If you think a review of a deletion discussion is needed, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the discussion was closed correctly, or the decision should be overturned. Each user can say if they want to endorse the closure, or overturn the closure, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.
A page should stay listed here for at least 5 to 7 days. After that time, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do, and take appropriate steps. If the consensus was that the discussion was closed correctly, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.
I am respectfully asking for a review of the deletion of the article Daniel Coelho Gomes, which was deleted on 14 July 2025. I believe the deletion was based on a procedural misinterpretation of consensus.
The administrator's reason for deletion was that the only "keep" vote came from the article's creator. This contradicts Wikipedia's core principle that consensus is determined by the strength of arguments, not by vote counts or contributor roles (Wikipedia:Consensus).
I'm asking for the article to be undeleted because Daniel Gomes is a notable person, as shown by these facts:
He founded a major national project. Daniel Gomes started Arquivo.pt, Portugal's national web archive. This is a significant public project that has preserved over 1 petabyte of data and has won national awards, like the Digital Transformation Award 2024.
His work is widely used. Arquivo.pt is actively used in Wikipedia articles across multiple languages to preserve references, directly supporting Wikipedia's mission of verifiability and knowledge preservation.
He is a recognized expert:
He is a PhD-holding researcher who co-edited a scholarly book, "The Past Web: Exploring Web Archives" (Springer, 2021).
He has been interviewed by major media outlets in Portugal and abroad, such as Público, Diário de Notícias, and Hoje Macau, where he is presented as an expert on digital preservation.
He has also received important academic awards, including the Best Young Researcher Award at a major European conference.
He is active in public life. Beyond his technical work, he founded the TaraRecuperável.org movement for environmental causes and has participated in parliamentary hearings and public events about this topic.
The deletion discussion did not properly consider this evidence. The decision to delete was based on who made the "keep" argument, not on the many reliable sources that were provided to prove his notability.
I respectfully request that the article be restored, given the clear evidence of notability and the procedural issue in the original closure. Alternatively, I ask that the discussion be relisted so that arguments can be evaluated on their merits, in line with Wikipedia policy.
overturn deletion seems to pass notability for founding the national archive of Portugal and on the overall renown of his contributions to the profession fr33kman 21:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Endorse deletion None of this changes the reasons why the article was deleted - interviews don't show notability, and being a researcher with a PhD doesn't make you notable either. The awards and coverage surrounding it could bring some notability to the table but you are still lacking any references that count towards GNG. The sources all focused in on the website and this article is not about the website, it is about Gomes. --Ferien (talk|join TBA!) 17:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: As Ferien was the original nominator, I would like to address their concerns by clarifying how the provided evidence meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and Academic Notability (biog), which may have been overlooked in the initial discussion.
The argument for restoration is based on a sustained pattern of significant coverage across multiple fields (academic, public policy and environmental advocacy) over nearly 20 years.
1. Evidence of individual expertise (beyond a single project)
The subject is consistently sought out as an independent expert. The following sources focus on his expertise rather than just the organization he leads:
The global impact of his work is evidenced by its active use across multiple Wikipedia editions to preserve references that no longer exist online. Examples include:
The original deletion was based on the "role" of the creator rather than the strength of these arguments. Given this breadth of independent, reliable sources, I respectfully request that the article be restored or the discussion relisted. Adnarimiranda (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion* I totally get your passion on this and I totally get you want this article kept. Here's the thing, Wikipedia needs to be able to establish that the person the article is about is notable. All of your sources are about the archive and notthe person. Yes Daniel Gomes is interviewed, but it's always in regards to the archive he created, not he himself. I checked your sources and found:
PUBLICO - He's quoted briefly, but the article is about the database and not he, himself.
DIARIO de NOTICIAS - this is actually an editorial and not an article, therefore it can't be used to prove notability, and again it's about his database, not him.
HOJE MACAU - This is about his database and not him and it looks like he's not even quoted here.
TEK Again, this is about his database and not him. He does get quoted here
ANTENA 2 - CIENCIA This is about the database and this looks like a podcast. Yes, it's from public broadcasting, but there's no mention of any editorial oversight, so reliability may be in question as well.
Interviews
(all from youtube)
IIPC - Appears to be a legit organization, and the interview is with him, but it's about his archive and not he, himself.
ANAMED - This is an interview where he is ONE of TWO guests and they're talking about a book he co-authored
MUDA - This is a story that has clips with him, but it's about his archive and not he, himself. Also, MUDA shows no reliability, no editorial oversight so reliability is questionable.
ARCHIVOZ MAGAZINE - Archivos appears to be reliable, and yes, he's interviewed, but again, it's about his archive, not the man himself.
INESC TEC - First, they exist only on Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter, so reliability is questionable. Second the interview is with him and two other individuals and it's about his archive.
Yes, they're all independent from him, you're 100% correct on that. They show that his archive is notable, but not that he is.
The best example of why he himself isn't notable I can give you is, my father was an I.B.M'er since the 60's. I.B.M is a notable company, my father actually wrote drivers for many of their cards and contributed to OS/2,
however, that doesn't mean he's notable, even though I.B.M is. The same thing is true for Daniel Gomes.
I totally get your passion for him to have his own article, but there is literally nothing that shows he's notable. You definitely have enough here to show his archive is notable and you could certainly write an
article about that archive and mention that he started it, you just couldn't have the entire article be about him. Now, if reliable sources start publishing articles about him, then yes, you may be able to have an article about him.
Please understand this isn't personal at all, I never heard of Daniel Gomes until I saw this request, and by the way, I have a DRV also running myself (mine's in the opposite direction, for removal) and I know I'd be disappointed if the article ultimately stays, I'll also understand it isn't personal as well. You made a good effort in creating the article and I commend you on it, don't let this discourage you from adding article in, just use this as a teaching moment and make sure your next article shows notability for the subject you write about, not about their company, their spouse or anything like that, just them.
I appreciate the time you took to review the sources, Wekeepwhatwekill. I'd like to clarify a key policy point that seems to be at the centre of our disagreement.
1. Simple English Wikipedia has distinct standards for academics and creators
The notability guideline at WP:Notability (people) explicitly recognises that academics, scientists, engineers and other technical creators are evaluated by the impact of their work, not by celebrity-style biographical coverage. Daniel Gomes meets criteria in two separate sections of this guideline: Academics (WP:NPROF) and Creative people (WP:CREATIVE).
2. He meets the exact criteria listed under WP:NPROF
The Academics section states that an academic is notable if they meet any one of the listed criteria with reliable sources. Daniel Gomes meets at least two:
"The person's research has made significant impact in their area of study, as shown by independent reliable sources." He is co-editor and author of "The Past Web: Exploring Web Archives" (Springer, 2021), a peer-reviewed academic volume published by a major international publisher. His research directly shaped the development of national-scale digital preservation infrastructure.
"The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." His expertise extends into public policy: he was invited as a technical authority to formal parliamentary hearings in the Portuguese Parliament on deposit-refund legislation (TaraRecuperavel.org). This is independent civic impact, covered by national media such as Jornal de Notícias.
These are not interpretations - they are direct matches to the policy text.
3. He also meets WP:CREATIVE for technical creators
The Creative people section explicitly includes scientists, academics, engineers and other creators. It states that a person is notable if:
"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work... [that] has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Daniel Gomes created and led Arquivo.pt, Portugal's national web archive, for 17 years (2007-2025). This is a national public infrastructure, comparable to a national library in digital form. It has been the subject of multiple independent articles in Público, Diário de Notícias, Shifter, Gerador, Hoje Macau and others.
This is exactly the scenario WP:CREATIVE describes.
4. Coverage about a person's work is coverage about the person
In technical, scientific and academic fields, reliable sources almost always discuss the individual through their work. This is normal and expected.
WP:CREATIVE explicitly states that notability is established when the work is the subject of independent coverage.
WP:NPROF explicitly states that academics may be notable even without biographical profiles.
Therefore, dismissing sources because they discuss the national archive he created contradicts the text of the guideline.
5. The IBM analogy does not apply
The comparison with a corporate engineer does not reflect how WP:NPROF or WP:CREATIVE operate. This is not a case of an employee contributing to a company product. This is a case of:
founding a national public infrastructure
leading it for nearly two decades
publishing scholarly work with Springer
creating the first Portuguese-language MOOC on web archiving (NAU)
serving as a recognised expert in legislative hearings
being interviewed internationally as a subject-matter authority
This is precisely the type of profile the guideline is designed to cover.
6. Notability is different from fame
Most notable academics, engineers and technical pioneers are not famous. Simple English Wikipedia's guidelines explicitly allow notability to be established through impact, leadership, scholarly contribution and the creation of significant public infrastructure. Daniel Gomes meets these criteria through sustained, multi-decade contributions documented in independent reliable sources.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the deletion be overturned or the discussion relisted so that the project-specific criteria can be properly evaluated.
This has been live at Flirt4Free so I adjusted the section and link accordingly. I don't think there is anything left to do here. Closing. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 16:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting the restoration of the article Flirt4free .The subject has been covered by news outlets, industry publications, and legal/technical authorities, providing in-depth, independent references beyond passing mentions.
Also it has many awards as like as its competitors. The platform has existed since 1996. It is one of the oldest platform in this category. In the deleted article draft I mentioned the awards received by this platform from XBIZ, YNOT, Cybersocket, and the Grabby Awards over the years. After the article got deleted, I researched bout it more and got many more coverages of the subject and coverages of its events.
The article was deleted by an RFD which I believe was not satisfactory. It had only two comments, one from me and other from an SPA. Link here
Below is a categorized list of some of the sources. Which can be used to improve the article.
Thanks. But I have already added the RFD discussion link in the request. Please kindly check the request. Dysonneons (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Ping to @Ternera and @Fr33kman. It has been more than 14 days. I would really appreciate your comments about this matter. Thanks. Dysonneons (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I've no comments to make fr33kman 23:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Fr33kman, Should I post it again? Or would you mind restoring it. I can improve the article. Thanks. Dysonneons (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd suggest creating it in your user space and then asking for reviews on WP:STfr33kman 05:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
May I get the previous article that I posted? @Fr33kmanDysonneons (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
I have restored it to User:Dysonneons/Flirt4Free. I'll give you a week to improve it and get reviews. fr33kman 06:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. will be updating it soon. Dysonneons (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
@Dysonneons, did you ask for reviews on Simple Talk as fr33kman requested you do before it get moved into article main space? The request was not to ask on the draft talk page in your article space that nobody would have known about, but on the Simple Talk page that actually has people watching it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
@Ravensfire, My apologies. I misunderstood Fr33kman. I will immediately post it for review on the Simple Talk. I respect the community's process. And very sorry for this late, I was not online. Dysonneons (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Hi, @Ravensfire, I have successfully added a request here. Please take a look and add your valuable suggestions or, please review the article. Thanks. Dysonneons (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I would like to request undeletion of the article Neeru Yadav (Hockeywali Sarpanch). The subject is notable as she is recognized as the first female sarpanch of Lambi Ahir village in Rajasthan and has been widely covered in independent and reliable media sources for her initiatives in promoting girls' hockey and rural development.
At the time of deletion, the article may not have demonstrated sufficient independent reliable sources. However, I have now gathered multiple references from national and regional newspapers, including [insert references here: The Hindu, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, etc.], which establish significant coverage and meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies.
I request administrators to kindly restore the deleted draft to my userspace so that I can work on improving it with proper citations and neutral encyclopedic tone, in line with Wikipedia policies.
Thank you for your consideration. Sweta201500487 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Send to RfD There are actually some claims of notability here but I don't think there is sufficient coverage for an article. --Ferien (talk|join TBA!) 12:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This has sat on DRV for a while so despite being involved, I will restore and RfD this now. --Ferien (talk|join TBA!) 16:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello,
I am requesting the undeletion of the article Jeanne Bender so that it can be moved back into the article space. If the consensus is that the notability guidelines are not yet fully met, I would like the article to be restored to my userspace or sandbox so I can rework it to meet Simple English Wikipedia’s standards.
I believe the subject meets notability guidelines because:
Jeanne Bender is an award-winning American children’s author with international recognition.
Her Lindie Lou Adventure Series has been featured in major media outlets including Forbes México, Woman’s World, and Kirkus Reviews.
Her works have been recognized by educational associations such as the New Zealand Literacy Association and have won Mom’s Choice Gold Awards.
Maintaining a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
Using clear and simple language suitable for Simple English Wikipedia.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Emilydaniel (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The “Mom’s Choice Awards” is a website where you pay an application fee, send them your product/book, and they promote it on their site. It’s not a notable award. Name notable awards she has won, please. CountryANDWestern (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright I will do Emilydaniel (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
What about these
== Awards and recognition ==
Bender’s Lindie Lou Adventure Series has received recognition from independent educational and literary organizations:
Several books in the series, including Flying High, Big City Magic, and Island Treasure, have been reviewed by Kirkus Reviews, which praised the stories for their engaging narratives and social–emotional themes.
In 2023, Island Treasure was selected by the New Zealand Literacy Association (NZLA) for the organization’s annual conference book launch, highlighting its use in literacy education.
Language Magazine published an article titled “Bridging the Gap with Lindie Lou,” describing how the series is used by teachers, librarians, and reading specialists to support literacy and English as a Second Language programs.
This was as an attributed copy of an English Wikipedia page that was deleted for not being simple enough. As it is mainly a list, I believe I can pretty quickly address the problematic language. I had gone through it and it had already seemed pretty simple, but I guess I had missed some things which is why I hadn't added the simplifying tag. Newsjunkie (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
@CountryANDWestern Could this be restored either in the article space or draft space so I could simplify it? Newsjunkie (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
I saw those terms used on some other pages here, especially the second one, so that's why I was wondering. Warner Bros. Pictures AnimationNewsjunkie (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
I see that you have brought it over again. The changes you have made are minimal. My suggestion is to put it into your userspace and work on it rather than the article space. In its current state, it should be deleted again as A3. CountryANDWestern (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
That's a different page actually, and I actually made a few other changes already before putting in, like changing commissioned to ordered, affiliates to local television stations. There is only very limited descriptive text in that article to start with. Newsjunkie (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Also in terms of the wording you mentioned on the original page, both the related terms distribution and inheritance are on the combined word list at least, so I'm a bit confused how much more simple those should be Newsjunkie (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Newsjunkie, historically we are more lenient on lists because usually, less simplification is needed. However there are paragraphs in the article like this Represented by MCA TV from 1960 to 1965, then in association with CBS from 1965 to 1972. Viacom has distributed the entire series in separate packages, although the majority of the color CBS episodes (Seasons 6–10) are the ones that are syndicated today. Most of the earlier black-and-white shows were not syndicated until they began airing on MeTV in 2017. CBS currently distributes all 380 episodes produced. Those are not remotely simple. You have not returned to simplify it further in the last 8 months. As such, I do endorse deletion and would advise you to simplify it as in its current state it is eligible for A3 currently. --Ferien (talk|join TBA!) 16:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Endorse per Ferien - Not Simple worded but even if it were I'm not seeing any evidence of any notability anyway, Thanks, --–Davey2010Talk 16:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I will work on simplifying it. In terms of notability it is a version of a en-wiki article. Newsjunkie (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I think that is the only very complex paragraph as far as I can tell. Newsjunkie (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Sachin Lokapure
Sachin Lokapure page i created with notable reliable source with present on google with some data of patent and news report and his book publication, he also invented revolutionary motiloscope device that why his name quite femus in field of microscopy device Lambertrobert1986 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
The article has not yet been deleted. It is tagged for deletion as not demonstrating notability, but also being AI-generated. What are the best sources you have that prove he is notable? CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Find the exact Marathi news URLs (Esakal / ETV Bharat) for citation.
Locate the specific Indian Patent Office journal entries with Lokapure’s patents Lambertrobert1986 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the page "Quinten Delaere" under criteria G4 (repost of deleted content).
I would like to politely request a review of this decision. The previous version was deleted via RfD because the subject was considered only notable for a single event (gaming record).
This new version was substantially different. I added new, reliable sources (newspaper Krant van West-Vlaanderen) verifying a separate career as a television actor in Belgium (series Thuis). This directly addressed the concern of the previous deletion by proving notability beyond the single gaming event.
Because this draft contained significant new evidence regarding a different career, I believe G4 does not apply here. Could you please reconsider or restore it to userspace so I can improve it further?
Thank you, Skoshili (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Note - This subject is being spammed at multiple wikis various multiple accounts. This seems to be the latest attempt.
This is the additional information that was added "Delaere is an actor in the Belgian media. According to the newspaper Krant van West-Vlaanderen (KW), he has played a role in the television series Thuis. This series is shown on the channel VRT."
Sorry. I did not know this subject was being spammed at multiple wikis. I'm personally from Belgian and I tought it would be nice to add a fellow belgian to wikipedia. I did not know this was against the rules. Skoshili (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
For actors, notability just for acting usually requires multiple significant roles in notable productions - see w:WP:NACTOR. Minor / short duration parts don't help show notability. I see there's a draft that's being worked at on en wiki - might I suggest pausing here until that process finishes? Ravensfire (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation regarding WP:NACTOR and the constructive advice. I will follow your suggestion to pause here and await the outcome of the review process on the English Wikipedia draft. Skoshili (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
== Nida Khan ==
closed as not restored fr33kman 00:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
I created a page about Nida Khan using a reliable source for every sentence (based on facts) but it has been deleted. Please restore it. Thanks.-Baangla (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
She is a notable person who has been in the news.-Baangla (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I had stated the facts based on the news reports about her, using a reliable source for every sentence. If the page about Osama bin Laden is not being deleted despite being an attack piece, I don't see why this page about this equally famous lady (at least in India, she is) should be deleted.-Baangla (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Trying to compare this person to bin Laden is beyond ludicrous. This is a non-public person who has not been convicted of anything. Yes, it was an attack piece as you wrote it. Do not restore. Ravensfire (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Also, read w:WP:BLPCRIME and especially "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material in any article that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest in, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime." Wikipedia articles are NOT the place to air grievances like this (w:WP:RIGHTWRONGS). Poorly written attack articles like this one have zero place on any Wikipedia site. Ravensfire (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: So is it necessary that a person is convicted before a page is created about them if we want to mention what they have done?-Baangla (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Can I create a page about an unconvicted gunned down terrorist?-Baangla (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
You can create a page about the attack, if that has sufficient notability. Read the page I linked to. Ravensfire (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello all, the deleted page contained different allegations, many backed by sources. Eptalon (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
They are backed with sources, but this is someone that's not a public figure, is not convicted of anything - there should not be a stand-alone article about this person. That's contrary to WP:BLP. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - Reads like an attack page, even if sourced. Like Ravensfire has said, this appears to be BLPCRIME situation. She's not a notable individual and basically every sentence in here is an accusation of some kind. CountryANDWestern (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
I nominated an for deletion, the result was keep. I'm asking that this be reviewed because according to the guidelines regarding nobility, it states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." There are no sources on Henry_B._Eyring that are independant of his church, therefore, this article fails notability and therefore should not have been kept. There are no arguments that show , by policy, that this article should be kept, all the arguments are the same "He's notable within the church....".
As no independant notability exists, per the Notability guideline, this article shouldn't be here, regardless of whether or not it exists on anyother wiki, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm requesting a review of the keep decision.
Wekeepwhatwekill 23:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
(involved) Endorse closure - @CountryANDWestern assessed consensus correctly. This is not intended as a venue to relitigate discussions, but if you want a policy argument, check out WP:ANYBIO #2. Combine his publications, speeches, and power in the church, and you have someone with significant contributions to their field. Although not cited directly, I suspect this was the basis for the keep votes (it was for mine). I did not just mention the fact that the enwiki article exits, but I pointed you specifically to its sources. Notability is not an attribute of an article but of its subject, so a topic can be notable even if the article is not well sourced. Conversely, a perfectly written article with dozens of sources could be about a topic that is not notable and therefore deleted. Even if you don't accept all of that, I hope you recognize that there was certainly not consensus to delete. Garsh (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
All published by his church, and therefore not independent of the subject as is required by WP:NOTABILITY. Talking about what's on en.wikipedia is essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and again, doesn't satisfy the notability requirement. Wekeepwhatwekill 02:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse closure. The article isn't the best we have, however, the person appears seems to be notable from what I can see. -Barrastalk 13:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I endorse the closure. C&W did the right thing. The article is in very poor shape however so I can see why it was nominated for deletion.
The English Wikipedia has an article on him. As an involved editor, I can make some time to copy the English Wikipedia article and simplify the English used for our page about him. Do I have permission to do so or are you all hell bent on deleting that Simple Wikipedia page about him?-Baangla (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
@Baangla you don’t need permission to do pretty much anything here. Sometimes you need consensus, but I wouldn’t say that’s the same thing. Also, we are not deleting the page, this discussion is pointing towards keeping the page. If you feel like improving the article, I think everyone would welcome that. Garsh (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I hope Wekeepwhatwekill comes around to accepting the "consensus".-Baangla (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Consensus is defintely against me, and don't worry, I accept consensus. My reason for deleting the article was due to notability, essentially, there are no sources about him that are independent of his church. I believe this causes the article to fail WP:NOTABILITY and should be removed for that reason alone. Don't worry, thought, I accept whatever the consensus is. Wekeepwhatwekill 22:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Primary sources are acceptable if secondary sources are unavailable on wikipedia.-Baangla (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Please see WP:PRIMARY - it reads: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."- Baangla (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Bangala, I have been with Wikipedia (en.wikipedia) for 20 years, I'm aware of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. For example: (from WP:PRIMARY
Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Like I said, I WILL go with what consensus decides. I'm not looking for a fight, just observing the rules as written. 22:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Wekeepwhatwekill 22:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be argumentative, I am sorry if it seemed so.-Baangla (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
what page got deleted and why
whatever reason it was not attempted ACRTIC14782 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
The page made no sense and was deleted because it wasn't encyclopedic. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Simple start to learn about editing. Ternera (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Request to overturn and restore - This page should be restored to mainspace. The previous deletion reason "not encyclopedic / no sense" is about style, not notability. Style can be fixed, notability cannot. I will fix style.
I have COI. I will rewrite page in simple, encyclopedic style per Wikipedia:Simple start. Please restore to mainspace Millat Mohammed. --محمد محسن 90 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
I have no comment on the content itself but I do not see the deletion reason "not encyclopedic / no sense" in the logs. In fact, @Fr33kman deleted it with no reason at all. Fr33kman, could you give a reason for the deletion?
I initially deleted the page as A4, but thought more about it (due to the claim of winning a prize) and restored the page so it could go through RfD instead. I stand by the decision to delete. fr33kman 23:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
The usual criteria for something being a significant award is an article at least on the group, and there is no article on Galawezh International Festival here or (probably more importantly) en wiki. Being in a library is NOT part of w:WP:NBOOK or w:WP:NAUTHOR as many, many non-notable books are found in libraries. From your en wiki talk page, you were blocked over there for your excessive push to get this same article published there. Do you have three reliable secondary sources (not blogs, not interviews, not churnalism/puff pieces, but very good source that have significant cover of this person? Please take some time to read the comments left at w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mllat_Mohammed which strongly raise issues around notability. Ravensfire (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I've restored it and sent it to RfD instead, fr33kman 01:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Peterdownunder , I can expand the article with more references to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Mr.FarFar (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
endorse deletion very clear from the article. fr33kman 23:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
@Fr33kman, I can expand the article with more references to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), See Wikidata Q117466847.thank you. Mr.FarFar (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Then this should have been done in the first place. Deletion review is about whether or not the deletion was correct, not whether the article can be improved. fr33kman 22:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
There's a draft on en wiki - I think we should revisit if that draft is accepted. Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
I respectfully request a review of the deletion of the article
The article was deleted after the deletion discussion was closed as "Delete". However, I believe the decision should be reconsidered because the article had independent and reliable sources about the subject.
During the deletion discussion, two editors supported keeping the article, while one editor supported deletion. I understand that deletion discussions are not decided simply by counting votes. My concern is that the independent sources and the reasons supporting the subject's notability should be considered more carefully.
The article had coverage from independent sources, including [SOURCE 1], [SOURCE 2], and [SOURCE 3]. These sources provide information about Shayla Binte Bashar beyond simple mentions or self-published material.
I believe these sources can establish that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources and therefore may meet the notability requirements.
I am not asking for the article to be kept simply because there were more Keep comments. I am asking for the deletion to be reviewed based on the quality and independence of the sources and the arguments made in the original discussion.
If appropriate, I am also willing to improve the article, add better citations, remove promotional material, and rewrite it in simple English.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the deletion be overturned and that the article be restored, preferably so it can be improved and properly sourced.
Thank you ~ সাফা (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Your third source does not seem to mention this person at all. The other two are the same article which is quite over-the-top promotional in tone, more of a press release or churnalism than a true independent source. The two people that said keep had very few edits here or on en wiki, and one of them was blocked on en wiki for undeclared paid editing. Those views should be very properly discounted in any discussion here. I support the deletion, a semi-AI generated request that doesn't have good support for notability is not persuasive. Ravensfire (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Reason for review: Procedural error (inappropriate use of Quick Deletion A4) and valid assertion of significance.
I am requesting that REDCHINAWAVE be restored or moved to draft space.
1. Inappropriate use of QD A4: The article was deleted under criterion A4 for "no claim of notability." However, A4 applies strictly to pages that fail to make any claim of significance. The deleted text explicitly noted that the band's single "Отменяй" went viral across streaming platforms (accumulating millions of plays) and cited coverage from independent press outlets including "Snob" magazine. Whether these factors ultimately satisfy WP:MUSIC is a topic for a standard RfD discussion, not a summary deletion under A4.
2. Notability and Sourcing: The page included multiple indicators of subject significance under music guidelines:
Basic Verifiability: A cited discography detailing their EPs and release history.
Given that an explicit claim of significance was present, deleting under A4 was a procedural misstep. I ask that the page be restored to mainspace so it can undergo standard community evaluation at Requests for Deletion if necessary. WikiGeekster3000 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Please make this request again without the use of AI. We need to hear your thoughts, not an LLM’s. CountryANDWestern (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Request for undelete of Acress singer
Hi, I want to ask about Acress singer page. I saw it deleted. But there are two news articles about him. I think he is not able.can you please undelete? I will try to make the page better, and I have just found another article from radio television sango malamu from bunia, the link is:https://radiotele-sango-malamu.com/musique-le-congolais-acress-veut-sensibiliser-a-lunite-avec-son-titre-one-human-race/
And the message may seem familiar with blizz uganda but it's not our fault, the only site from Congo has decided to share the message for their population. Thank you so much for considering my request please Congomusicfan243 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
I just deleted it again. This is clearly not a notable person. I endorse the previous deletions. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
I think calling those 'news articles' is slightly misleading. They are clearly press releases, based on the highly promotional language used. Spiderone (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Request for undelete of Say Always Truth
The page is currently being translated into simple English, and the translation is still in progress. The content will be completed and properly reviewed before the page is finalized.
Please allow some time for the translation and improvements to be completed. I kindly request that the page not be deleted and that it be restored so I can finish the work and address any issues. Editobd (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - This was denied as a draft multiple times on the English Wikipedia. It does not demonstrate any clear notability for this website and, like on the English Wikipedia, appears to be written using AI. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Sometimes to get source, we are using Gemini or ChatGPT. This reason our English draft was rejected, but our Bangla has been published, and And I am translating the Bangla version to simple English.and other language.But after getting blocked in English Wikipedia and totally stopped using AI. And now this time I am using my own skill to translate it in simple English. Please restore the version. I want to complete it and add source and other necessary things. Editobd (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
From WP:Administrators' noticeboard, I wrote Can this article be restored, it was deleted as non-notable even when it had a claim of notability. For WP:NPROF#5, he held a distinguished professor appointment at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a university classified among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research spending and doctorate production". The university is a major institution that has high research and high education, and even when it's a R1 university, it still defines the university with very high research. It's been over three days, and from the noticeboard, I also wrote It doesn't make sense why this had to be deleted, even when there was a claim of notability where he held a distinguished professor appointment at a R1 university, a major institution with high research and high education, already meeting WP:NPROF#5. A major institution doesn't have to be just Ivy League schools. It's been nominated for deletion in the normal English Wikipedia, and it has over seven keep votes meeting WP:NPROF#5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore per my AN comment. There is at least a claim of notability here. It can still be taken to RfD for the community to decide, which I think is the best option here. Garsh (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Could editors assess whether these sources address the earlier notability concerns and whether the draft can be moved to article space? The institutional and social media posts support specific activities; they are not presented as proof of notability by themselves.
Thank you. IamStivens (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to request undeletion of Neysa, which was deleted on 17 October 2026 under QD A4.
The deletion summary says that the article did not claim notability. However, the deleted draft covered the company's background, founders, funding rounds, operations and work in AI infrastructure, and cited several independent publications.
There were also several other references in the article covering Neysa's funding, leadership, business activities and role in India's AI infrastructure sector. I believe these sources provide meaningful evidence of coverage of the company and that the deleted version deserves a closer review.
I understand that having several references does not automatically establish notability. My concern is specifically whether QD A4 was appropriate for the version that was deleted, given the claims and sources already present in the article. Could an administrator please review the deleted revision and clarify whether the criterion was correctly applied?
Thank you. Kreavti (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Please don't use AI to make requests. Ravensfire (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
