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

Bad (Bodo culture)

Bad (Bodo culture) merged into Boro people. –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Bad (Bodo culture) and it was closed as Keep by Auntof6, I don't believe this is a notable subject, Other than a few book mentions I've not found anything substantial or in-depth, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Boro people under a Culture section. Both articles are very short and although I don't see the notability for the article either, I could see some usefulness as part of the main article. Griff (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting @Griffinofwales, I didn't think of merging - If Auntof6 doesn't have any objections then I'll merge,

@Auntof6 did you have any objections to merging this into Boro people?, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: No objection. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]

Colorado Department of State, Petitioners v. Micheal Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich and Peter B. Chiafalo, Levi Jennet Guerra, and Esther Virginia John, Petitioners v. Washington

REDIRECTS RESTORED:

Redirects restored by BRP, Redirects have since been sent to RFD. --–Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello Eptalon and @Fr33kman: What typo? (Everyone else will need to know these were redirects to Faithless elector laws.) – Invasive Spices (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these are most likely terms you made up, that are not widely used and there is no need for such redirects to exist. BZPN (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They actually aren't made up terms, but they are full case names that are not used. See w:Chiafalo_v._Washington, with w:Baca v. Colorado Department of State redirecting to the Chaifalo article as well. The full case names do not exist as a redirect on enwiki and I would ask they be deleted if created as highly unlikely terms to be used. The short case names is how they are referenced in sources. These redirects should not exist here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Invasive Spices is blocked on enwiki [13] with the reason being "Persistent creation of unhelpful redirects despite many being deleted at WP:RfD, and repeated personal attacks against RfD nominators" The first half of that seems to be happening here recently. See [14] with some of the more recent redirects besides this suggestion. Ravensfire (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Maybe an admin could warn them? BZPN (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

while these may be the official names of the case, I wonder how many people will search with that title, especially since it is long and unwieldy? Eptalon (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very few - a google search [15] has very few pages with that as the title, most of the major case summary websites use the short version that we have as a title here. Ravensfire (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that link agrees with me. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored These are not typo to begin with. Feel free to take it to RFD.--BRP^ever 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: just look at these titles - a dozen or so similar ones have been reported to RfD and it doesn't seem like they will be welcomed. This is a redirect created by a user who is here not to build an encyclopedia (there was a discussion on AN; blocked on enwiki for the same). These titles are useless, illogical, complicated and unhelpful. There is no point in leaving them. BZPN (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This title isn't that bad. Mass-creation of such redirects can be pain, and I understand the concern which led to their onestrike block, but once the review is requested we need to see if the QD criteria is correctly applied or not. In this case, restoring is the right thing to do.-- BRP^ever 15:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: what is the point of redirecting under the name of the institution with the names of officials added? That's not even a name for this institution (it may be OR), not to mention the fact that no reader will type it into a search. BZPN (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see how R3 applies to this. Whether to keep/delete has to discussed in RFD. BRP^ever 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R3 is the most fitting criterion (although of course not fit, but it is the closest). This name is the author's original research, and no one else on the Internet uses such a name. Hoax doesn't quite fit in my opinion either. BZPN (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BZPN: It can be frustrating, but the QD criteria have to be applied exactly as written. R3 requires an actual typo, not just text that doesn't seem appropriate or doesn't seem to be a good title. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.