Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

History undeletion underneath redirect[edit]

A while ago, it was established that requests for history undeletions, in general, should go to WP:REFUND. However, it is not clear whether this applies only to cases in which the article is recreated with improved content, or also if the deleted article is eventually turned into a redirect. I'm opening a discussion here to get clarification on this issue: Should history undeletion be allowed upon request if the article was deleted at AfD and later turned into a redirect? (Assuming that there is no copyvio, libel, etc.)

This is my take on it. Pros:

  • Since the page is being redirected somewhere, the former content of the page is probably relevant to the target article. History undeletion allows editors to augment the target article with the deleted content.

Cons:

  • Users might be tempted to revert the redirect.
  • The content of the deleted article might be problematic.

Overall, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. There is a lot of benefit in preserving the content, which can be used in the target article or elsewhere. As for reverting the redirect, it should be made clear that doing so is not permitted. (Chronic problems can be enforced by protection.) And as for problematic content, other than the things I mentioned above like copyvio, libel, etc., generally speaking there is no harm in having this content visible. Of course, use common sense - if people at the AfD complained about the content (as opposed to the topic simply being not notable), then don't restore it. -- King of ♠ 21:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My take is that it's situationally dependent. I have seen the following situations:
  • Article deleted by prod or noncontroversial speedy rationale like G6, then turned into a redirect. No problem restoring the older deleted revisions under the redirect.
  • Article deleted by MFD in one name space (like Drafts), and there's a redirect with the same name and no history in main space. Should the Drafts history be merged with the existing redirect? Possibly. I made that decision recently. I was uncertain about it but in the end felt that doing so would generate no controversy.
  • Article deleted by AFD, then turned into a redirect. The redirect doesn't point to an improved or expanded version of the article, it points to a broader subject (like an article about a product redirecting to an article about a conglomerate of companies) in which the unnecessary detail in the deleted history can't be used to augment the broader article. In this case I am hesitant to override the deleting admin's decision without consultation or DRV.
Restoring history from a hotly-contested long-running AFD would be controversial and deserving of a DRV. If the AFD had minimal discussion, maybe not so controversial. I am not sure where to draw the line. But overall I agree with King of Hearts that the pros would generally outweigh the cons. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is threefold:
  • If there is any evident reason not to restore history of an AfD'ed article which is currently a live redirect (such as BLP, copyvios, etc.) then I would decline to restore the history.
  • If the deletion was controversial (such as a long-discussed AfD or an exceptionally strong consensus for deletion or redirect-with-deletion), I would decline to restore history but offer to e-mail or copy to userspace the contents of the latest viable article revision to any editor who feels they might want to salvage the contents elsewhere.
  • If the deletion was uncontroversial (such as a PROD, soft deletion, small AfD, G6/G7 CSD), I'd restore the history under the redirect.
Now, all that is just how I'd currently deal with these requests using my own point of view and common sense; I'm not sure I would as far as to recommend that this is how it should be done as a general rule. I don't feel strongly about it either way and if consensus shows that history undeletions under redirects should be a thing, then I'll be more than happy to do it like that (except in the obvious case of copyvios/BLP vios). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you mentioned emailing or copying to user space, I will remind everyone that copies, particularly when the history is not restored, must be attributed to their authors. See WP:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content, WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Userfication, and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
As to the question of where to draw the line, I would ask myself the question: Would it be reasonable to expect that the "delete" !voters, if given the option to redirect, would be OK with doing so? This question is actually not as arbitrary as you'd think, and in fact shows up in the current AfD closing process. For example, if I see 5 "delete" !votes and then one or two "redirect" !votes at the end of an AfD (with no votes to keep), I have to decide whether to delete, delete and redirect, or simply redirect. I usually pick the third option in this scenario, even though there are many more !votes for "delete" than "redirect," if I believe that the "delete" !voters would be willing to go with the redirect, because to me "redirect" is a form of "delete" with the difference that there just happens to be a convenient target. I'll go for the first option if the proposed target is unsuitable and the second if the content of the article needs to be removed. The way I close these AfDs translates to how I feel about the current issue. -- King of ♠ 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be willing to link examples? One persuasive and policy-based redirect (bonus points for a credible merge argument) may outweigh five poor deletes, but you didn't mention a marked difference in quality. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the principle of undeleting edits under a redirect unless those edits are the kind that would be deleted in the history of any live article (BLP, copyvio). Even if the information to be found in those edits is nonsense, at least curious visitors will be able to see what was there and better understand the context of the deletion discussion. Furthermore, sometimes those edits hide snippets of good information about the subject, and other times they provide useful evidence of misconduct on the part of editors. bd2412 T 01:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    Even in the case of a hotly contested AFD debate, or an AFD with overwhelming consensus to delete? You don't believe that it's appropriate to notify the deleting administrator or open a discussion at DRV? I support the concept in principle but I disagree that it makes sense in all situations. I don't want to see WP:REFUND turn into a backdoor way to getting content restored without community review, just because a redirect was created over a deleted article. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    DRV applies to the restoration of content, not edit history. I grant that steps should be taken to monitor redirects over previously deleted content to insure that this deleted content does not get improperly restored into an article. bd2412 T 02:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree and think that you have the scope of Deletion review backwards. Only admins may undelete the edit history, while an unprotected redirect can be reverted by any user. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, even with overwhelming consensus to delete, unless there is reason to believe the !voters would not support a redirect. As I mentioned above, the test for me is: If a "redirect" !vote came in at the very end of the AfD, after all the "delete" !votes, would I close as "redirect"? -- King of ♠ 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    A redirect can be completely unrelated to the subject matter of the article that was deleted. The test really should be, does this title have a plausible, possibly helpful redirect target. bd2412 T 18:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. I took your statement here as implied when I said that, as in the vast majority of cases the subject matter of the redirected article is related to the target. But in the case that it's not, there might not be a point in keeping the content around. -- King of ♠ 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it should be rare that we delete material then redirect--it serves nearly no helpful purpose. I'd say it's a reasonable default for redirected articles not to have their history deleted. Less sure if it should default to history undeletion when a redirect happens long after a delete. I don't see it as a problem, but it seems like it could be subject to gaming. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    The closing statement of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) includes, "There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)". Either is usually within the closer's discretion. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem here is the ambiguity in redirect.  A "redirect" is either delete and redirect, or redirect without deletion.  There is also redirect and merge.  Each case shows clear expectations regarding the history.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How to solve it?[edit]

Somebody wrote an article about us with full of wrong and misleading informations and was deleted, now i tried to write some basic informations about us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABMS_Open_University but article was deleted bacause the old article with same name was deleted. I work for ABMS University and how can we solve this problem? --Mr.Agabi (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on my long experience at Deletion Review, there is no point asking for a reconsideration until you have a draft of some sort to propose, and the material that was deleted was so sketchy that it provided no verifiable information. I cannot imagine an administrator who would be willing to restore it. The best way to start a new article is to use the process at WP:Articles for creation, which we always recommend to an editor with conflict of interest, such as you have. Please address the problems stated at the original AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Open University of Switzerland. I work regularly here on articles involving universities and , as I said there, I have the greatest diffculty figuring out the validity of the claims of many online Swiss unaccredited institutions. You have a burden to overcome: there is significant skepticism here about including institutions that are unaccredited or of dubious accreditation. This must be addressed by making the status absolutely clear, and not claiming more than is actually true. Permission to operate by the Swiss government is not accreditation. Affiliate with an accredited institution for the purpose of awarding degrees is also viewed very skeptically, especially because a number of the universities proving such affiliation are themselves rather dubious--the main british one was effectually forced to close down about a year ago, but is still referred to in many WP articles. Most such claims involving high-quality universities have when investigated, proven to be very limited affiliations indeed, or even impossible to prove.
In this case, though I !voted to keep the article, principally because I regard having some information about such schools a high priority for the users of WP, the unmistakable consensus was that the university has no actual existence. Actual existence for a physical university can be at least presumptively indicated by the existence of a campus;  ; for an entirely online university there must be proof from some source other than the university's website that there are actual students, faculty, and courses being pursued--not just promised or listed. I commented in the earlier discussion on "the description on the university's web page, offering a curriculum leading to both a MBA and a doctorate in a single year. By the usual standards, this would represent a diploma mill" For such a diploma mill, with typically no actual students, faulty, or courses, there needs evidence that degrees have actually been awarded and reported by outside media. Be aware that if we do find negative regulatory action of some sort or negative comment in outside reliable sources, we will include it: you will not have control of the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You can ask an admin to email you the deleted material, if you want it for your own reference, not for reposting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Two deletion reviews for Liberty GB[edit]

It looks like two deletion reviews have been opened for Liberty GB, one on the April 29th log page (but actually opened on the 30th), and one on the May 1st log page. Can someone who knows what they are doing combine those into a single discussion? Calathan (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The first seems to be a rant rather than a reasoned request for review. I will close it on that basis; discussion can proceed on the May 1st one. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Listed deletion review disappeared without comment[edit]

I listed a deletion review for the deleted article Rin Nakai below, but my request was deleted without a response. Can someone provide transparency and give me a reason as to the removal of my deletion review request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.40.25 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Passo das Emas[edit]

I created a page about a notable stadium (11000capacity)who meets Serie B Brazil criteria (Fully Pro league) but the WP project deleted it without a reliable reason.

Can i ask the deletion rewiew?Where?--Lglukgl (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)