliable sources found by anyone), but the close does not reflect this outcome,
482:
If you know that the article did claim the subject was important or significant, let us know what that claim was (if more than one, let us know each). If you can show that the claim is true by citing a reliable published source independent of the subject, we are very likely to
137:
Make requests for undeletion when you have a good faith belief both 1) that the page meets, or can easily and quickly be improved to meet, the quality levels needed to survive a deletion discussion and 2) that the deleted content will be helpful for getting the page up to those
331:
It is always faster and simpler when they overturn themselves than when a deletion review occurs. So ask them. The worst that can happen is they say no and you wait a day longer; you might learn something; and if they say yes you've gotten your desired result about five days
627:, it is almost always possible to edit the article to bring it into compliance. If editing can cause compliance, then deletion review will not overturn and delete because the article does not happen to comply currently. Edit the page to bring it into compliance, and use
507:
Sometimes mistakes are made in such deletions. However, these rarely make it to deletion review, instead being caught by a deleting admin when requested. What deletion review usually gets are pages deleted under this criteria where the creator also suffers from a
36:
This page is a guide to deletion review. It advises on arguments to make or avoid, and lists some of the typical outcomes that occur at deletion review. Even if a description applies to the page you are talking about, it is not binding precedent. Remember that
237:. (This is hard to explain well.) Arguments about the topic of an article are not particularly relevant, except in requests for unprotection. Arguments about whether the deletion of the article (not the topic) was done properly are important.
551:
If the merge was done right, and you believe the merge should be undone, due to new content, a need for a sub-article, or a new meaning for the term, please discuss this at the talk page of the article to which the page was merged and gain
696:
that are new information, please tell us about the reliable sources. Being in the blogosphere can make the job of testing for reliable sources harder, and if you do extra digging and find reliable sources that were missed, you may have a
426:
that have solved the problems than on a request for us to assume the next (as yet uncreated) version will be different. Regular participants are even more wary of requests to assume a good next version made by editor(s) that got the page
715:
If the information has been published since the discussion and the page isn't protected, we recommend just writing a new article. If you don't have a copy of the old and write an article meeting current standards, it is unlikely to be
159:
if you believe there is a pattern of some behavior. Use deletion review to overturn specific instances. Consider postponing dispute resolution until after the reviews close, so you'll know whether or not the reviewers agreed with
302:
You can go to the deleted page and use the "What links here" tool (from the left panel), or skim the recent archives of deletion review to see if there has been a recent review of the deletion. If there has, take the time to read
486:
If you know that the topic is significant, but the article didn't say so, then it probably isn't of much use. Find the documents that independent people have published to rewrite the article, then request a history undeletion if
529:
Ask the deleting admin if the version deleted was similar to that in the cache (with link). If there are significant differences, the deleting admin may decide that a vandalized page was deleted and restore the page (fixing the
367:
You may want to request history restoration if you have already written a new article, and want the history of the old restored underneath the new article. Pretty open, except for pages deleted as copyright violations or attack
463:, deletion review will not overturn the deletion. Copyright violations have to be removed from Knowledge (XXG) to protect the encyclopedia, and whoever did the undeletion would end up personally responsible for the violation.
415:); it happens when a page is repeatedly abused in order to prevent the next abuse. Stop. Figure out why protection was applied by looking at the deletion log, history, and/or protected title page "Wikipeda:Protected titles/
441:
If the page protection was done a long time ago, deletion review is likely to unprotect it. In
December 2006, we unprotected one page protected since 2004, but didn't unprotect any protected during the last three months of
120:
Contentious discussion with everyone that disagrees with you is also unlikely to persuade them to change their opinion, and can make the next person to opine to start with a negative bias toward your request.
466:
If copyright violation occurred part way into the page history, versions prior to that violation may be undeleted. If so, the article could well need extensive repairs to bring it up to current standards.
547:
Deletion review will not involve itself with properly done merges, as merge and keep are identical from a deletion perspective. If the history was deleted, or the redirect protected, this may be cleaned
196:
If the review is a repeat review (of the same deletion/close) and no new information is offered, it is likely to be closed in less than 24 hours, because deletion review serves as a forum for gaining
587:
Arguments not actually made in the deletion discussion should not be a reason for coming to deletion review. Instead, they should be made in a later deletion discussion in the normal forum.
768:
Where possible, link to sources. If not possible, give full citations. Reliable and independent sources with non-trivial coverage of the topic are normally the most successful arguments.
386:
If you want to see if there was anything useful in the old article, ask for a copy as a content review (or history merge after the new article has been written), instead of a full review.
152:, you shouldn't request a review unless you want the end result to be different from the current state. Please, no requests for spending time on process solely for the sake of process.
787:
681:
574:
689:
Google hits, alexa rank, downloads, community members, forum posts, etc... are not evidence that we can use to write an encyclopedia article. This sort of evidence will be ignored.
469:
If you can show that the other source is violating
Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright, in theory the deletion could be overturned. In practice, this situation is very rarely demonstrated.
651:
Explain not only that they participated, but how that caused the close to be different than it should have been based on policy, guidelines, and the consensus of the discussion.
723:
If it is speedily redeleted, and talking to the deleting admin does not help, focus the deletion review on the new information, just as if the page had been protected deleted.
296:
Check the full page to see if there is already an active review underway. If so, a new appeal will be closed as redundant; instead offer your opinion in the existing review.
802:
33:
closes. About 90% of the activity is related to articles, but it is open to pages of any type (Categories, Images, Templates, User pages, and their associated talk pages).
500:
These are rarely overturned. You are usually better off looking for independently published sources and writing a new article in accordance with the guidance at the essay
792:
664:
If not, note that they weren't an admin and explain why the close was different than it should have been based on policy, guidelines, and the consensus of the discussion.
94:
Even if they don't change their mind, a discussion with the admin may help you understand why they and you disagree, and focus your review request on the relevant issues.
577:
type? Did any of the opinions claim support from a policy or guideline but contradict them? Say how you think the strength of the arguments came out, and why.
827:
346:
should be automatically undeleted upon request. (They may be nominated for an AFD or evaluated for speedy deletion, so be ready to improve them very quickly.)
438:, which was protected deleted as an article about a pseudonymous blogger, but unprotected upon request for an article on a series of Japanese video games.
264:
If the facts on the ground change during the review (e.g. page restored or a new XfD started by closer of the last) the review will normally be closed as
63:
If the old article text would help write a better article, ask for a content review, write the better article, and only then put it back in article space.
306:
If you don't have a new argument to offer, a new request is likely to receive little attention. Repeated requests often lead to speedily closed reviews.
624:
605:
523:
177:
746:
Instead say what evidence not available in the article or discussion you would have presented in the discussion, as if it was new information above.
299:
If a review on the same page was recently closed, a new appeal will also be closed as redundant. You do not get to "appeal the appeal," so to speak.
203:
Most full reviews are closed some time on the 6th or 7th day after nomination. If not enough people opined, it may be relisted for more input.
166:
645:
620:
399:
155:
Deletion review is not the forum for discussing an administrator that is repeatedly abusing or violating the deletion policy. Please use
692:
The topic is all over the blogosphere. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources. If you can wade through all that stuff and find some
707:
Either sources newly published since the discussion, or facts/sources both not mentioned in the discussion and not in the deleted page.
104:
If a deletion review is requested while a deletion discussion is still open, the review will be closed as soon as anyone realizes this.
616:
149:
782:
72:
the page is protected might you need permission to put a better new article into place. Even then, you can write it on a user
628:
286:
If deletion review does not reach a clear decision, the page will almost always be relisted for a/another deletion discussion.
183:
Different reasons for deletion result in different types of discussion having different chances of success at deletion review.
156:
832:
822:
280:
756:
It is often more useful and efficient to write a new article, possibly at a sub-page, than to challenge the last deletion.
812:
797:
693:
30:
174:
the admin were. If you don't understand them, ask the admin or an experienced
Wikipedian by using their User talk page.
817:
807:
227:
26:
320:
and more efficient than a full review. If your case fits one of these cases, please use it to save time and effort.
244:
644:
If the close would have been the same if they had not participated previously, the most we'll do is award them a
501:
590:
573:
Evaluate the strength of the arguments - were independent sources shown for notability? Were opinions of the
226:
Arguments from policy, guideline, and standard practice are important. Most important are arguments from the
533:
In your deletion review nomination, link to the cached/mirrored version and explain why it merited inclusion.
193:
If an amicable settlement with the deleting admin is reached (you did try first, right?) the review will end.
597:
250:
141:
Make a request for unprotection (without undeletion) if a page is protected and you think you have a good
431:
423:
390:
276:
269:
268:. Situations involving high contention within the Knowledge (XXG) community may be left open to prevent
720:. For even better success, mention the old discussion on the talk page and explain the new information.
109:
73:
847:
430:
Easiest of all is if you want to use the page for an unrelated topic that you've drafted as a user
383:
If you do not need the old material and the page isn't protected, you don't need a deletion review.
91:
applies just as much to getting deleted content back as to creating new content in the first place.
41:, and deletion review is governed by a hybrid of a majority of qualified votes and of consensus.
712:
Evaluate whether the new information addresses the concerns/problems in the deletion discussion.
209:
If the request is one of the simpler, faster requests, it may be granted and closed immediately.
412:
343:
88:
717:
609:
509:
493:
475:
452:
38:
403:
247:
are normally given little to no weight, unless they make unique and relevant arguments.
69:
608:
can authorize deletion of a specific article version. All such cases both fall under
460:
841:
733:
Tell us where it will be used and what the fair use claim is for that specific usage.
601:
is the canonical example, failures to comply almost never make it to deletion review.
563:
addresses them and forms a consensus to make a conscious exception can override them.
220:
17:
641:
If all they did was comment, or closed against their expressed opinion, move on.
206:
If obvious consensus forms early enough, the discussion might be closed earlier.
759:
Start with the deleting admin. Also tell them about the review after it opens.
123:
If someone gets the facts wrong, be polite and succinct about correcting them.
265:
566:
Don't bother mentioning the numbers, deletion discussions are not votes.
422:
Deletion review looks much more favorably on articles drafted as a user
29:
is intended to function as the final place to appeal page deletions and
197:
55:
You are never required to get the old article back in order to write a
743:
Deletion review has only very rarely overturned a close on this basis.
279:
decision process and a majority of qualified opinions process. See
772:
back, or that it will stay on
Knowledge (XXG) if it does come back.
669:
Page deleted in a mass-nomination that needs individual discussion
435:
322:
They are also more likely to result in getting the article back.
281:
Knowledge (XXG):Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins)
612:
and also require that no acceptable version be in the history.
582:
Deletion discussion closed with the numbers but against policy
76:
before asking at DRV, and are more likely to gain permission.
66:
Deletion review is normally for getting the old article back.
389:
If the page has been protected deleted, write it at a user
254:
off
Knowledge (XXG) (a forum, IRC, etc...) is not relevant.
575:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
81:
Start with the admin that deleted or closed the discussion
517:
Decent version visible in Google's cache or on a mirror
512:, and thus really shouldn't have been the page creator.
180:
may help to understand cryptic abbreviations like "G4".
661:
If they were an admin at the time, they were an admin.
738:
Page creator/main editors not notified of discussion
675:
to defend the article in a new deletion discussion.
631:
if edit conflicts are preventing sustained success.
200:, and repeat reviews are contrary to that purpose.
783:Alternative outlets to recreate deleted articles
526:or deletion discussion that caused the deletion.
378:Page deleted and you want to write a new article
357:deleted as copyright violations or attack pages.
117:to make your request until you have calmed down.
373:Specific situations and corresponding arguments
557:Deletion discussion closed against the numbers
625:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
606:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
8:
621:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
788:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
342:Articles that were deleted as an expired
594:deletion review may overturn and delete.
570:don't provide new arguments or evidence.
459:If the first version of an article is a
99:Wait until a decision is made to appeal
803:Deletion guidelines for administrators
219:The goal is always to create a better
617:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
291:Repeated reviews need new information
7:
516:
765:Argue from policies and guidelines.
538:Deletion discussion closed as merge
728:Image deleted as orphaned fair use
636:Discussion closed by a participant
24:
828:Introduction to deletion process
656:Discussion closed by a non-admin
474:Speedy deleted as not having an
453:deleted as a copyright violation
398:Page has been protected, either
27:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
615:For other policies, including
230:which governs deletion review.
1:
680:Page deleted, but there were
411:This is also called salting (
243:Opinions from IP editors and
145:article to put at that title.
502:Knowledge (XXG):Amnesia test
275:Deletion review is mix of a
591:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution
245:new single purpose accounts
864:
598:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights
316:All of these are normally
702:New information available
393:, then come for a review.
793:Deletion common outcomes
524:speedy deletion criteria
417:specific_protection_list
311:Faster, Simpler Requests
167:why the page was deleted
45:Guide to deletion review
718:deleted as a recreation
476:assertion of notability
240:Bare votes are ignored.
233:Deletion review is not
646:minor clue adjustment
60:content and sourcing.
31:deletion debate (XfD)
544:deletion discussion.
510:conflict of interest
150:process is important
132:What to do and avoid
89:There is no deadline
39:consensus can change
461:copyright violation
362:History restoration
629:dispute resolution
492:Speedy deleted as
406:, or as a redirect
157:dispute resolution
833:Undeletion policy
823:Guide to deletion
434:. An example is
344:proposed deletion
214:General arguments
855:
813:Deletion process
798:Deletion debates
694:reliable sources
604:In a few cases,
127:Knowledge (XXG).
863:
862:
858:
857:
856:
854:
853:
852:
838:
837:
818:Deletion review
808:Deletion policy
779:
753:
751:Final Reminders
740:
730:
704:
686:
671:
658:
638:
584:
559:
540:
519:
497:
479:
456:
408:
380:
375:
364:
353:
339:
328:
313:
293:
261:
259:Review closings
228:deletion policy
216:
190:
170:
134:
113:
101:
83:
52:
47:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
861:
859:
851:
850:
840:
839:
836:
835:
830:
825:
820:
815:
810:
805:
800:
795:
790:
785:
778:
775:
774:
773:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
752:
749:
748:
747:
744:
739:
736:
735:
734:
729:
726:
725:
724:
721:
713:
703:
700:
699:
698:
690:
685:
678:
677:
676:
670:
667:
666:
665:
662:
657:
654:
653:
652:
649:
642:
637:
634:
633:
632:
613:
602:
595:
588:
583:
580:
579:
578:
571:
567:
564:
558:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
539:
536:
535:
534:
531:
527:
518:
515:
514:
513:
505:
496:
490:
489:
488:
484:
478:
472:
471:
470:
467:
464:
455:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
428:
420:
407:
396:
395:
394:
387:
384:
379:
376:
374:
371:
370:
369:
363:
360:
359:
358:
352:
351:Content review
349:
348:
347:
338:
335:
334:
333:
327:
326:Original Admin
324:
312:
309:
308:
307:
304:
300:
297:
292:
289:
288:
287:
284:
273:
260:
257:
256:
255:
248:
241:
238:
231:
224:
215:
212:
211:
210:
207:
204:
201:
194:
189:
186:
185:
184:
181:
175:
169:
163:
162:
161:
153:
146:
139:
133:
130:
129:
128:
124:
121:
118:
112:
107:
106:
105:
100:
97:
96:
95:
92:
82:
79:
78:
77:
70:If and only if
67:
64:
61:
51:
48:
46:
43:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
860:
849:
846:
845:
843:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
811:
809:
806:
804:
801:
799:
796:
794:
791:
789:
786:
784:
781:
780:
776:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:
755:
754:
750:
745:
742:
741:
737:
732:
731:
727:
722:
719:
714:
711:
710:
709:
708:
701:
695:
691:
688:
687:
683:
679:
673:
672:
668:
663:
660:
659:
655:
650:
647:
643:
640:
639:
635:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
592:
589:
586:
585:
581:
576:
572:
568:
565:
561:
560:
556:
550:
546:
542:
541:
537:
532:
528:
525:
521:
520:
511:
506:
503:
499:
498:
495:
491:
485:
481:
480:
477:
473:
468:
465:
462:
458:
457:
454:
450:
444:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
418:
414:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
392:
388:
385:
382:
381:
377:
372:
366:
365:
361:
355:
354:
350:
345:
341:
340:
336:
330:
329:
325:
323:
321:
319:
310:
305:
301:
298:
295:
294:
290:
285:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:wheel warring
267:
263:
262:
258:
252:
249:
246:
242:
239:
236:
235:"AFD phase 2"
232:
229:
225:
222:
218:
217:
213:
208:
205:
202:
199:
195:
192:
191:
187:
182:
179:
176:
172:
171:
168:
164:
158:
154:
151:
147:
144:
140:
136:
135:
131:
125:
122:
119:
115:
114:
111:
108:
103:
102:
98:
93:
90:
85:
84:
80:
75:
71:
68:
65:
62:
58:
54:
53:
49:
44:
42:
40:
34:
32:
28:
19:
706:
705:
446:be prepared.
416:
337:Expired PROD
317:
315:
314:
234:
221:encyclopedia
143:encyclopedia
142:
56:
50:New Articles
35:
25:
18:User:GRBerry
848:User essays
682:big numbers
530:vandalism).
494:advertising
404:blank title
684:associated
610:WP:CSD#G10
552:consensus.
251:Canvassing
138:standards.
762:Be civil.
522:Read the
483:overturn.
277:consensus
188:Timeframe
178:This page
87:robots.
842:Category
777:See also
432:sub-page
424:sub-page
391:sub-page
332:earlier.
110:Civility
74:sub-page
487:needed.
427:salted.
413:WP:SALT
402:, as a
400:deleted
198:cloture
623:, and
368:pages.
318:faster
148:While
57:better
697:case.
451:Page
442:2006.
436:Rance
165:Know
16:<
266:moot
160:you.
548:up.
303:it.
844::
619:,
419:".
648:.
504:.
283:.
272:.
223:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.