Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Perennial requests

Discussion
Some ideas... I'd suggest the number but it's not perennial yet, more of a flavour of the month. G N A A is also a good choice. Brian P might be in the running at some point... ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a bunch more. Looking back through the deletion review archives for ones closed as redundant would be a way of completing.  I'd been thinking about creating this page, but wondered about it versus WP:BEANS and hadn't decided.  GRBerry 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we not have this? Seriously, it's one thing to have perennial requests about policy issues, it's another to say that "X will never happen" in regards to content, which is entirely troubling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was introduced "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." [Emphasis in original.] I'd encourage tweaking the intro to something that made it clear that these are items we've seen before, and that results are unlikely to change absent a new article draft or a change in general standards.  If we linked the following it could be helpful in determining when future reviews are likely to succeed: 1) the last complete AFD on the subject, 2) prior complete DRVs on the subject, 3) evidence snippets in DRVs that did not get a complete review.  (Yes, the perrennials often have some things in group 3.)  GRBerry 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Myg0t? GNAA? Corvus cornix 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things that are likely to have articles once people stop reacting to the simply sight of the names, maybe? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. Likely to have articles once reliable sources are provided.  Corvus cornix 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is the problem with pages like this - once we get around to dragging our RS guideline into the 21st century, what happens? People dismissing the appeals, "oh, it's another perennial undeletion proposal" and moving on.  No thanks.  In the case of myg0t, we should have an article on it by now.  Same as The Game.  GNAA?  We won't because of our lack of modern sourcing guidelines, but once we get around to repairing that, itll be fine, too.  Then what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People can always create the article in their user space then point to it at a DRV appeal. Corvus cornix 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's make them jump through more hoops. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, let's make them get it right. Corvus cornix 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's look at The Game - we denied it because it lacks a good English source? How much righter do they need to get?  GNAA's been added now - the minute we finally wake the hell up and allow blog sources, that one's back.  How dumb is this page, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Game issue wasn't English sourcing. Although some people brought that up in the AfDs and DRVs, that was a small minority. I've therefore removed that claim from the matter. And no, blogs are not reliable sources in general. Although a small fraction of them are reliable for some purposes and those blogs are usable, the vast majority are not. As such, random blogs are not valid sources for articles. I should hope that we don't "wake the hell up" because that would lead to us losing our already low level of credibility with the public and unlike most of our credibility issues, this would be justified. JoshuaZ 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they can be, and I'm confident that will be addressed sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The chance that anyone who files one of those hardy perennials follows this link first and reconsiders is 0.0001%. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe make this a FAQ or something, some articles have those. The point probably wouldn't be to prevent perennial nominations, but to politely and accurately explain the issue to good faith editors who otherwise might just get yelled and so on for annoying DRV regulars, and not really understand what they did wrong. --W.marsh 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting rewrite of GNAA section
I believe that the GNAA section should be updated and rewritten in light of the decision at Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_6 and the draft at User:Murdox/GNAA. Specifically, the following section should rewritten or removed:

Eventually it was accepted that writing an accurate, neutral article on this topic was impossible, because everything was being referenced to blogs, forum posts, and other highly unreliable sources. The two most commonly cited legitimate sources are A) an article in The Scotsman, which was probably just summarizing the Wikipedia article and B) The CNN video, which may or may not have actually aired and does not mention GNAA. Consensus has deemed both of these unacceptable.

As seen in User:Murdox/GNAA, "blogs, forum posts, and other highly unreliable sources" aren't the primary sources for claims of GNAA's notability anymore, and there are now two than two "legitimate" sources.

I also believe that the decision from Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_6 should also be cited (bold text added for emphasis):

But the opposers seem correct in questioning the the notability claims of the supporters, which rely on sources that often mention GNAA in passing during coverage of other topics, or which don't mention it at all. The supporters seem to rely on coverage of Goatse Security as supporting notability of the GNAA, but parent organizations do not typically inherit notability from subsidiaries or affiliates.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to take the initiative and update the section myself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Gay Nigger Association of America has now been created as a redirect, is it time for that section on the main page to be axed? Tarc (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's a chance that the redirect will be nominated for WP:RfD, and there may be attempts to transform the redirect into an article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of GNAA
I removed the GNAA from the page due to its restoration. Further deletion discussion will presumably take place at WP:AFD instead of WP:DRV. Judging from the history of this page, articles are removed from the page when they are restored (eg. The Game, Encyclopedia Dramatica). If you believe that I shouldn't have removed the GNAA section from this page, feel free to share your concerns, but please remember that this isn't the place to argue about whether or not the GNAA article should've been restored. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Priyanka Choudhary

 * Although the last deletion review was closed only a few days ago. We have been asked to come here with respect to the notice made by @Stifle in their talk page: . As already stated by us several times in several places, Priyanka Choudhary has passed WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV through her various roles. There is significant coverage supporting the same in the latest deleted version of Priyanka Choudhary deleted by @Stifle on 3rd April 2024 at 9:43 am.
 * Infact there was an ongoing discussion which involved @C.Fred, myself Amma&Papa and @ManaliJain in the talk page of the subject which clearly proved that the article did have new information on the newer roles with reliable sources which made the subject notable. So, please kindly review the deletion and restore the article so that it can be subjected to a new AFD where a new consensus can be reached.

@Novem Linguae Yes Ma'am/Sir (I'm sorry if I'm making any mistake in addressing you) she has other significant roles too other than Udaariyaan. Infact, even before Udaariyaan she played one of the three leads in the web-series 3G Gaali Galoch Girls in the year 2019. @Novem Linguae Sir/Ma'am there was also another AFD in February 2022 nominated by @ManaliJain. The latest Wikipedia article on Priyanka Choudhary was deleted just yesterday under G4 when we were still discussing on the deletion. I think that article should be restored as I had done everything required to cover WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV and be subjected to a new deletion nomination. Amma&#38;Papa (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it is "unfair" that the Wikipedia admins are constantly penalizing the other editors who have no connection with the past and would like to create an article of Priyanka Choudhary by following the community guidelines while there are so many articles like Abhishek Kumar (actor), Isha Malviya and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia which are kept even though the subjects aren't notable.Amma&#38;Papa (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Priyanka Choudhary does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR since her only major role is in Udaariyaan. Has she had any other major roles (like 10+ episodes) since the AFD in 2021? If so, one way to get an article unsalted is to create it as a draft and then submit it to WP:AFC. If an AFC reviewer accepts it, then it will probably be unsalted and moved to mainspace. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Her stint in Udaariyaan started in March 2021 and ended on September 2022.
 * After which she entered as a contestant in Bigg Boss 16 in October 2022 and exited while winning the 2nd runner-up place.
 * After, Bigg Boss 16, she appeared in several music videos alongside Randeep Hooda, Ankit Gupta and others in the years 2023 and 2024.
 * Latestly, she just wrapped up the shoot of the web-series, Dus June Ki Raat produced by Ekta Kapoor where she is playing the lead role opposite Tusshar Kapoor.
 * Currently, she is also in talks for the lead role in the television series Naagin.Amma&#38;Papa (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if web series and reality shows count towards NACTOR. I think you'll need to wait for her to achieve another lead role before she's a clear NACTOR pass. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae Sir/Ma'am, the three articles I mentioned above Abhishek Kumar (actor), Isha Malviya, Samarth Jurel and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia are made only because they are Bigg Boss participants. So if these many articles are allowed just because of their participation in Bigg Boss, then what is wrong in allowing Priyanka Choudhary's article too? Amma&#38;Papa (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you already made these arguments at deletion review and they were not accepted. Please respect our processes. You should probably wait until she has another big role, then request a WP:REFUND of her article into draftspace, then you can submit it via WP:AFC. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae Okay we will do that. But, honestly, being a regular editor, it seems more like the the Wikipedia admins are following WP:COI because they are allowing articles which are just exaggerated WP:PUFF pieces but not allowing other articles although they have good content. Anyways, thank you. We will do as you have asked to. We will ask for a refund after she gets another role. Hopefully, again our pleas don't get rejected as it is done everytime.Amma&#38;Papa (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What has happened with respect to this article is that the article has been recreated so many times, with methods such as different variants on the name being used to circumvent the title protection, that the Wikipedia community is now tired of dealing with the subject and not willing to spend any more time on it. Each article is considered separately, and so what is being done with other articles is irrelevant. I advise that you wait six months, at a very minimum, before trying to bring this up again. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Stifle Actually not just six months, we don't mind waiting even till next year which is what happened last Feb 2023. We were waiting since the last deletion, while collecting the necessary information and sources so that we could create her article this year. But the problem was that wherever we approached, our pleas were rejected for some or the other vague reasons because as I said there were many other articles which did not have all that which we had for our article on Priyanka Choudhary. Anyhow, I along with my friends will wait till next year that is April 2025 and at the same time collect resources if she gets other roles and will make an appeal in April 2025. I just hope that it works out well atleast next year.
 * And I promise, myself and my other editor friends, none of us will appeal for recreation of Priyanka Choudhary's article till next April. Thank you. Amma&#38;Papa (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

???
What is the purpose of this page? Toadette ( Let's talk together! ) 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably to educate folks about DRVs that have been litigated to death already and are likely to fail. Perhaps also to provide a place to link to and assist with asking for a speedy close. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)