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.

Archives
2007–2012, 2013–2016, 2017–2019, 2020–2021, 2022–2023, 2024, 2025

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days. For the archive overview, see Archive.

Current requests

Start a new request

Black Joe

Black Joe (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

I wrote the page so simply to avoid its being mistaken for advertisement. I am more than willing to change the writing as administrators say. Please think whether the sources below are enough for Black Joe to meet WP: GNG.

carriers of sources

According to BBC's Macau media guide, Macao Daily News, Jornal Tribuna de Macau and Macao News (a.k a. MacauNews) are all great news companies of Macao. According to BBC's Hong Kong media guide, HK01 is a great news company of Hong Kong. If you believed the BBC was right, you would presume all of those four to be reliable.

content of sources

HK01's significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (Muay Thai) and performer (Google Translate-d)
Jornal Tribuna de Macau's significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (kickboxing and Muay Thai) (Copy to Google Translate)
Macao Daily News' significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao performer and fighter (Muay Thai) (Copy to Google Translate)
Macao News' significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (Muay Thai) (No need to translate)

answering questions

Auntof6: You asked for 'A statement of something that makes the subject notable', I give 'Black Joe is a famous Macao Muay Thai fighter and performer'. I am willing to put all those sources and their main points in the topic page.
Griffinofwales: You had already said that two of the sources above were 'reliable' and had given 'significant coverage'. This time, please take a look at the other two as well. WP:GNG does not limit the ways for anyone to become 'notable'. In this case, 'Macao Muay Thai fighter' is point one, 'Macao performer' is point two. I am willing to re-write in any ways you see fit.

something else

There had been mistakes with procedures. Otherwise, we would now be talking on a 're-listed' 'deletion discussion' instead of an 'undeletion discussion'. This may be talked about later. 江马 (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is famous does not show notability. It is a claim of notability, which can prevent quick deletion of an article, but it doesn't really show the notability. Remember that we are looking for notability, not fame. Saying that a person is famous is kind of vague. For example, you or I might be famous for some things among our friends, but that doesn't make us notable for Wikipedia purposes.

I just looked again at what was in the article when it was deleted. It contained statements about:

The person's stage name and various forms of his real name
Being a showman and sportsman
His ethnic background
Companies he acted for
Singing with TiKMAN
A statement of things he is "good at" (Being good at something in no way shows notability. I'm sure we're all good at something, but that doesn't make us notable.)

None of those show notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Before you left these words, I had already told you twice that I was willing to change the article as you wished. So, there has been no need to worry how good or how bad the deleted writing was, as it had nothing to do with a topic's 'notability' according to Wikipedia's rules. Have you read the sections carriers of sources and content of sources above yet? Do the four sources described there make Black Joe meet 'WP:GNG'? May you talk about this for the first time? 江马 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@江马 I hear that you're willing to improve the article, but that's not the issue. This page is for discussing the deletion that happened, not how to improve the article. Maybe you would like to create it in a personal sandbox where you can make improvements and, assuming you want to, ask for comments and/or suggestions.

One more thing: I can understand that you might be frustrated about the article getting deleted, but please stop shouting with bolded text. Thanks.

With that, I've said all I think I have to say here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: I apologize for my words having some-how made you feel bad, but I am sure that you have got me wrong. Setting some words bold do not mean 'shouting' or 'frustration' at all. It is just a useful way to mind others not to miss something. For example, I like Griffinofwales' bolding of the words 'not' and 'in my opinion' because it minds me where to take a close look at. Seeing your 'I've said all I think I have to say here.' and 'This page is for discussing the deletion that happened, not how to improve the article.', I know it is time to move on to start talking about the 'something else'. You may still want to take a look at the new part 'wrong procedures' below. 江马 (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the RFD, I have already made my position known. My opinion is formed around the statement that not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation (Notability guideline). Why? 1. Black Joe has not met the subject-specific notability guidelines. 2. the coverage in reliable sources is not focused on any aspect of him except for that identified in the subject-specific notability guidelines (for example, they do not say he saved 100 people or invented a new way of fighting), and 3. local news sources frequently will cover events, companies, and peoples of local interest. That, in my opinion, should not automatically grant notability.

However, the primary reason for a DRV is not to discuss the merits of the article again, but to review the RFD. As an involved editor, I do have some bias, but this RFD fell appropriately to the closing administrator to use discretion in independently evaluating policies, guidelines, and the arguments made to close the RFD. In this respect, I believe that Auntof6 has 1. appropriately assessed the RFD in line with the policies, guidelines, and arguments given in the RFD and 2. closed the RFD within the bounds of the broad discretion administrators are given to assess RFDs.

I appreciate the respectful discussions we have had on this topic and look forward to working with you further on the project. Griff (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Griffinofwales: Thank you for telling me more about your thoughts on the topic's notability. I now understand that 'in 'your' opinion', the sources I wished you cared do not need to be talked about... never mind! Just as I had said in the 'something else' part above, I do know that a DRV is mainly used 'to review the RFD'. In fact, I started this DRV according to Auntof6's odd reply, that is why it looks quite like an AFD. I am starting a 'wrong procedures' part below to talk about this matter. 江马 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@江马 There is a consensus to delete based on what I see. The other keep comment doesn't say anything more than what you already mentioned. You have failed to gain agreement to the claim that the sources are reliable, independent and show the significance of the subject. There is barely any content in the page to begin with, supported by load of sources that are only there to make the subject look notable, which is not very normal. I will just endorse deletion here. BRP^ever 14:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wrong procedures

From the start of the AFD, my main point has been that the five or four sources are enough to show that Black Joe meets WP:GNG.. That is an elephant in the room! Since Griffinofwales joined the discussion and did not use any administrator tools, they are free to choose to talk and think about anything or not. However, Auntof6 is different. According to the WP:DP on regular English Wikipedia, 'The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should be done only when there is consensus to delete.' This is useful here because Simple English Wikipedia's WP:DP does not have such a part. When she closed the discussion by deleting, no extra words were left. So I asked whether she had found consensus in it, but none of her replies were about this. Her saying about the discussion was '...felt...correct...' and '...arguments...stronger...'. Instead, she kept stressing that the lack of notability was due to what she saw on the deleted writing, which was off-topic according to 'WP:ARTN'. The 'delete' side did talk about it, but does it go with policies or guidelines? Is this point great enough to make the other side's point about 'WP:GNG' not worth looking at at all? As we can see in the talk above, she would not say anything on whether the four sources described there make Black Joe meet 'WP:GNG', which is the 'keep' side's main point. I assumed good faith of Auntof6, but now we can clearly see that she is quite biased in this case. She should have joined the discussion the way Griffinofwales did, or just let another administrator do the closing if it was too late, instead of going ahead without ever willing to show how much her choice has to do with any 'consensus' already on the table to look for. If that AFD was closed as 'keep' by someone else, Auntof6 could choose to re-list it without using administrator tools, and then write down anything that goes with or against Wikipedia's rules there. In short, if there had been a consensus in the discussion, the administrator should follow it when closing. Other-wise, the page should be kept and the AFD may be re-listed right away by them. 江马 (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are just skipping the whole content and mentioning lines. 'I read the arguments, and for me the arguments for deleting were stronger than the ones for keeping' was the main point. Consensus is judged based on arguments and your disagreement is accounted, as is the comments by other editors. An admin can also check the page to see if the claims made in RFD are true or not. BRP^ever 14:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @江马: Give up already! As you know so much about the written rules, your brain must've understood enough about what'd been going on days ago. There's never been an accident, it's just that your heart wouldn't take it in! Of course it's wrong to delete your article, but I'm voting in this way for your wellbeing. It's pointless to argue why the goalposts keep moving, simply let it go... 微甜微酸微苦＿＿微鹹 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion fr33k man 02:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored Consensus to keep the article deleted.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the quick removal of Jadidi music

Jadidi music (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

Hello, a Jadidi music article was tagged by a user because of the creation of the deleted article. I object to this, is it not possible to restore an article that has already been deleted by correcting the defects? Does an article that is deleted remain banned from Wikipedia forever? This article was removed in the past due to some defects, but now it has been fixed, please keep it, and deal with the quick removal. Oosmoosatv (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oosmoosatv: It looks like that article was deleted because you were evading a block, possibly even multiple blocks, when you created it, even though the blocks weren't on the userid you used to create the article. (Blocks are intended to apply to a person, not necessarily just to a specific account.) (@MathXplore:, please confirm.)

Even if that wasn't the issue, I think that article could have been deleted under WP:QD#G4 (recreating deleted content), even though it was created under a different title. Therefore, I endorse the deletion of the article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback to the review. I'm sure that I'm facing the same user again, and a steward has agreed to my assessment. MathXplore (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the nom locked the request could probably be marked as resolved now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the page People's Insight

I am writing to request the undeletion of the "People's Insight" page. We have added all necessary references and sources to the page, confirming that it pertains to an exit poll and political analysis company. We are committed to adhering to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. We assure you that we are ready and willing to promptly address any further edits or modifications that you may require to ensure the page's compliance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your positive response and the restoration of the "People's Insight" page. 009dishu (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide references here that show that this company has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Griff (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable media outlets for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025, demonstrating its noteworthiness. Here are references:

Wikipedia's 2025 Delhi Legislative Assembly Election Page: This page lists People's Insight among the pollsters that conducted exit polls for the 2025 Delhi elections, indicating its involvement in significant political events. en.wikipedia.org
NDTV Article: An article titled "Delhi Election Results 2025: BJP In, AAP Out, Exit Polls Get BJP's Capital Wapsi Right" discusses the accuracy of various exit polls, including those by People's Insight, in predicting the election outcome. ndtv.com
Business Standard Report: The report "Exit polls proven right in Delhi as AAP witnesses an unprecedented rout" highlights the role of different exit polls, mentioning People's Insight's contributions to the electoral analysis. business-standard.com These references demonstrate that People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable sources for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025. Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required.

009dishu (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NDTV and Business Standard Report articles are passing mentions only, not good sources. Other Wikipedia pages are also not good sources. We may use the data in our articles, but the entity that produces the data is not automatically notable because of that reason. To show notability, there need to be multiple independent (read w:WP:NEWSORGINDIA) reliable sources with significant coverage of the article subject. That's not being shown with these sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "we" you are referring to? Also, have you read w:WP:PAID and make the required disclosures? These are not optional, and it's part of the Terms of Use you agree to follow every time you edit. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding the 'we' reference:

I am referring to the team or representatives of People's Insight involved in managing our public communications and ensuring accurate representation on platforms like Wikipedia.

Disclosure Compliance:

Yes, I am aware of and have read Wikipedia's Paid Contribution Disclosure Policy (WP:PAID). To comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use, I disclose that I am associated with People's Insight and contributing on their behalf. All edits and discussions are being made transparently to improve the accuracy and neutrality of the page in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines."

Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required. 009dishu (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend continued deletion - Subject of the article does not meet notability requirements. -Griff (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.

If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence. 2405:201:5023:4046:4817:497C:4EB2:6C34 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.

If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence

009dishu (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]