Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

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.

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.


Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.


Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2020 April 7}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2020 April 7}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2020 April 7|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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:

  • 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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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 non-admins. 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. 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 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.)

Speedy closes

It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.

  • 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).
  • 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.
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive 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".

Active discussions

7 April 2020

5 April 2020

NSYNC single covers

File:Iwantyoubacknsyncgermancd.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Tearinupmyheartgermancd.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Itsgonnabemelimited.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The files were unanimously agreed upon by the editors involved in 'Files for discussion' to be kept, including the editor who previously attempted to delete the files, stating that were not aware of Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. However, as consensus could not be reached on time, the files were subsequently deleted due to being over a week old. I believe that there was no reason for the files to be removed, as they were only removed after being tagged for over a week while they were still in discussion, as well as gaining consensus from two editors that they should be kept, including the editor who previously attempted to remove them. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Explicit, @Jonteemil, @George Ho -FASTILY 02:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Weak?) Relist - The deletion was unilateral, but I didn't feel like contesting it at the time. Copyright and policy interpretations are in the grey area, especially when it comes to enforcing existing copyright laws. Back to the images, I wasn't sure whether copyright laws override the votes, but I felt that more input should have been awaited and that deletion rationale should have been provided besides citing WP:F7. George Ho (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Weird deletion. Why delete before consensus has been achieved?Jonteemil (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: The disputed tag you placed on all three files meant that every file marked would be deleted in seven days unless the tag was subsequently removed. As consensus was not achieved in the past seven days, the tag on all three files automatically deleted them before the discussion was closed. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that. I guess the files will get undeleted anyway when the ffd gets closed.Jonteemil (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
After a long thought, I would consider undelete and then re-nominate the cover arts separately, and then nominate other cover arts used in those articles. Furthermore, the cover arts of each song should be separately discussed. George Ho (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Deleting administrator comment. For clarification, these files were in Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 27 March 2020 and were deleted as a result of that process, not the FFD. It was originally tagged by Jonteemil with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with the rationale: Fails "Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding". This refers to WP:NFCC#8. What constitutes "contextual significance" is laid out at WP:NFC#CS. Cover art is mentioned specifically: "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. For example, to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used" (emphasis mine). This allows for the use of one cover; additional covers are only allowed where "the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article" or "only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article". An example of meeting this criterion would be The Fame Monster, where cover art is critically discussed. The arguments about a particular song's success in a different country fail to address NFCC at all, and is a serious failure of adherence to WP:UNDUE (again, per WP:NFC#CS). Given the letter of policy, I would like to understand how others have concluded that NFCC is not being violated here.
I'm actually not sure why Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover reads at it does. It does not present evidence to its claim that "An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion". WP:NFC does not address such a circumstance. ƏXPLICIT 12:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Explicit: Thank you for your comment. As you had previously stated, WP:NFCC#8 and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover both conflict with each other, as while the files used in the articles were not critically sourced, it also held to the standards of the infobox album template. For WP:NFC#CS, two of the files' original covers were originally released in Germany for over a year before the current infobox covers were published. In accordance to WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS however, there would be no weight on the original German release, which I am able to add sourced information about, as I acknowledge that I cannot find any references about the cover art of either region. From WP:NFC#CS, it states that to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used, implying that the back cover may only meet requirements depending on whether it is thoroughly sourced or notable. According to WP:NFCI #1, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys, which only mentions the file being used on only one article unless it is thoroughly sourced on the artist's main article. There needs to be a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs clarifying the use of alternate covers within articles as WP:NFCC, as several single and album covers also suffer from the same issues. Basing a single/album cover on WP:NFCC (which covers all non-free content and only gives a passing mention to single/album covers), and an extra album cover template (which lacks clarity and information), will only cause contradictory arguments to be made against both. Regardless of how much weight is placed on relying on three different NFCC guidelines and templates about the usage of artwork covers, both users agree that the artworks should be kept, despite the lack of sourced information addressing the artwork. Although there is no sourced information about the artwork which fails WP:NFC#CS, both users acknowledged that readers unfamiliar with the origins of the songs' initial release will be able to use the alternate cover to further strengthen the songs' impact, as well as the chart section. As far as I am aware, no non-free content dispute has brought up the success of a single/album cover in a single region replacing the artwork cover when they would eventually expand internationally, which leaves both policies ambiguous. In regards to the removal of the files, I assume that Jonteemil was not aware that tagging files as disputed would automatically delete them after seven days, which the user thought that 'Files for discussion' would override. After explaining why the files should be kept, Jonteemil was willing to keep the files. As George Ho previously mentioned, WP:GUIDES may have to be invoked as the exception of dealing with ambiguous policies at the moment, which would again need community consensus and discussion in creating an entirely separate policy on non-free content for single/album covers. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention WP:NFCCEG—saying that we should use the spirit/intent, "not necessarily the exact wording") of the NFCC to decide whether to appropriately use a content but then also says that even complying with NFCC does not make a content either acceptable or unacceptable—and WP:PAG#Adherence—which says the same as WP:GUIDES but then extends to probably other rules. --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse based on explicit's response - the rationale for deletion wasn't based on the discussion and has been done appropriately. If there is a conflict between non-free content and the extra album cover template, the non-free content policy should always take precedence. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn due to the process failure. I see there was a dispute of the WP:CSD#F7. Someone actively wanted to talk about it. Disputed CSDs should be resolved at XfD. Explicit was wrong to speedy delete. Did the speedy deletion happen because the CSD dispute method didn’t make itself apparent to the deleting admin? Should WP:CSD#F7 include instructions on how to effectively appeal a disputed tagging? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • NFCC#8 is really hard to work with because it's so subjective. Deletion review has struggled with it before and my memory says that our decisions have been a bit inconsistent. But, obviously, a file that's just been kept at FFD shouldn't be speedily deleted, so to me it's a straight overturn on procedural grounds.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • No, wait, they hadn't just been kept. They'd been closed as "delete" after a unanimous keep consensus. Whiskey tango foxtrot, over?—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
      • In fact, I think they were speedy-deleted independently of the FFD, which was still open at the time of the deletion. Whether the deleting admin knew the FFD was ongoing or not, I am not sure. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
        • If he didn't, then there's been a failure of process that we can correct. If he did know it was ongoing but disregarded it, then we can decide whether he was correct to do so. If it is correct for a sysop to disregard an ongoing deletion discussion, then we might as well downgrade FFD to a sysop suggestion box.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
          • The deleting administrator clearly noted above they were deleted through a separate process than FFD, since they had been tagged for seven days, and produced a very valid reason for deleting the content. Considering this was a proper copyright-related deletion, there's not really a remedy here for the appellants - there are very few things more important than consensus on here, but copyright violations are one of them, and consensus was light anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
                • That notion of “copyright violation” is unsound. There was no copyright violation, the legal standard of fair use being met, many things considered. The issue is of Wikipedia interpretation of Fair Use, which weaves in Best Practice, caution, and setting a good example. It is not black and white. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
            • True, consensus wouldn't likely override copyright violations or NFCC, but how alternative covers of singles have been used is subjective, especially on whether using at least two images of each song release violates copyright. One example is a discussion about cover arts of another song, which ended as "no consensus [to delete]". In other words, the consensus haven't decided (yet) that using two cover arts in one article has violated copyrights. In contrast, one image is kept, while other is deleted. In most cases, the result of FFD should have overridden speedy deletion decisions and made such files ineligible for speedy deletion. This case is no exception, IMHO. Rarely (if not sometimes), however, there would be no prejudice to speedy deletion only if it is allowed and there haven't been any (other?) votes from uninvolved editors; see another discussion. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
              • That's fair, but I don't think it's as subjective as it seems. The files violate NFCC #3a and #8 on their face. Deleting this out of context poses absolutely no problem, and speedy deleting this on copyright grounds also should pose no problem, as copyright (to respond to a comment above, including Wikipedia's interpretation thereof) is one of the exceptions to speedy deletion (except where FFD has concluded a particular copyright element may not apply.) You're correct to state that a level of subjectivity exists, but in the sense of NFCC#8, the omission must be "detrimental to the understanding." For album art, this reading implies that in order to be able to illustrate an album article with different album covers, the album covers in their multiples must be significant enough to understanding the concept in order to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 05:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
                • What you said about album cover arts may be valid (and probably true), but what we've been primarily discussing are cover arts of single (or song) releases, like ones by NSYNC. Hmm.... the "detrimental to the understanding" part is, rephrasing you said, essential to keeping an image. If deleting the alternative covers doesn't affect how readers are adequately conveyed by the already-used other images of those NSYNC singles, then I guess you made a good point. However, those songs were successful in Germany (and probably some other European countries) earlier before their successes elsewhere one or two years later, yet the band members are of American origins. Nonetheless, I would hope the captions I added are adequate enough to help readers identify which releases are used and to prompt them into not adding other alternative images. Lately, I've seen editors remove captions without realizing how deleting the captions would affect the conveyance of (identifying the) releases, especially in articles about older songs. If a caption of each sole lead image is inadequate enough to readers, and one image isn't enough to the masses, then probably an alternative cover might be needed. George Ho (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Excess use of non-free content. NFCC overrides local consensus at an FFD, instructions at a template page, etc. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • NFCCP#8 is subjective. “Local consensus” vs “Consensus” is loaded terminology, and the solution is continued informed discussion. The purpose of discussion is not just to make the right decision, but to involve the community, and the continuing education of all involved. “Overrides” is a term incompatible with consensus. In the FfD, the CSD nomination withdrew after a contextual significant argument was made, and a third participant joined the unanimous position to not delete. A speedy deletion in that context is intolerable to the notion that this is a community self-managed project. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy. I wish people would distinguish the policy WP:NFCC which should rarely, if ever, be overruled without an RFC and may be acted on unilaterily by an admin, and the guideline WP:NFC which provides (strongly) suggested ways in which the policy may be interpreted. The FFD was quite properly discussing in terms of the guideline. However, the speedy was supposedly done in terms of the policy that the non-free use was indisputably invalid. Whether it was invalid could not be derived from the policy statement alone but only from interpretation based on WP:NFC and therefore subject to discussion. Now, because of the lapse of seven days the deletion was not in any way an abuse but it should be undone pending consensual assessment. Thincat (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • overturn I don't know a lot about NFC and NFCC. But SmokeyJoe has it right IMO. We don't appear to have a policy that prohibits this use (and I can't imagine there is any kind of copyright claim that could stand here, that I do know something about) and so I don't see how a speedy can be used to override a community discussion. Bring it back to the appropriate forum with stronger arguments if this needs to be deleted. Get consensus to add this to policy if that is needed. But this route isn't acceptable. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

3 April 2020

List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence

List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After existing for at least a year or two, the page "List of Major League Baseball players investigated for domestic violence" was deleted last week via AfD because some people felt it was unfair to list players who were merely investigated but not suspended, even though news reports of the allegations and investigations are listed on the players' individual Wikipedia pages. (Every player on the list has his own Wikipedia page. This is not a list of non-notable people who had been accused and investigated but ultimately faced no penalty.) The vote was 10 delete, 4 keep, and 4 move, which the closing admin somehow interpreted as a consensus for deletion, even though 44% of participants wanted the page kept in some form.

In any event, since the page was deleted on the grounds that it was unfair to have a list of those merely accused and not actually suspended, I recreated the page at "List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence" today including only the players who have been suspended by MLB. Every player on the list already has his own Wikipedia page on which his domestic violence suspension is mentioned, so if that's not a BLP violation, it's unclear how a list of such players could be a BLP violation. But for some reason, User:Muboshgu speedily deleted the new page within seconds, before I even had a chance to contest it. It makes no sense that a list of those suspended could somehow be a BLP violation when the information is already, and uncontroversially, listed on the BLPs themselves. At minimum, this page should be restored and then subjected to AfD, since it's now a different list, at a different URL, than the list that was deleted last week. Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - It isn't entirely clear whether the filer is appealing the deletion of the original article or appealing the G4. This is a poorly worded filing. A TROUT to the filer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the Delete. There is no policy-based argument for saying that the closer should have supervoted to Keep. With 56% saying Delete, Delete is a valid closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and List at AFD if this is an appeal of the G4. Like all speedy deletions, G4 should be non-controversial, and there is a valid argument that the subject is sufficiently different. It needs deleting, but it needs AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand the speedy deletion, but yeah, this title change (and corresponding narrowing of focus) addresses the concerns of the vast majority of those !voting for deletion at the AfD. overturn speedy. If someone wants to list it, they can. I'd endorse the AfD deletion if that's the question. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If the afd was valid, on which I have no opinion, then this G4 deletion plainly was. The recreated article was a self-admitted cut and paste of a google cache of the deleted one, completely unedited except to remove the lead and two of the fourteen individual entries. (And by completely unedited, I mean completely unedited - wikilinks were rendered as <a href="/wikipedia/BLP_article_name" title="BLP article name">BLP article name</a>, and the references section was eighteen entries like this: —Cryptic 05:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC))
    • It was "completely unedited" because the page was deleted about 10 seconds after creation. I was first trying to salvage the non-controversial information before making further edits, but never got the chance. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It was recreated content directly copy/pasted. As it was posted, it was also a speedy delete A1, in retrospect. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      • "It was recreated content directly copy/pasted"? You just did the same exact thing in the draft you posted below. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended content

<li id="cite_note-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-1">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web">Hagen, Paul (May 24, 2018). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">"MLB, MLBPA agree on domestic violence policy |"</a>.<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">June 8,</span> 2018</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&" class="Z3988"></span><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r935243608">.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url("//")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url("//")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url("//")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("//")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}</style></span></li>

  • Overturn speedy There was a weak consensus at AfD that although a list of all players investigated would be inappropriate, a list of only players suspended would be acceptable. It should not have been deleted within seconds, before anyone had a time to clean it up. However, at this point it may be easier to simply restore the first deleted article, remove the players who weren't suspended, and move the article to the new title. Regardless of how it's done, the article exclusively fo players suspended should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This business of copy/pasting from a google cache is a practice that we can't possibly allow. In this case it was done for good reasons, but if we do allow it then we're setting a precedent that could enable end-runs around "delete" decisions at the AfD. What this user should have done is to ask for userfication or draftification, make the necessary changes and then move back to mainspace with the article history intact. Deleting the history doesn't just contravene the terms of use. Giving people credit for their contributions is literally the only thing Wikipedia does for its volunteers, so anything that hides article histories is insidious. If there wasn't a speedy deletion criterion that applied, then there should have been. Give that sysop the barnstar of his choice.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I'd missed how it had been recreated. But a history merge and a sharp WP:TROUT would get us to the place we probably should be. Hobit (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the objection to reusing non-controversial information in list form. It's not like a biography was plagiarized. And I had probably compiled about half of that list myself on the old page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation with narrowed scope/title. Making this suspended instead of investigated addresses the concerns of most of the delete arguments from the AfD. But, yeah, this copy-paste from google is a disaster, both because it violates our attribution rules, and because it's going to be more work to make readable than it's worth. Restore the deleted page and work from there to delete the offending material. WP:REVDEL of the elided sections might even be appropriate to address the WP:BLP concerns. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I didn't even think about the BLP issues with the history. Good point. Hobit (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: If this can be recreated with "narrowed scope/title", I'd be happy with that. To help out those who are not admins, I created this as a draft at Draft:List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence. I took out the players who were not suspended to adhere to the BLP concerns raised. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • You speedily deleted my page and then created the page yourself? Gee, thanks a bunch. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Is that not what you want? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh, "your" page. @Bbny-wiki-editor:, see WP:OWN. What you saved was unacceptable under WP:CSD#A1 on top of G4. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
        • That's hilarious. Instead of using the Google cache to salvage the code, like I did, you used your admin powers to salvage the code. Why play games like this? All you're doing is wasting people's time. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
          • I did it properly, without all the code that you saved as text. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
            • That's even more hilarious than your last reply. Yesterday, you insisted this information could not be restored because of the consensus in that other AfD. You're flailing here. Why not just admit you made a mistake with the speedy delete and stop wasting everyone's time? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
              • No, I said it could only be restored here, by consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
                • Which was wrong, since there was no consensus against the suspended list in the first place, since it had never existed. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Pinging @Hobit, RoySmith, S Marshall, Robert McClenon, Cryptic, and Smartyllama: to review the draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Draft is fine. Given the deleting admin seems willing to restore it, I see no reason to drag this out for the full seven days and they can just do so now. Smartyllama (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Concur with Smartyllama.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Draft is okay with me as going into article space for a possible AFD. I don't know whether I would approve or decline it as a reviewer, but that is doubly not the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I do see plenty of reason to "drag this out". This amounts to overturning the AFD - which did, after all, consider a move to this title and reject it - and DRV doesn't normally do early closes, for good reason.
        Also, this draft doesn't (currently) attribute its text, and still won't meaningfully do so if all the currently-deleted revisions at the "investigated" list are restored but revdelled, as proposed above. —Cryptic 00:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Oyi. #1 I'm not at all certain we need to delrev all this (though I think we should). If, as claimed, all those listed in the article as being simply investigated had that same information in their articles, I don't think having it in the article's history is a BLP problem that requires delrev. That said, it's not an area I claim to know a lot about, and I'd certainly think doing so would be good if it's within the guidelines for using delrev. #2 I'll note that who creates the article doesn't matter. We really don't care. The speedy appears to be in good faith. The copy-and-paste was in good faith. The speedy was probably a bad call, the cut-and-paste certainly was. That's fine, let's move forward. #3 I don't see any reason why this needs to stay in draft space. The speedy, as a G4, was wrong. The draft overcomes the G1 issues. So let's just move that to main space and let anyone who wants to send it to AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I actually endorse both the AfD and the speedy deletion as both were well within procedural grounds. The WP:G4 was sufficiently identical from what I can tell from the discussion here. In terms of the remedy, if consensus decides to restore this, I do think a delrev is necessary, and I'd also recommend sending it to an immediate AfD because of issues regarding BLP and WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 21:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • How can there be BLP issues when the BLPs in question already include mention of the suspensions in question, which, in every case, resulted in literally hundreds of news reports around the globe? Could someone, anyone, please explain that to me? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The applicable guidelines are WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Obviously, there's a judgement call that needs to be made about whether a ball player is a public figure. Some certainly are, but I'd argue that most aren't. For the sake of argument, let's assume we're talking about somebody that falls into WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The rule there is, include only material relevant to the person's notability. So, if somebody's notable for being a baseball player, the fact that they may or may not have been involved with domestic violence is not part of what they're notable for, and we shouldn't cover it. If the subject is a notable figure, there's more latitude given: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. You're making the argument that since the domestic violence aspect was covered by hundreds of news reports, that's part of what made them notable. That's not an unreasonable argument, but the consensus at the AfD didn't go that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe people who are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles are already "public figures", especially sportspeople. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Eagles247, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE disagrees with you on that. It talks about, people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
From the supplemental WP:LOWPROFILE: A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. I do not believe Major League Baseball players fit this category. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. There are a large number of baseball players who are only visible during their baseball career, if they're visible during their baseball career at all. There's a clear distinction between Randy Johnson and Robby Hammock in terms of being a public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
So they were visible during their baseball careers and these investigations/suspensions happened during those visible years, even if you wanted to split up when exactly these people were "public figures" in their lives. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The difference between this list and being suspended for say using steroids is that the latter is firmly grounded in their playing career. However this list means a player has been suspended for potentially criminal, non-sporting related activities after a league investigation. It's not clear that the BLP issues have been satisfied by making some small changes to the article, because the article itself may give undue weight to the suspension, which could otherwise simply be mentioned on each player's article. As a result we either need to keep this deleted or restore it/send it back for another AfD to see if there's consensus around the BLP issues. SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
How is being suspended by Major League Baseball during a baseball player's career not directly related to their playing career? Just because one suspension is for a potentially-criminal act doesn't make it completely separate. Baseball players sign contracts with teams that include stipulations prohibiting them from engaging in what the MLB considers domestic violence, and if the league determines a player has broken his baseball contract through these stipulations they get suspended. This is article did not allege that these players were necessarily guilty in the eyes of the United States legal system, but that Major League Baseball has decided there was a breach of contract with their conduct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
We're veering away from the purpose of DRV with this discussion. I'm simply noting that the article still raises a BLP issue that will need to be discussed if the article were to be restored, since there are grey lines regarding whether the players are limited public figures, what a suspension along these lines means, and whether editorially spinning this list into its own article is giving undue weight to the suspensions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
(posted earlier, didn't go through for some reason) I also have the view after reading the AfD that the difference between an investigation and an actual suspension is rather pedantic, and the BLP argument made at AfD would still be relevant at a new AfD. There were a number of !voters who noted their issue was specifically with "investigated" who may change their !vote with this article, but I'm not willing to assume that. G4 specifically notes that title changes don't matter. There's also a potential issue with synthesis/original research as the draft doesn't cite any lists, it just appears to reference each incident individually, which I don't see made in the AfD but I'd be I'm concerned about. There was nothing wrong with the close or the G4. If we restore it, I'd be in favour of sending it straight to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The difference between being investigated and being suspended is “rather pedantic”? Are you kidding? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse/keep deleted. Consensus was clear at the AFD, and we cannot have people pulling content from Google caches as an end-run around consensus. Massive, massive BLP risk. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Rereading, I see the article was recreated under a new title in an attempt to mend the issues caused. That's more tolerable, but I'm still not enamoured by the methods. Nevertheless, a G4 deletion wasn't proper here and I must reluctantly overturn and send to AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn G4 a number of the AfD participants who supported deletion explicitly said that they were objecting to the fact that the list included people who had merely been investigated. As a result the AfD result doesn't apply to a page which consists of people who were suspended. Hut 8.5 07:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

2 April 2020

1 April 2020

Recent discussions

29 March 2020

28 March 2020

26 March 2020

25 March 2020

24 March 2020


Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer