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

Allamah Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi

A prominent religious scholar and Khilafatist from Sindh, he had millions of religious followers, and his teachings deeply influenced Muslims in the Indian subcontinent and Arabia. These facts are well-supported by sources, even though understanding non-English sources can be challenging for many Westerners. Recently, I found out that it was taken to AfD but had no proper consensus, as most people couldn't read or understand non-English sources, which is understandable. So, I'm asking for a review of sources and calls for the restoration of our Sindhi literature. Our Sindhi History is very rare and precious for us. Thank yall For your time

Bless.

Sources.

[[1]] all pages,

[[2]] page 186,

[[3]] pages 41 43 275 34 25 15 ,

[[4]] 4th

[[5]] page 195.

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]] page 56.

[[10]] all pages

[[11]] [[12]] all pages

CaptVII- (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the page is sourced it actually meets WP:GNG we should consider removing contents which lacks sourcing. Articles like that contains sources should be improved instead. Jinglingzone (talk) CaptVII̟̠- 11:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

overturn support undeletion fr33k man 01:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - relevent AFD from enwiki - w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sayyid_Ihsanullah_Shah_Rashdi, so some questions on the right article name to avoid honorifics and a sock that was also active here. Ravensfire (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The sources aren't significant in-depth sources and the article is clearly not neutral. Most of it is based on single source which isn't reliable. This request itself demonstrates COI.-- BRP^ever 06:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userify - Without seeing the article, I can only judge based off the non-English sources, the AFD, and the RFD. The AFD performed a review of the sources available to them, which showed only 1 RS for the subject of the article. The RFD closed finding for deletion. I believe that the best option is for the article to be created in userspace, and then reviewed by editors to ensure that the article meets the appropriate notability policies. Griff (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ardi Pulaj

Ardi Pulaj (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

Hi i want to request undeletion of page Ardi Pulaj, his notability is confirmed in Albanian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia ( after a discussion) with related arguments.If his page will be restored, further references will be added to prove his notability here also.[[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]]

Thank you.--81.26.204.11 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page was quick-deleted as 'A4 - doubtful notability'; what could possibly be done is to undewlete the page, and to send it to a disussed deltion. This would run for a week, and afterwards an independent admin would close the RfD. Dear IP editor, please create an account, if you want to contribute more often; your voice will aso have more weight. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the draft on enwiki w:Draft:Ardi_Pulaj is similar to what's here, I would prefer not to undelete it. Many of the sources are BY Pulaj, or are interviews with Pulaj, what's needed are sources ABOUT Pulaj. The socking aspects don't help my view either. Ravensfire (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That first source is just an item written by the subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through most of the stuff, it seems like a lot of the sources are either where the subject appears on TV, or is something written by the subject. I don't see much to show they meet WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: The draft on enwiki is similar. If anything, it contains more info than the article here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. If it's easier to run this though an AFD to put this to bed, that sounds okay to me. I suspect there's some IP sock evasion from Benny8907 here. Ravensfire (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

be more open dude, not everyone has time to spend to ip invade for just an article!! you treat this like law and order...!! 185.175.253.205 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand your afraid about "socking" aspect?!! If someone is notable in his country (Albania) this case ..whats matter if socket created his pagae that deleted later?! By this never will be created or approved a page of an notaable people just becouse was first created by a sockpuppet?! for me this is wayy unlogically!! This is Wikipedia not Court!! 185.175.253.205 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse continued deletion - Lee summarises my conclusions well. Griff (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP^ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. BRP^ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Mendiola

Mendiola historical marker

Enrique Mendiola (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

Dear admins, I would like to respectfully request the undeletion of the article, Enrique Mendiola. His notability can be seen in Tagalog Wikipedia, Enrique Mendiola despite the gruff header (note: it is not being deleted in spite of it). Enrique Mendiola (b.1859 — d.1914) is one of the Philippines' pioneer educators and legal authors. The thoroughfare named after him, Mendiola Street has been the stage for many mass rallies for human rights; and political and labor protests. I can volunteer to work with further erudition and improve these articles — if allowed. For your consideration, please. Buszmail (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A4 QD deletion - Non notable individual whom fails GNG, the article at Tagalog Wikipedia only has 2 references; one is a personal blog, the other is okay but probably taken from the Tagalog article so imho cannot be used. I have found the following books [18][19][20][21][22] however these are all 2-bit mentions and other Google Book results all appear to be for someone else(?). Nothing in-depth or substantial has been provided by the OP other than "he's notable", Clear close and shut case imho. –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also QD'd the Tagalog article (archive version, sources in article: [23][24]) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check the Tagalog page once more: Enrique Mendiola and re-archive if you wish. Mendiola is one of our country's unsung patriots. Best, Buszmail (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a final appeal for Wikipedia worthiness:

Respectfully,
Buszmail (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse continued deletion - Reviewing the Tagalog article, the subject of the article does not meet our biographical or academic notability guidelines. I have also reviewed the sources provided by Buszmail and cannot find SIGCOV of this person. Griff (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP^ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. BRP^ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]