Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#What should be done about a disputed merge summary.3F

Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

: I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria.

: I intend to move the Pawn (programming language) draft to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article.

: I hope to gain support from the Wikipedia community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language.

Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose (11 watchlisters) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there some non-obvious good reason for this? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I think I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Misfiled, now spam-blocked account. Any established editor is welcome to open a DRV should they see merit in doing so. Star Mississippi 01:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

I respectfully request a review of the speedy deletion of the article Surya Devan. The page was deleted under the presumption of being promotional or autobiographical, but it had already been revised significantly to reflect a neutral, factual tone, with references to notable coverage in independent, reliable sources.

Key references included:

• [https://www.deccanherald.com/brandspot/featured/epmcs-womens-clinic-surgery-seeking-business-continuity-as-it-nears-50-years-of-excellence-in-womens-health-3202809 Deccan Herald – Coverage of EPMC Women’s Clinic, a key initiative associated with Surya Devan]
• [https://www.ibtimes.sg/surya-devan-e-multifaceted-professional-singapores-marketing-management-sector-79319 International Business Times – Profile piece]
• [https://tycoonworld.in/building-dreams-with-precision-the-visionaries-behind-singanhalli-developers/ Tycoon World – Real estate development story]

I had also disclosed a conflict of interest and posted a request on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, asking for editorial adoption or review by a neutral editor. The article had not been moved to mainspace and was under ongoing development.

I kindly request the restoration of the draft, even in user space if needed, to allow constructive editorial engagement per Wikipedia's principles of good faith and consensus.

Thank you. —SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:No we aren't going to accept this crap, for the reasons already explained at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Request_for_Review_%E2%80%93_Draft:Surya_Devan] We do not accept vacuous paid-for promotional fluff as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::=== Draft:Surya Devan ===

::{{subst:drvpage|Draft:Surya Devan}}

::Requesting undeletion of Draft:Surya Devan

::The draft was deleted on 9 June 2025 under CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising). I acknowledge the concerns regarding promotional tone in the earlier version. However, I have since developed a new, neutral sandbox draft backed by independent, third-party sources such as Deccan Herald and International Business Times.

::I am requesting undeletion either into my user sandbox (User:SuryaDevanE/SuryaDevan) or for community review by an uninvolved editor.

::This is intended solely for policy-compliant development, and I am happy to proceed under COI guidelines and feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration.

::—SuryaDevanE (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The International Business Times content is paid-for content, and clearly and unambiguously described as such "Disclaimer: (This article is a paid publication programme. IBTimes claims no editorial involvement and assumes no responsibility, liability or claims for any errors in the content of the article)". The Deccan Herald content is in a section entitled 'Brandspot/Featured', and clearly written by, or on behalf of, the clinic it is promoting, note the absurd final paragraph: "In conclusion, this center’s vision and leadership has the capability to be extrapolated to accompany the nation in its battle to potentially become a world super power..." And in any case, it merely mentions Devan in passing, so even if it wasn't promotional pap, it still wouldn't establish notability. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense, before I request that you be blocked from editing. This is an encyclopaedia, not a vanity publishing press. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello,

I kindly request assistance to add an important update to the 15 June 2025 Deletion Review log for the article “Lorenzo Muscoso”.

On June 16, 2025, RAI Cultura — Italy's national broadcaster — aired a full segment dedicated to the subject within the program *Di là dal fiume e tra gli alberi*. This segment came after the original deletion and provides new, reliable, and independent coverage that supports notability.

Here is the official link:

https://www.raiplay.it/video/2025/06/Di-la-dal-fiume-e-tra-gli-alberi-S7E14-Conversazioni-in-Sicilia-839fcb61-4cf2-4151-9662-6471ca042df9.html

As I do not have permission to edit the DRV log directly, I would appreciate if someone with access could kindly include this in the discussion.

Thank you in advance.

User:Marziabiblio Marziabiblio (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)