Wikipedia:Closing discussions
 | It has been suggested that Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus after discussion be merged into this page. (Discuss) Proposed since August 2024. |
 | This is an information page. It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting. |
Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change to a page content, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. Editors begin discussions to resolve disagreements that cannot be easily resolved through the normal wiki-editing process. Many community discussions and decisions happen on project pages that are specifically designed for that purpose. If discussions involve several individuals, the discourse can become lengthy and the results hard to determine. After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on.
This page offers guidance on how and when discussions should be closed. There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion. These information documents the customary practices that have evolved at Wikipedia in the years since it was started. These customs are grounded in the core principles of Wikipedia etiquette such as assuming good faith, creating consensus, and maintaining civility.
Closers may wish to read Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions for guidance on actually determining consensus and writing closes.
Which discussions need to be closed
Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious. Disagreements in articles are often solved by further edits. For example, two or more individuals may disagree about how a section of text in an article is written and start a discussion on the talk page. An uninvolved party might come up with a creative solution that addresses the concerns raised in the discussion. If it is a good solution, nothing needs to happen. There will be nothing more that is said, and everyone moves on. When this is the case, it often helps to leave a comment that the issue was resolved and perhaps link the edit that resolved the issue. On some pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, the {{resolved}} template is used to note that an issue has been resolved. The template is added to the beginning of the section, with notes that indicate what action was taken. This helps shorten the reading needed to scan the page. Similarly, the {{unresolved}} template may be used to indicate that a dispute about an important issue has not found its solution, inviting more people to weigh in their ideas and opinions.
When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion. This is always the case in discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (CfD) and the other XfDs. Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. Here, adding the {{unresolved}} template may be a better option or informing all parties about the possibility of requesting mediation.
It may be useful to close some Requests for comments; see that page for criteria to consider.
Closing vs archiving
Closing discourages people from continuing to post comments, while leaving the discussion on the page, so that editors can read it. This may be accomplished by placing templates such as {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} or {{Closed rfc top}} and {{Closed rfc bottom}} around a discussion. In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive. This practice is used quite often on pages that attract heated dispute, although there are no rules in place governing its use, and there are times when closing a discussion can create even more strife than had existed before.
Summarizing documents the outcome of the discussion (e.g. "The result was to keep the page"). Outside of the various deletion processes, most discussions are neither closed nor summarized.
Archiving is when the discussion is moved into an archive area. This is usually done automatically by a bot, when no new comments have been added for a defined length of time. Most discussions go into Talk page archives with no need for a summary. However, sometimes an active issue will be archived while waiting for an uninvolved editor to write a summary statement. The recommended procedure at WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE is to copy-paste the discussion back onto the original page and delete the discussion from the Talk archive. The discussion may then be summarized as normal. This enures that the summary of the discussion's outcome will be visible to the editors watching that page.
When to close discussions
- Not too soon or too late: Some processes, especially deletion-oriented pages, have a specified minimum length, typically of 7 full days. Other processes, especially Requests for Comments (RfCs), have typical lengths but no mandatory minimum. It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week.[1] Similarly, if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion unless the process (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) requires formal closure for other reasons.
- When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing.
- When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful: If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. Most conversations do not need to be closed. On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later. In between, wait to see whether enough information and analysis has been presented to make the outcome (including an outcome that editors do not agree) clear.
How to determine the outcome
Consensus
Many closures are based upon consensus. Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented.
The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project's goals. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached.[2]
Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.[3] If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.
If you believe that it is necessary to make an explicit statement about whether consensus was reached, it may be helpful to consider three broad categories for summarizing the result of a discussion:
- Consensus in favor of (something)
- No consensus for or against (something)
- Consensus against (something)
If you write only "There was no consensus", then editors may be confused about whether you meant that no general agreement was reached or if you were trying to find a gentle way to indicate that an idea was rejected. They may also disagree later about what, exactly, wasn't agreed to.
Policy
Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted.
Wikipedia core policies, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, as well as legal policies that require articles not violate copyright or be defamatory, are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closer must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.[3]
Closure procedure
Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.[4] Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear.
Requesting a close
If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Please ensure that any request there seeking a close is neutrally worded, and do not use that board to continue the discussion in question.
Marking a closed discussion
Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion. Please do not close a discussion if you believe that further contributions (rather than starting a fresh discussion on the same subject) would be appropriate.
To close a discussion, use the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} templates (although some particular types of discussion, such as those which concern whether to delete or rename a page, have their own specialized templates). For example:
==Discussion heading==
{{archive top}}
Discussion text...
{{archive bottom}}
The closed discussion will then look like this:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
The closed discussion can also be collapsed to save space. This is achieved by using the templates {{hidden archive top}} and {{hidden archive bottom}}. Because of the short name of the first of those templates – {{hat}} – performing such a closure is referred to as hatting.
Writing a summary
Sometimes, it is helpful for an editor to provide a summary statement of the outcome, if any, when closing the discussion. This optional statement may include both points of consensus and points that are not yet resolved.
{{Archive top
|status = withdrawn
|result = I've decided my idea needs some work. Thanks to everyone for the advice. ~~~~
}}
{{lorem ipsum}}
{{Archive bottom}}
which will look like this:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Additional summary format
This format is designed specifically for closes involving written analysis or conclusions of the discussion. Either this format or the former is acceptable for closes involving analysis (which chosen is at the closers discretion), but this format should not be used for closes involving no summarization.
{{Discussion top|I've decided my idea needs some work. Thanks to everyone for the advice. ~~~~ }}
{{lorem ipsum}}
{{Discussion bottom}}
which will look like this:
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- I've decided my idea needs some work. Thanks to everyone for the advice. User:Example (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Challenging a closure
All discussion closures are subject to review. Usually, reviews are initiated because someone disputes the outcome stated by the closing editor (e.g., a summary statement that some editors find confusing or incorrect), rather than the decision to discourage further discussion.
Depending on the type of discussion, a review will take place at one of several review boards, and distinct criteria are used for each board. In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures (including requests for comment[5]) are discussed at WP:AN. Specific instructions about each case are described in the subsections below. Any editor may participate in a discussion reviewing a close.
Remember that most contentious discussions benefit from a formal closing statement, and that closers undertake to assess consensus to the best of their abilities.
Challenging a deletion
For reviewing a closure of a deletion discussion, the Deletion review process is used.
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
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 significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- 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);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- 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 repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- 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);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
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.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | 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. |
| 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
|article=Foo
|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.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} 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
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they 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, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
DJ Hollygrove grammy winner https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/hollygrove-of-the-chopstars-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-news-photo/1463285516?adppopup=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Create as a redirect to The Chopstars (the page is salted), and we'll see what happens following that. About "grammy winner": This individual did not win a Grammy.—Alalch E. 02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- clearly it says "Grammy Winners" on that publication
- https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true <== does it not say this? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The producers were there at the ceremony because the entire marching band can't fit in. They accepted the award on behalf of the band[1][2]. But some of the producers and the engineer have got a mention on the Grammy website: The official 65th Grammy awards page has the following: "Winner: 'The Urban Hymnal'; Tennessee State University Marching Band; Dr. Reginald McDonald, J. Ivy, Prof. Larry Jenkins & Aaron "Dubba -AA" Lockhart, producers; Audri Johnson, engineer/mixer". No mention of DJ Hollygrove. DJ Hollygrove is not a Grammy winner. —Alalch E. 12:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this comment isn't clear about salting/protection, I am saying: no protection —Alalch E. 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the 2008 AFD close, but this doesn't seem to be a request to overturn the 2008 result. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- so how do I submit a RFPP for DJ Hollygrove 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I don't see a 2008--or any--AfD. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 12:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove —Alalch E. 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I added the link to the DRV template above. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove —Alalch E. 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Allow Creation and Review of Draft - The album, The Urban Hymnal, won the Grammy, which went to the Tennessee State University Marching Band. The Chopstars were involved in the production of the album. If the draft shows that DJ Hollygrove satisfies any of the musical notability criteria or satisfies general notability, the reviewer can submit a request to RFPP to unprotect the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It can't be a red link in the meantime because of the need to at least have a redirect. And provided that the page exists as a redirect, since there is no ongoing basis for applying protection to the page, there shouldn't be a need to use RFPP. —Alalch E. 11:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsalt immediately There was never a finalized deletion discussion. There was one PROD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove was closed A7, then once G4, twice as A7, and then almost 14 years ago FT2 deleted it as PROD again (out of process) and salted it. In that time, it doesn't look like anyone looked at the whole process and said "Wait, did we do this right?" because... we didn't. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a formal opinion on what to do next after unsalting, but certainly no objection to the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the AfD and other deletions and the create protection. Create the redirect to The Chopstars, but protect the redirect. For anyone who might wish to recreate the article, use draftspace first, and follow advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Take no action. The DRV request is unintelligible; it consists of two words and a link. An actionable DRV request should indicate which action should be taken and why. This is lacking here. Sandstein 08:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A WP:BADNAC: The page creator closed the discussion as "keep" on the same day it was opened with the only !votes for "delete." Requesting an uninvolved administrator to relist the discussion. (Mea culpa: I originally reverted the non-admin closure erroneously, seeing it as disruptive, before I had reviewed the provision at WP:NAC stating |
| 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 am not convinced that notability was adequately established. The article subject is a WP:CASTE topic, where many print sources are low-quality, partially based on oral tradition, or ethnically biased — so the nom's statement in a reply that the existing information "is all folklore and no authentic sources are available" is credible. See also WP:RAJ for more background. Not all of the existing references were checked, but we identified several that are clearly unreliable, and two users failed to find substantive online sources. One user claimed to find various print sources, but did not identify any by name. None of the Keep !votes provided new sources that prove notability, or asserted the reliability of existing references; some users made unjustified assertions of the subject being "well-known". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 7 January 2025 (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. |
|
It seems a bit too early to close this discussion, especially when three relatively new editors, who may not be fully familiar with the notability guidelines, have voted to keep the article with very vague rationales - "plenty reliable sources are present", "added two books that provide significant coverage." (which do not actually provide significant coverage), and "I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia." While I suspect UPE activity, that is a matter for another day. Requesting a re-list of this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (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. |
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga) shows that the article was deleted in 2009 due to lack of sources establishing notability. I have since found some sources for the article, such as reviews from Anime News Network (1, 2) and Da Vinci (1). I have also found an old interview from 2000 from the creator of the series here. I have done a full rewrite as a draft. The admin who deleted the article has not been active since May 2024 and the person who nominated the article for deletion is no longer active on Wikipedia since 2010. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (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. |
|
Consensus has been reached, but could use review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2025 2601:483:400:1cd0:a1a4:fd62:9508:f4eb (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January (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 I'm suspecting that the result of closure will not be changed, I'm asking that an admin review the closure, as its the manner is troubling in two ways.
|
| 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 discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award. A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc. There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants. Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Wikipedia pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs. It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page. RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (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. |
|
An extension of the proposal was brought up and sought comments from earlier participants, but the discussion was closed less than 15 minutes later. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (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 first nomination was closed by OwenX as Keep without prejudice against early renomination, while the second was closed by Xplicit as simply Delete. The second nominator incorrectly claimed that the "good faith" sources that told about Kincl's "personal life" in the first nomination were not reliable and independent. It may be true or not. Of the five sites, those are secondary in my view. Deník is one of the most frequently used sources for Czech Republic-related Wikipedia articles, so as a daily newspaper, it is reliable and secondary. From what I remember, there seem to be not more than five secondary sources before the page's deletion, then their opinion is asked without using a translator at least first. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Challenging a move
For reviewing a closure of a page move discussions, the Move review process is used.
Move review may be used:
- if an editor believes the closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move.
- if the closer was not made aware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM, and the RM should be reopened and relisted.
Challenging other closures
For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.
Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review:
- if significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it.
- if the discussion was undertaken under modified procedural rules that the closer was not aware of.
- if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion.
Closures will rarely be changed by the closing editor, but can be challenged in a closure review:
- if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion
- if the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area.
Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:
- if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself.
- if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.[6]
After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard. For reviews of requests for comment closures, you may use {{subst:RfC closure review}} to start a review (refer to instructions in that template). In your reasoning, you should give a concrete description of how you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion. You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. an "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument". (See WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) For example, continue your AN request opening with something like: The issue the closer was to decide was
(describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X never intended to apply to issues such as this.
Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP.
See also
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive – a self-reported index of past AN reviews of closed discussion
- Wikipedia:Dashboard, for ongoing discussions and current requests
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion
- Wikipedia:Just drop it
- Wikipedia:Non-admin closure
- Wikipedia:Not now
- Wikipedia:Snowball clause
- Wikipedia:Voting – pages on the role of voting in and out of Wikipedia
References
- ^ Some common causes for rapid closure include:
- The discussion was withdrawn by the person who started it.
- Stopping discussions that are happening in multiple places or otherwise in the wrong place. (example).
- Stopping disruptive or misguided discussions (example).
- ^ Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Closure
- ^ a b Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus
- ^ In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion. For example, if you propose something, and it's obvious to you that nobody agrees with you, then you can close the discussion, even though you're obviously an "involved" editor.
- ^ See this discussion
- ^ A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator.