From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hidden archive

Please see Template talk:Hidden archive top#Potential merge with Template:Collapse top -- PBS ( talk) 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Selective notification of an open DRV

I notice that Lanternix ( talk · contribs) has chosen to selectively notify some users about the DRV for a userbox of his that I deleted. Specifically, he has only notified the users who wanted his userbox kept. Being mindful of WP:CANVAS, I'm reluctant to send out notifications to the participants who favored deleting the userbox, but at the moment the notification situation is rather one-sided. -- RL0919 ( talk) 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I shall do that myself. I actually only did it to see if you were Wiki-hounding me. Seems like you were indeed. -- λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ [talk] 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ALL users have been notified. -- λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ [talk] 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You missed two of the "deletes", but I went ahead and notified them since I assume that was just an oversight. As to any purported "wikihounding", when participants from one side of the TFD discussion (and only one side) appeared almost immediately to comment on the DRV, I became suspicious. Given that my only interaction with you has been related to the issue of deleting this one userbox, I'm not sure what your point was in acting in a way that created that (justified) suspicion. Keeping track of edits related to a review of my own actions is hardly wikihounding. (If I start following you around on unrelated matters, then by all means file a complaint about wikihounding.) -- RL0919 ( talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

There seems to be a growing trend here for people to be asked to create a user draft first before an undeletion, or more precisely a "un create-protect" request is considered. Could someone please point me at a policy for this decision. My understanding is that protection should be used for as short as time as possible to stop vandalism etc but recently a user has been asked for a user draft for a title protected over a year ago. Surely, according to current policy and guidelines, the title should just be unprotected and we move on from there. I can understand the advantage of a user-space draft but I can't find any consensus for this - it appears to have come about organically on this page. My concern here is that there is only a select few people that regularly contribute here (mostly admins) and they seem to have come up with a new procedure without wider community input (for example from the editors trying to create articles). I may have missed something obvious so I'd appreciate it if someone could either point me at somewhere where user drafts are explained or else explain the history themselves. Dpmuk ( talk) 12:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any explicit policy page about it (beyond the "policy is just a codification of what everyone does" sense), but in general a page is only create-protected after multiple inappropriate articles have been created at that title, generally within a short space of time. Assuming that the deletion decisions were taken appropriately (because if not, they should of course be overturned), it seems reasonable to request at least a minimal draft showing an article that will not be immediately deleted rather than go back into the cycle of deleting articles. Stifle ( talk) 13:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


how many people's opinion is enough ?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Worlds is only three people's opinion are enough? if were only two voices or even one voice would it be enough ?
I'm sure that it's really silly to consider only few voices as enough for such important decision as deletion ( Idot ( talk) 01:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

That depends on the strength of the arguments. If one person, such as you, could find independent third party coverage from reliable sources indicating the importance of this topic, that would be enough to keep it. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 06:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • it is an absurd!
    if no one else except deleter knows about that (just people who could talk arguments for keeping were absent or just were not informed) there will be only one argument and no others
    if I did not visit this page will it be decision made like "we are two decided to delete?" and if no other people will it be decided that argement of only one or two persons fully represents all opinions?!
    as if to the cort arrived only prosector (as other people execpt a responded who couldn't arrive were not informed) who told "punish by death!" and a judge deicided that only his/her opnion is enough and other opinion is needed
    butr frankly speaking is it enough?!
    it is not fair! and defentily it is not a judgement
    even notrious Stalin's Troikas (by the way I'm from former Soviet Union) had more people, but even they were known as "death punishment commitees" as if usual decion was "punish by death!" and their arguemnts were always "strong" as no other opinion were presented
    the problem not in deletion of this ceratain artcile! the problem is taht articke is executed for deletion even if a number of discussants is not representative!
    has any body here have ever heard about quorum or not?
    and has any body heard about judgement and justice? ( Idot ( talk) 01:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
current wikipedia rules mean: that only one person is enough to lynch anybody and this will not be considered as murder and it will be fully legal ( Idot ( talk) 01:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
Even if something is deleted as non-notable, if later someone can find appropriate sources to demonstrate notability, the article can be re-created using the new/additional sources. It is not analogous to the death penalty at all as recreation is always possible. I suggest you read WP:N and WP:RS. Ladyof Shalott 03:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note this topic has also been raised (with identical hyperbole) at WP:VPP. Ladyof Shalott 03:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/ Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives

I was disturbed to find that this article was deleted. This is probably the biggest leap forward in the area of pairwise comparison since Thurston mooted the idea in 1927. I have no doubt that the creator of this innovation will recieve great accolades for his work. I am a researcher in the area of MCDA and it concerns me that people ignorant of the area are making deletion decisions. The person That nominated this article for deletion will be thought of as a short sighted idiot, in academia, in the years to come, like the editor(s) of the the journal(s) that turned down the market for lemons paper by Akelof; that went on to earn him a nobel prize. I will be using the deletion reasoning in my teachings on innovation to show how the establishment can stifle new ideas. The establishment in MCDA though what Hansen and Ombler did in their algorithm to be impossible in 1974 and dismissed it as to computationally difficult. I would like to nominate this article for undeletion as it represents a big leap forward in the science of MCDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.40.149 ( talk) 22:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What article? What was it's exact name? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the article was legitimately deleted. Why do you think the deletion was improperly deleted? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Where to go to Request Unprotection of a page that is create-protected?

I've noticed that the Deletion review page is for undeletions. I want Statik to be unprotected because I am planning on simply redirecting it to Static because of spelling errors. Where do I go to request unproection of Statik? Keyboard mouse ( talk) 04:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually such requests would go to requests for protection, but since you're already here I'll just create the redirect for you. Do head there next time, though. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting for undeletion of Turki Faisal Al Rasheed article

Greetings!

I am requesting for the undeletion of Turki Faisal Al Rasheed article which was deleted last April 29. For me to improve it and if there is a need to reconstruct all the article, I am willing to spend all my time once again. I already checked the listing of deleted articles in this section, but our articles is not listed in here. Here is the deletion log from my talk page.

29 April 2010 

   * (Deletion log); 09:51 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed)
   * (Deletion log); 09:51 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed)

Any approval for my request is highly appreciated and with thanks. Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 19:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Regards,


Carlo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfrasheed ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


  • This was userfied, then the user was blocked for spam/username. – xeno talk 13:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done something wrong

In order to insert my entry, I have done something wrong, and do not know how to correct it. I appologise and request to someone who knows better to correct my error. The error is very simple, I believe. Bhaur ( talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The duplicate header?  Fixed. Thanks, – xeno talk 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nasty Party should be still online

I do not understand why Nasty Party was deleted it had sources to support the article . [1], [2], [3] Dwanyewest ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I dunno how to get a deletion review Dwanyewest ( talk) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Why does it say at the top of the page, "For articles deleted via proposed deletion, post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion", but under "What to use this page for", one of the purposes listed is "Contesting proposed deletions"? 95j ( talk) 20:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Because I recently restored Wikipedia:Deletion review/Other uses to its prior state after several months of accidental erasures had almost completely eliminated it. I've replaced the instruction you mention, and also updated WP:PROD to match; until now, that page told users to come here to DRV for undeletion rather than WP:RfUD. Splash - tk 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Beachcomber Hotels page

Hi, I'm a new user and would like to create the page Beachcomber Hotels, but I can see that only Administrators can modify the page. Why ? Can you reset it? Can someone explain my what happened?

Thanking you

Gavin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinwanted ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It was created multiple times by an employee of BCH as an advertising page. If you want to create a serious article following our notability guidelines ( WP:N), then I suggest you use the articles for creation process. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I can't create an article with "Beachcomber Hotels" as title. It's lock, even using the article wizard. Can you unlock it ? Thanks. Gavin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinwanted ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Use a different name, and on the talk page, put the reason for the wrong name and what the name of the article should be and why. When you get that far, let me know on my talk page and I'll help you out. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

June 12 DRV

The deletion review I posted for June 12 isn't showing up for some reason on the main listing page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakshownerd ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the DRV for Featherlite Coaches, it seems to be there now. Perhaps you were viewing a cached version of the page? -- RL0919 ( talk) 12:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DRV of non-admin closures

Personally, I found the 15 June DRV for WMEJ a bit bizarre, and for me, it highlighted (yet another) oddity in the rules. Why is there a rule against SNOW NACs, when SNOW is an explicit invocation of IAR? It seems most peculiar. And more to the point, why can't NACs simply be reverted? There seems to be a policy basis for doing so (BRD--the non-admin closer is being bold). And it doesn't seem to me that DRV needs to review non-admin closures, since there's no use of administrative tools to examine. Normal editing processes ought to be sufficient.— S Marshall T/ C 09:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the rule is good because there is a history of SNOW NACs being subjected to complaint. I like to think that the rule came from an observation of the frequency of complaints. There is also a widespread view that AfD process is important (give everyone their fair chance to have their say), and that cutting the process short does not improve the encyclopedia. SNOW NAC is necessarily a "keep" and NACs can't delete and thus the NAC doesn't save anyone time, and that SNOW implicitly excludes the Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria. NACs citing a WP:SK criterion are reasonable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You need to remember, S Marshall, that DRV isn't just for contesting the closure of an AfD as Delete, it can also be used for a non-deletion closure. Having said that, if someone thinks that the NAC was too soon, then it can be reverted -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, Phantomsteve, but for the life of me I can't see how your comments are relevant to the issue I raised. Please could you clarify?— S Marshall T/ C 11:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was responding to this: it doesn't seem to me that DRV needs to review non-admin closures - in theory, DRV can be used to review any closure, NAC or otherwise. The closure could have been reverted, but perhaps there was a worry that they would be doing the 'wrong' thing? -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • if anow is invoking IAR then it is inherently controversial and non admins are not supposed to close anything controversial. Spartaz Humbug! 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, but what I don't get is, why couldn't Guy simply revert the closure?— S Marshall T/ C 11:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The mistake that most non-admin (and probably some admins) make is in thinking that a shitload of keeps= WP:SNOW. It's hard to describe in words when a snow keep close should be made but one "requirement" should be "impeachment" of the nominator's rationale. IMHO that didn't happen in the AFD in question. Yes there were a lot of keeps but IMHO the keep !voters were bringing a knife to a gunfight. The nominator's rationale was not impeached. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

{{ ImageUndeleteRequest}} merge proposal

I have proposed that {{ ImageUndeleteRequest}} and its associated process be folded into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. The reason is that Category:Requests to undelete images is not regularly monitored. If you have an opinion, please participate in the discussion at the WP:REFUND talk page. Thank you. -- B ( talk) 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re: requirement to consult with closing admin in advance

NO ACTION
The community has decided to Oppose this proposal. J04n( talk page) 13:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to propose that any DRV discussion in which the relevant admin was not consulted, in advance, about the closure of the XfD, can be speedily closed by any editor. Note that the consultation could be from anyone, even if they are not the person who initiates the DRV. But there are too many DRVs being opened by people who just disagree with the initial result and didn't approach the closing admin at all, and I think that this would be an effective way of halting this trend. Thoughts? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Tellers' wands─╢ 09:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose.
We need to strive to be accessible to newcomers. We should not place process hurdles in the way of interaction between editors. It is readily observable that many (self-perceived) aggrieved editors are unwilling to engage their aggrieving administrator on the administrator's personal talk page. I find this not at all hard to understand. To some non-admins, admins have an aura of power, privilege, ego and harshness. For these people, DRV offers a neutral ground to raise their problem. To auto-bureaucratically shut down otherwise reasonable nominations is to censor the voices of some editors. If admins are intimidating to some editors (a reasonable explanation of why editors don't talk to the deleting admin first), it would be better to work to improve the approachability of admins than to eliminate options for starting a conversation.
A DRV nomination has often been a mechanism for starting a useful conversation. I do not agree that there are too many DRVs of any kind. Frequently, we go multiple days without a new listing. Too many DRV listings is not a current problem. Nor is there a trend towards more nominations. It has been this way for as long as I have reviewed DRV nominations. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I feel that there are too many special cases and circumstances where mandating a consultation in advance with the closing admin need not be required. Plus the admin in question may be logged-off or otherwise unavailable for a significant period of time. Talking to the closing admin before bringing a case to DRV is certainly good form and should be encouraged, but I don't see why it needs to be mandatory. In many cases the closing admin provides a detailed rationale for his/her decision in the closing statement itself, and in cases like this there is not much point in talking to the closing admin before filing a DRV case. Nsk92 ( talk) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no inherent correlation between the validity of the review nomination and whether or not someone spoke to the admin before the nomination. Nominations are good or bad, not good or nom-didn't-talk-to-the-admin-first. This would cut down on some of the easy DRVs where the nom would work things out with the closure, sure, but it would inconvenience anyone coming to DRV with valid concerns unnecessarily. Thus, I oppose. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Talking to the closing admin should be strongly recommended (perhaps more strongly than the page currently expresses), but not a strict requirement that would invalidate a DRV or cause it to be closed if not done. Too many justifiable exceptions to the rule could be made, as indicated by others above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This is long overdue, and it's a commonsense drama-reducing principle. It follows the path widely used in real life, e.g. by ombudsman: if dissatisfied with a decision first ask the decision-maker to reconsider, and don't lodge an appeal unless you have tried that. There's no purpose in opening a new process to involve lots of editors unless a simpler solution has been tried first. In some cases, such an attempt will eliminate the need for DRV, and in others it will help the nominator to better understand how the decision was made. In many cases an XfD debate is closed with a terse summary of reasons which may not have been readily apparent to an editor unfamiliar with the process, and a discussion can clarify the reasons. A few of my closures have gone to DRV, but in rather more cases a concerned editor has approached me first and discussed the reasons, leading in some cases to a dropping of the complaint and in a few to me changing my mind.
    If a nomination is made without discussing it with the closer, the DRV should be closed with a clear note that the nominator is welcome to open a new DRV if dissatisfied with the closing admin's response, or if there is no response. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per arguments for accessibility, likelihood of many special cases, uncertainties about availability of closing admin, as already well argued by previous respondents. Yworo ( talk) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    If the closing admin doesn't respond, then all that's needed is to open the DRV saying "I asked the closing admin [link], but got no reply". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There was a similar discussion about a year ago ( WT:Deletion review/Archive 15#DRV principle purpose), which has some participant overlap. Flatscan ( talk) 04:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary legalism. Orderinchaos 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I see both sides of this. I've had people come to me and explain something I missed, and based upon that discussion, I changed my mind (and altered the close), therefore avoiding a DRV altogether. I've also had times where I was able to explain my reasoning that made better sense to the person questioning me, and they accepted that rather than pursue a DRV. That said, I don't know that shutting down a discussion in progress on technical grounds is going to give the results desired. The examples I gave above were in the minority of times my closes were brought to DRV. Most of the time, the person either didn't change my mind, or my explanation didn't help. -- Kbdank71 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above plus you cannot legislate collegial collaborative behavior, we all have to live it if that's the way we want this enclyclopedia to work.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've found it unproductive to talk with the closer. They are often combative and disagreeable. They're welcome to participate in the review of their decision. More hurdle jumping from good faith content contributors who already face all kinds of abuse is the last thing we need. Freakshownerd ( talk) 15:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    If the closer is combative and disagreeable, then move on and go to DRV, noting "I asked the closer, but found hir reply unhelpful". But not asking them to explain hirself for fear of an unpleasant response seems to me to be an assumption of bad faith. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
BHG, can you see a difference depending on the nominator? If the nominator is a relative newcomer outside mainspace, making his first edits at DRV, closing the discussion on a technicality would be a terrible thing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that depends almost entirely on how the closure is done.
If the newcomer is told "feck off halfwit, can't you READ", then it would indeed be a mighty terrible thing.
OTOH, it'll be fine if the closure reads "Sorry, but deletion review should only be used if discussing the matter with the closing admin doesn't achieve a solution acceptable to you. I have copied your comments to User talk:TheAdminWhoClosedTheXfd, where I hope that TheAdminWhoClosedTheXfd will explain hir reasons for the closure. If you aren't satisfied with that discussion, please do come back to DRV". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there needs to be strong advice to talk to the closer first, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Admins can be intimidating to newbies. Closing a DRV on the bureaucratic grounds that the admin was not consulted first is a bad idea. Obviously disruptive or misguided DRVs should be and are closed early. Fences& Windows 13:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a solution in search of a problem. As SmokeyJoe noted, the process is not buckling under the stress of a backlog. If someone notices that a closing administrator has not been notified, instead of ending the listing on a technicality, he/she can leave a note on the administrator's talk page. The closing administrator can join the discussion, and if a solution is reached, then the listing should conclude early. There's no pressing need to ensure that this consultation occurs preemptively, especially given the aforementioned inexperience/intimidation factors. — David Levy 15:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have however tried to make it harder for newbies to miss the fact they are expected to communicate with the closing admin however. Hobit ( talk) 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Placing notice on closed AFD that the outcome is being reviewed?

I assumed that if an AFD decision is appealed, that there should be some kind of notification placed on the AFD discussion, but from skimming this page I didn't see any instructions for doing that. Is it really not done at all? It just seems obvious to me that many people who would take an interest in an AFD would also take an interest in the appeal, and it seems an unnecessarily high expectation to think that all such people will check the AFD's article talk page in order to find out if such an appeal was even lodged. Propaniac ( talk) 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=addDate}}</noinclude> should be added to the top of the AfD page. You have to add the date that the deletion review was initiated. J04n( talk page) 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how anyone new to this process was supposed to know that, but I've added it to the list of steps. If someone wants to change the wording, formatting, whatever, I don't care. While they're at it, maybe they could fix that list so that the numbers are actually aligned with the different steps in an intelligible way. Propaniac ( talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Bug allowing IP circumvent page protection on project page

I was trying to comment as an IP user on a AfD appeal - steven slater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steven_Slater. I was unable to as an IP, anyway I was looking for a user or place to post my concerns on and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_August_17 where i posted. I didn't realize that was pushing content to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steven_Slater , anyway I noticed my post then on this protected page, meaning I had somehow accidentally circumvented the protection. I've no idea where to report this odd event, or whether I am misunderstanding things. 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 06:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) I don't think you inadvertently circumvented any protection. I assume you first tried to edit WP:Deletion Review, which is protected. But the August 17 daily log page for Steven Slater isn't protected. IPs can comment on DRVs, they just can't edit the main DRV page. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe its time to remove the semi anyway. Hopefully the annoying troll ip editor who was being a pest has gone away. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I learn a new thing every day, makes sense - thanks Mkativerata. This is why you are an admin and I'm a user, you know how it all works and are patient with those with far lesser knowledge. However I will say we can all learn something from this. If another IP hits a deleted page with an appeal active, sees the tag for the deletion appeal and link to the appeal, they will also probably assume they are not allowed edit at all as when the overall project page is protected there is no obvious link to something they can edit if they are allowed (as happened to me). Maybe it would be nice if the tag that goes on pages with an appeal active instead points to the log page, so somewhere they are allowed edit. It was blind luck that I stumbled on this log page. 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 07:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a very good point. The DRV template only links to WP:DRV not the daily log. Editors - whether IPs or not - who follow the link then have to scroll down a long page to find the entry they're after. I'd change it to link directly to the daily log but I lack the technical computer stuff nous to do. Perhaps someone more competent than me can help? -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Silly me, it's much easier than I thought. The template has a date field. I've changed it for Steven Slater. [4] Thanks very much for pointing it out.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Can some one tell me where to go for a "Category" deletion review? Thank you Tony the Marine ( talk) 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • DRV is the venue but CFD is so broken that many people here refused to review deletions from there. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


New Deletion review/Purpose page

The history of changes to DRV purpose were being intermixed with all the other edits at Wikipedia:Deletion review: Revision history. I created Deletion review/Purpose so that the DRV purpose change history could more easily be tracked. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Shortening/simplifying the "What is this page for?" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following was copied from here and closed by -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As said a couple of threads ago, I tried a rewrite of the "What is this page for?" section of the DRV instructions, replacing that entire section with two numbered lists so that the main instructions more concise and hopefully can be followed with more certainty:

Extended content

== Purpose == Deletion Review may be used:

  1. to challenge the outcome of a deletion discussion or to review a speedy deletion,
  2. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted it incorrectly,
  3. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria,
  4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article,
  5. to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article (called a history-only undeletion),
  6. to use the deleted content on other pages,
  7. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted, or
  8. if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's interpretations,
  2. to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits),
  3. to challenge the deletion of an article via proposed deletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to challenge these), or
  4. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Thoughts? -- MuZemike 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored" is hyperbolic, and sometimes the copyright, libel, or other aspect of prhibition is challenged directly. There can be circumstances. Suggest:

Copyright violating, libelous or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortening of the header sections is a good idea. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How about:
Under no circumstances will copyright-violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored. -- MuZemike 07:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
error in the closer's interpretation covers, and should cover, many things. Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed at Deletion Review.
In addition, Deletion Review in practice routinely considers new evidence after something has been deleted, as well as errors of interpretation. About half the cases of successful deletion review are of this sort. For deletions where the page has been protected against re-creation, this is the only method. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what is being asked for here, but maybe "interpretation" could be shortened to "judgment"? My purpose is to simplify the page so that users can better understand what to do. -- MuZemike 07:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "#6 to use the deleted content on other pages" should go to requests for undeletion. Alternative uses, whether for a different article or userfication, is not a request to review a deletion decision. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
For #6, the beginning is pertaining to content that could be merged to another page. If something can be merged to said other page, we would need to undelete and merge there, following CC-BY-SA attribution, of course. -- MuZemike 07:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My point is that this shouldn't go to DRV, but to requests for undeletion, or more likely, a request for userfication so that the editor can review the deleted content against his memory or guess of it. It should not go to DRV unless a request for undeletion/userfication is refused and the editor wants that reviewed. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "#1 ... to review a speedy deletion". I think that nearly every reasonable contest of most speedy deletions should be undeleted and listed procedurally at XfD. I think the exception list would be CSDs G9, G10, G11, & F9. CSD challeges not infrequently come up, and in the vast majority of cases, the decision to speedily delete was not terribly faulty, but subseqeuntly it turned out that someone wants a discussion. That discussion becomes a deletion discussion, not a deletion review discussion. I think that we need a guideline that says that nominations to review these speedies should be speedily sent to XfD. (Probably, the discussion should have first occured on the deleting admins talk page, I don't think it is helpful to send nominations back to usertalk pages.) -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    CSD (and PROD for that matter) are only in place for non-controversial deletions. I agree with SJ that a contested CSD deletion should be listed, rather than pushing through the deletion, and thus forcing a trip to DRV. (Anyone who speedily deletes a non-blp page, and answers concerns merely with "DRV is that way", should be trouted at least) There are very few pages on Wikipedia which can't wait a few extra days of discussion before being deleted. - jc37 01:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    While I would be inclined to agree, my focus right now is on simplifying and improving the present procedures at DRV and not trying to suggest changes to the deletion process. -- MuZemike 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is an updated version. Upon SmokeyJoe's suggestion, I moved the part for requests that previously deleted content down to the "not" list, pointing to WP:REFUND, as well as removing the "under no circumstances" in the bold at the end. I also removed the first item in the first list, as it is redundant to the two below it.

== Purpose == Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly,
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed,
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article,
  4. to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article (called a history-only undeletion),
  5. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted, or
  6. if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment,
  2. to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits),
  3. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to challenge these),
  4. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests), or
  5. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Any other comments or addditional suggestions are welcome. -- MuZemike 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Mostly good. I don't understand "should not" #1 "because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Could you please give some examples? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is a better way to word it, any "I don't like the outcome" request. -- MuZemike 03:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps: "to merely disagree. Deletion review nominations must state reasons and a desired outcome." -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interpreted the result incorrectly

The DRV purpose now reads, "Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly." [5]

  • What result? The closer him/herself produces a result. How does one determine whether the closer interpreted the keep close incorrectly? Keep means what it means and there is nothing to interpret. Consensus is more important than the delete, keep, etc. close result. I think the language should be changed back to read "Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly." That is something that can be reviewed at DRV. It also links to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which is the standard used by the closer and the standard against which DRV determines whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Significant new information

The DRV purpose now reads, "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." [6]

  • I've never been happy with this purpose. The way "significant new information has come to light since a deletion" is used in DRV is to allow recreation of the article while upholding the AfD (or other deletion) close. Often, the new information are new reliable sources that were not considered at the AfD. It really does not matter whether the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. If an editor is allowed to recreate the article with the significant new information, then an admin should restore the history whether or not it would be useful to write a new article (assuming no BLP, COPYVIO, etc. exception). I think we should change the text to read something like "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 18:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Article vs. page

The DRV purpose uses "article", [7] since much of what DRV receives is AfD appeals. However, DRV receives deletions from a variety of sources, so I think "article" in the DRV purpose should be changed to something like "page", or "work", or ... -- Uzma Gamal ( talk)

Changed this back, as only articles can be prodded. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Archive_16&oldid=1090630592"