Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at . If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.
A week ago, I was just about to create a page for Fiona Stewart, director of the Green Man Festival, when I came across a deletion discussion via the name disambig page. The previous page was deleted after discussion at , seemingly because it was a puff piece. I've been writing a new version at User:Mujinga/DraftFS and I'm confident it passes WP:V and WP:GNG. I'd like the deleted page to be recreated so I could take a look at it and then merge in my new version. I left a note on the closer's talkpage but they haven't edited wikipedia since March 19. Thanks for any help. Mujinga (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The closer acted in good faith, but doesn't appear to have taken any policy-based arguments into account, nor did they provide any policy-based reasoning in their decision to delete. Technically there are more delete votes than keep votes (4 to 3), but this is WP:NOTAVOTE, two of the delete votes are "weak deletes", and one of them (the first vote in the discussion) is plainly wrong; that person said there were no secondary sources about the subject, but there were 15 secondary sources specifically focused on this subject identified over the course of the conversation, and that was only a sampling of those available. Even people voting delete (as well as several people who commented without voting) acknowledged the article meets notability standards and WP:GNG, but the closer does not at all address that at all in his decision. At the very least, there was no clear consensus established and the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus"; in fact, after the conversation was relisted specifically to attempt to generate a clearer consensus, there were only two more votes with different opinions (one keep and one weak delete), so I don't see how a reasonable observer could conclude that this generated a more clearer consensus to support deletion... — Hunter Kahn 16:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC) — Hunter Kahn 16:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe a relist was necessary as none of the delete !votes addressed the article's compliance with WP:GNG, but for one early !vote that seems to be based purely on the sources included at the time rather than a search of extant online sources - some of which were added after that point. Jogurney (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This subject is gaining more and more notability online and in print media. There are numerous reputable outlets reporting on the original subject. The subject has been reported on; using a complete and thorough review of filed court documents in multiple US state courts. There is no reason that this article should not exist; considering the notable active philanthropy and notoriety of the subject. I strongly urge and request a review of the original deletion on the grounds that any questions about the subject's notability have now become untenable.
I believe that undue weight was placed on the poor state of the article by the closing administrator and one of the "delete" voters. I feel that more time should have been allowed to reach a consensus regarding WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep consensus was heavily influenced on contributors favouring the subject rather than policy. Majority of discussion focused on the notion of WP:ILIKEIT and not about the general quality of sourcing and overall notability of subject. None of the contributors that I queried responded to my concerns, IMO meaning they had no evidence to give. This should have closed as a no consensus or relisted. Appreciated this hasn't been deleted but it should have been on the lack of sourcing. Nightfury 11:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, many of the arguments in the AfD should clearly have been ignored. There was an argument that we should keep the page because it had existed for eleven years. There were arguments that because we have articles about other preserved locomotives, we should keep this one. Arguments like that are clearly non-policy, and no number of them should add anything to the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)