Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

NOTE: This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc.

Archives
Pre October 2003 December 2003 – May 2005 February 2004 – August 2005 August 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 – December 2007

Viewing Deleted Articles

I saw that there was no page for a person linked in an article so I went to add something so at least it wasn't empty but then I noticed the edit page said that it had been previously deleted. I looked at the discussion on whether to delete it. The nominator apparently has since retired from editing WP (the article was deleted 2006-04-26). Although I could find the discussion about deleting it, I could not find the content of what /was/ in the page before-hand. The nominator in the discussion mentions "only one obscure credit" but lists IMDB as that obscure (-blink-) credit. Is there a way I can access that content? I wasn't aware the person in question acted, so the IMDB link from the talk was helpful. Notability was given as a reason for deletion, as far as I know, this person was better known in the Middle East (he's not particularly liked in Iran, for example) so I also wonder: can Arabic or Farsi sources be used as citations? I don't think I will recreate the page at this time as I would prefer to get some feedback first (and at the minimum see what was in the page before). Shouldn't WP have a link to the deleted content of a deleted article (it would seem to be a useful too for someone considering nominating the article reviewed)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Only admins can see copies of deleted articles, however many admins (see Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles) will userfy the article to your user space at your request (this includes me if you let me know what the article is) unless there is a copyright or Biographies of living person issue - which in this case does not sound like it applies. Non-English sources can be used as citations if there is no English language source to use instead. Hope this helps. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Abongo (Roy) Obama

Why was this article speedily deleted? The fact that Brarack Obama has a half-brother who self-identifies as a Muslim fundamentalist is drawing a lot of attention, and I believe Investor's Business Daily is a legitimate source! --AJmed (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually placing a Deletion Review is the appropriate way to go for this. Though looking at the deleted article, it would be highly advisable to first find additional sourcing and do have a real discussion in the article of public responses, and recreate a really sound article in user space. The previous one was deleted as a combination of non-notable, which I think questionable, and attack page, which--as written--does have considerable justification. DGG (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the closing/deleting admin

Notification of the closing/deleting admin is currently a requirement for a proper deletion review. With this edit, I have modified the wording at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions to also require an attempt at discussion. Discussing a deletion or closure with the deleting/closing admin prior to initiating a review request is courteous, avoids the bureaucracy of a formal review, and saves the community's time.

I do not consider the change a controversial one, as it merely reflects current practice: nominators who skip this step and proceed immediately to deletion review are generally mildly scolded. However, to be on the safe side, I am posting a notification of the change here so that it may, if necessary, be discussed.

(Please note that the wording I introduced only requires an attempt at discussion, and not actual discussion. If the admin is on break or fails to respond to a request for clarification, editors are not obligated to wait indefinitely.)

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this. You most certainly should talk to the deleting admin before coming here. Often this can allow for a smaller agreement to move forward instead of adding the bureaucracy of Wikipedia by starting yet another debate. One should always try to handle disagreements in the most direct fashion before moving on to a request for greater consensus. We have so much to discuss that we need to minimize unneeded discussion by simple talking to each other and trying to find common ground.

DRV is often needed, but sometimes a simple discussion between disagreeing parties can solve the problem with far less effort by the busy community. 1 != 2 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Even if a review request is unavoidable, prior discussion with the closing admin can generate agreement on some issues and thereby yield a more focused review. Such an approach also reinforces the idea that the purpose of a review request is to reach a resolution by soliciting third-party comments and oversight. If a resolution can be reached without third-party involvement, then a review request is not needed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that attempting discussion is good. See prior thoughts on this at User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Start with the admin that deleted or closed the discussion. I don't think we should ever let failure to discuss become a reason to close. Procedural hurdles aren't good in general, and we often get nominators who really don't know what they are doing and have a hard time making a nomination. GRBerry 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. The way to encourage this is not to kick a petitioner off DRV to talk to the deleting admin first, it's to emphasize that, when the admin is amenable, he'll get his article back in a matter of hours instead of a week or so. —Cryptic 03:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and that wasn't my intent when I changed the wording of the section. However, I don't expect this to become a problem; for instance, we currently require notification of the closing/deleting admin, but we don't speedy close nominations where proper notification isn't given. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can be insistent that people talk to the blocking admin, but still not close DRVs where this has not happened. The DRV can be marked as the deleting admin not being contacted, and a note can be left to the admin and the DRV filer. 1 != 2 15:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall I added the "suggestion" wording a year ago or so in frustration after people kept opening DRVs based on misunderstandings I could have explained if given the chance. I can't say I'm a big fan of trying to force pre-DRV discussion though... it doesn't always make sense. And even when it would have been a good idea, what are we going to do, close the DRV to spite the guy for not having talked to the admin first? That seems rather bureaucratic. --W.marsh 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay so it was just 5 months ago that I added it. --W.marsh 18:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good addition in general. If there is a misunderstanding (either that the article can be written to be satisfactory, or that the deletion rationale can be explained to the objector's satisfaction), we avoid wasting everyone's time. If after discussion someone still disagrees with the admin's decision, that's the time to seek DRV to get community input. I would, however, say there's a corresponding responsibility on the part of the admin to bother to respond to requests to discuss the matter, rather than just saying "Go take it to DRV if you disagree." This doesn't mean that can never be said (if the exchange has already gone back and forth in circles a few times, there's nothing wrong with saying "Look, I don't think either of us are changing our mind here, take it to DRV if you want the decision reviewed"), but that shouldn't be the immediate response. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This language has finally been cited in a real DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 26. I renew my objection to the language, but it will be interesting to see how this turns out. So far it's just generated confusion. --W.marsh 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go back a little further, it has been cited in several other ones as well. If you want to find some easily, look at just the delrev's of AFD's that I closed. There is a list on User:Jerry/Count#Administrator review processes. They are the ones that have *** beside the article name. There is a widespread lack of discussion with closing admins prior to delrev that makes the venue a complete mess. This new wording gives a clear way forward to eliminate that. I DO say close the Delrev, and come back when the first step has been completed. Wikipedia is not a Bureauracy, true, but it is not complete chaos either. Straw Polls are not a replacement for editor dialogue. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To summarize the above, in 40 days, I have had 12 delrevs. 6 of them were filed with no prior discussion, 1 with no notification at all. 6 of the 12 resulted in closing decision endorsed, 2 overturned (one with my recommendedation for such), and 3 resulted in closing with action taken that did not require delrev (eg. provide a copy of the deleted article, allow a new article to be created in the same unsalted location, etc.). 1 is still in progress. One of them was a delrev for an AFd that already had a delrev. This person didn't know about the first delrev. Isn't it obvious that if these people had just followed the procedure, that more than half of these delrev's would have been avoided? Our procedure should be that the nominator explicitly state "I contacted the closing admin, and I still want this Xfd reviewed." Without this statement, people should let the admin know, and if he or she objects, the DRV should be summarily closed until the discussion has occurred. There is no mad rush to hold a delrev. The deleted article is not going to evaporate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In yet another undiscussed DRV, a user said this:

“ There are lots of admins that I would bypass and go directly to DRV. Some people just can't be reasoned with. ”

This is a sad state of affairs, it is broken, and I demand that it be fixed. We must invoke a policy of summarily and immediately dismissing all DRV's as out-of-process if the requester makes no attempt to contact the closing admin first. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. Some admins, especially the deletion-zeralots whose deletions get to DRV on a fairly regular basis, don't even respond to such notifications. You take something to deletion review because you want more eyes on the deletion of something. Notifying them is one thing. A one-on-one debate with the closer of an AfD isn't going to achieve anything useful. Both people have already made up their minds about what they think should happen, so consensus should be sought rather than having a pointless heated debate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a very terrible suggestion and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Contacting the deleting admin is something that should be done generally. It won't always be done, and this is OK. Friday (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The civility (or lack of it) in this particular case aside, a requirement that DRVs involve a formal notification of the closing admin is a bad idea for Wikipedia and contrary to our principles and processes. Just like no one owns an article, no one "owns" the deletion debate. It is courteous to notify the closer but not required. Closing a good-faith deletion review request solely because the requestor didn't complete some bureaucratic step is worse than the problem you're trying to fix. Rossami (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No. While contacting the closing admin is a more tactful approach, it shouldn't be obligatory at all, since as I understand it many editors may have limited time for Wikipedia, and would prefer to skip the one-to-one discussion with an admin and start a DRV right away. It takes less time to just leave their reasons on the DRV and wait for input from the wider community. Also, the editor may assume that you've given the AFD very careful thought and wouldn't change your verdict in the close easily. :) That said, I'm also confused when a DRV on me is started without prior notification, (it happens to me sometimes too ;)) But it's not a good idea to publicly chastise people for not discussing with you first, as I notice you did many times. It may leave the impression that you are an unfriendly admin and that scare people. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Viewing a deleted page

A while back I created a page which was then deleted. I don't want to try and contest deletion but because I need it for something else I am doing and would save me the time to do the research again, I would like to be able to view the page (I unfortunately didn't save the content at the time). I understand that only admins can view pages. How can I get in touch with one? Thanks --Zefrog (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• What's the article? We can userfy or email the last version. Admins can be found at Category:Administrators. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • either would be good. the article was called Coming Out at Christmas. Many thanks --Zefrog (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A better way to find a willing administrator would be Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to view the history of Ms. menna, which was speedy deleted about 5 times, and either method of messaging is good. Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion Review is the right place to make your request but I recommend declining this particular request. The page in question is an uncomplimentary description of a middle school teacher and her class. The edits were all made by one vandal (who was blocked as a result of the disruptive edits). All versions were made and deleted on the same day (12 April 2007). Rossami (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I get solid evidence?Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What for and what exactly do you mean by "solid evidence"? WP:BLP requires us to be very skeptical of requests to restore material about non-notable living persons and requires us to take appropriate steps to protect their privacy. Rossami (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am talking of something like an archived version of the history of the article, not the article itself. I need to prove to one of my friends the creator of the article.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • What more, exactly, do you want to prove? Rossami has already told you what you'd learn from the deleted history. Uncle G (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I mean like a hyperlink to the archived page of the history, or someplace where the evidence is solidly proven. I can't just rely on witnesses.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Our policies on biographies of living person generally prohibits us from redistributing attack-style material on living persons, even if through email. As a result, we delete the entire page history, so that users may not view it in any manner. If you feel the article deals with yourself, you may contact Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself or if there is some reason you know of that the article shouldn't even be in the deleted database you might try Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. MBisanz ^talk 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Some people seem to need a bit of a reality check here. While certainly unsuitable for Wikipedia the article was clearly not an attack piece. If you think "Many of her [students] belive (sic) that she is too strict" is an attack on the teacher you might want to take a time-out from playing mall security. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin (couldn't see the deleted page), so I was going on Rossami's word that it was "The page in question is an uncomplimentary description of a middle school teacher and her class" in giving my standard advice MBisanz ^talk 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • My apologies then. Fwiw, the article also contained text like "The students at 7-B are influenced by ms. M's wisdom in the IRLA section. Her teaching skills are fascinating and she knows how to work well with students in learning. For example, every week we must learn 10-16 new words in a lesson called Wordly Wise Words of Wisdom. The words are at a seventh grade level and some words include: icon, agile, surmise, apt, gore, derive, fascinating, loath, loathe and many more words that will enable us to pass the sat." I'm pretty sure the article was meant as a tribute to the teacher. We also should automatically assume that 7th graders immediately understand the mechanisms, policies and jargon of Wikipedia. I don't see anything here that warrants this out-of-control response by some. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There's more in the history than just that. Granted, it's not enough to make a federal case over but it's still not something that we should restore without a reason. So far, the requester has made no credible explanation beyond "I want it." The threshold in this case may be low but it's not that low. Especially if, as this comment and other of the user's edits seemed to imply, the requestor is a new account for the indef-blocked user who created the deleted pages. WP:AGF has limits. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not a sockpuppet of Rws killer. I am a classmate of him at school, and he is arguing with me constantly that he did not create the article. To prove that he did, I want a solid hyperlink that shows that he did, and the history of that article would be ideal, I thought.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Special:DeletedContributions/Rws_killer should suffice for this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The link doesn't work for me, since I'm not an administrator. It says the link is permitted only for Admins.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, as an admin I can assure you that he did create the page. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sound factory (band)

I've not quite understanding whats going on here, but could someone move/answer this one? MBisanz ^Talk 10:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The first edit to the Talk page was a request to undelete a page. The request should have been made here at Deletion Review (which a subsequent editor said). The original request, however, ultimately was just purged off because the requestor got the title wrong. No one was able to find the deleted page. (The correct page was at Sound Factory (band) - note the capitalization.)
Any request to undelete that page would have been summarily declined because the deleted versions were clear copyright violations. The page has since been recreated, hopefully from clean sources this time. The request to undelete is moot. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Town Mayor redux

Needless to say that I disagree with W.marsh's early closure per WP:DP because overturning per DP requires a clear "out of process" deletion, which this wasn't. Disagremeent over where exactly the cutting line for "assertion of importance" lies is a matter of interpretation and therefore not a clear policy violation. I am, however, amenable to changing that part of the policy to "speedy deletions per A1, A7 or G11 can be restored and listed at AfD by any admin if there is an indication that the deletion is not uncontroversial". I've proposed this before, but maybe with the recent string of similar discussions we can get the consensus to implement this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk)

I think reasonably challenged A7 deletions should be overturned speedily. After all, the rule does call for AFD if the speedy deletion is controversial. But as you've done in this case, PROD is sometimes acceptable. I'm just not a big fan of nominating things for deletion where I'm not very enthusiastic about deletion... so I leave that to other people. G11 too, sure, I could see those being overturned on a reasonable objection and sent to AFD. The problem is defining what is a "reasonable objection". It's hard to put it in a politically correct way, but I certainly think that once you have one or more uninvolved admins arguing to overturn a deletion, a "reasonable objection" has been raised. --W.marsh 14:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that there was much discussion, but since there was no objection I'm going to send A7/G11 type speedy deletions to AfD as soon as there is an indication of controversy over the decision. This is not supposed to be an implication of wrongdoing on the deleting admin's part, solely an enforcement of the rule that content discussions should be held at the content forums. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you suggest, & I agree with your change in wording here. Doesn't seem to make sense to argue whether a speedy is valid on a user or article talk page. If it needs a discussion, it should go where people see it. People gaming the system are another matter, but we all know how to tell the difference. DGG (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 8th listed twice

The daily log for January 8th is listed twice, once in Active discussions and once in Old ones. If this is a known bug of the automatic moving of daily logs, sorry for the notice, but I haven't seen it before. In any event someone wiser than me about the intricacies of the transcluded DRV subpages should fix it. Thanks. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a bug, an editor added a seventh day to the Active Discussions section. Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing deletion and review discussions

Consensus is often not documented when discussions are closed as is required by Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews: "discussion should be closed with the consensus documented". - User:Hyacinth

Point being? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Clarified above. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what kind of documentation you feel is lacking? When a review is closed with a bare statement of outcome, such as Deletion endorsed, it is to be understood as "The discussion demonstrates a consensus that deletion [or whatever outcome] is proper". I don't think that requiring any particular wording is helpful since admins only close reviews in line with, their reading, of consensus, and if they don't they could just as easily clothe their opinion in the new formulation as the old. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless the whole point is to argue semantics, I'm not aware of a single discussion that is closed without such a statement. Could you point at cases where the documentation is missing? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

InDepenDance Day

Please recreate so i can fix. Soccermeko (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I will restore it to your user space. Please improve it there and do NOT move it to mainspace until an administrator has approved it. It will be at: User:Soccermeko/InDepenDance Day. Please familiarize yourself with the editor concerns as described at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray Starring in InDepenDance Day; Vol.1 The Takeover. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Review closure: bare minimum

What is the least that one can say and appropriately have closed a review? Hyacinth (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• (shifted this question from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions) --Muchness (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Endorsed". That's two letters less than "Overturned". ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Current guidelines actually require a summary of consensus. Do you believe that the policy should be clarified or changed? Hyacinth (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Endorsed", "Overturned", and "Relisted" (same length as "endorsed") all are summaries of consensus and meet current guidelines. No, the guidelines should not be changed. Anything more than that is over and above the requirements. GRBerry 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In any XfD debate you will find that the summary of the discussion reads "delete", "keep", "no consensus" or somesuch. What you're asking for is the closer's rationale, which is entirely up to the closer to add at that point or later. There was never any other meaning to "summary of the consensus" than this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • not giving a rationale in a contested afd is not helpful, even though permitted. DGG (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's helpful either, but by itself it's not a reason to overturn a closure. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I have removed the words "through a short summary of arguments" added to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions on 5 February 2008 by Hyacinth. As GRBerry and Trialsanderrors noted, a summary of DRV arguments beyond documenting consensus is currently optional and at the closing admin's discretion. Please feel free to revert if this removal was in error. --Muchness (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A summary is not even mentioned as an option. Do you believe that summaries are generally helpful? Hyacinth (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes they are. This is why the closing template has space for them. Sometimes they aren't needed, which is why the template default value in that space is (or at least was, I haven't used the default in a while) "deletion endorsed ~~~~". T&E wrote that closing template, or at the very least introduced its use, so I think the template design is evidence of his opinion as well. GRBerry 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the only place to go to get an image undeleted so I can add a fair use rationale?

This seems a bit bureaucratic for simply getting an image undeleted so I can jump through the proper hoop. --NE2 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You can ask any admin if you have a FUR and the article the picture should be added to. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement about the exact procedure to be followed; seeking guidance

I've never had a situation like this before. My deletion of Youth United has been put into review, and the page, with full text of the article was restored, with the {{tempundelete}} template on it. Another editor removed everything but the template text (and protected it), and the original author (admittedly a fanatic s.p.a.) protested; so I restored the text, relying on the part of the template text that says "If there seems likely to be a strong consensus to undelete and you wish to improve this article meanwhile, please be bold and do so," (which would be hard to do if the text itself wasn't restored along with the page) and unprotected it. The other editor has chewed me out, relying on the part of the template text which reads, "If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history." Which of us is right? I'm AGF and trying to do the right thing here. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The template isn't used all that often. The sentence about being bold was added in the middle of last year, replacing one about asking for the page to be unprotected. I can confirm that the old practice was to put just the template on top and protect the page against editing. I preferred the sequence: place the template, protect the page, then undelete the history when I was using it. I don't recollect any discussion about the change (there is none on the template's talk page), and hadn't noticed the change until now. I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to give you. GRBerry 02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

{{TempUndelete}} is used when reversing a delete decision; {{Delrev}} is used when reversing a keep decision. In this case a "delete" decision was seeking to be reversed so the procedure outlined in {{TempUndelete}} should've been used. If a newbie adds the wrong template the right thing to do would be to remove the wrong template not to play along with the wrong procedure. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what appears to have happened here is 1) AfD→Delete 2)Recreate→G4 delete. The restoration by Pegasus was (presumably) on the basis that the G4 didn't fit. In which case, leaving the article as it was before deletion seems fair enough as we're not immediately overturning the AfD. If I'm correct on this, I'd say that the DRV is in fact inappropriate in toto as a non-identical recreation escapes the previous AfD and needs a proper reconsideration. Splash - tk 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST REVIEW UNDELETION OF LARRY CUTRONE

Review Board, It seems one of your local administrators isn't willing to accept that our client Larry Cutrone has any degree of notoriety regardless of how much evidence we have given to the contrary! We have provided a plethora of notable references to verify our client Larry Cutrone's celebrity status. All of these (and more) are available in press releases by merely Googling Larry Cutrone where upon page after page (at least 50) will come up asserting and verifying all this and more.

Some of these include: Rock and roll pioneer and legend Clay Cole's Tribute to Larry Cutrone at: www.claycoleshow.com Host of TV series Wonderful World of Wildlife's Endangered Species and Zoo Animals in Winter (see press releases upon Googling and WWOW website) Host and head writer of Manhattan Alive Cable alternative for 2 years to Saturday Night Live (see press release upon Googling) Official guitar endorsee for Ovation Guitars (www.larrycutrone.com) Inducted into the NJ AM History Museum for outstanding contribution to AM radio (see NJ AM Radio History Museum website WPRJ 1310 AM) Author of musical comedy Louie Louie which had world premiere in 2006 (see press release upon Googling) Regular opening act for Rodney Dangerfiled during the early 1970's (www.larrycutrone.com)

Again we feel you have overlooked too many of the corroborating articles. Please undelete Larry Cutrone. If this continues to be a problem we respectfully ask you forward these corrospondances to the proper review board. Thanks in advance Larry Cutrone Management Team valleyvideo@earthlink.net Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valleyvid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyvid (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was a role account for Valley Video & Entertainment Company, Cutrone's agents, who had been spamming Wikipedia for Cutrone and another of their clients. I have blocked the role account, notified them, and given them COI and spam warnings. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Folkspraak has scholarly value and should be undeleted!

About six months or so ago I read a very helpful article on this site about the artificial pan-Germanic language "Folkspraak". The article was helpful, current, and presented comparisons of translations among different languages and this new language which I found fascinating because of the way in which language evolves and related across time and across cultures. This page was directly responsible for my newfound interest in English etymology. It's gone! Why would such a helpful, comprehensive, page whose content is not duplicated or available anywhere else be deleted.

There are individual Pokemon with Wikipedia entries. There are 8-bit Nintendo characters who receive pages and sub-pages. Why would anyone with the slightest notion of or respect for scholarship, intellectualism, or academia delete Volkspraak. I don't speak the language, I don't participate in its construction, but I can clearly see that it is a new and interesting development on older invented languages like Esperanto.

Tonight I wanted to show my girlfriend the Wikipedia entry for Folkspraak because she had thought it was a neat idea and hoped to read the examples of the Lord's Prayer in German, Dutch, English, and Volkspraak. We couldn't do that, because someone thought that the space could be better used for such gems as [1] or [2].

I know that it is difficult for Wikipedians to selflessly expand, prune, edit, and judge articles. I appreciate that I take advantage of their hard work every time I use this service. However, it baffles me that it seems that Wikipedia seems so often to err on the side of stupidity. I cannot imagine who decides that an article about an all new invented language which highlights original techniques for creating intelligibility out of a babel of languages is not worth reading. It is important, it is original, it is of interest to serious students of language, literature, linguistics, and etymology. It clearly has the power to inspire people. Why is it unworthy? And why do we instead have a record of every one of the five General Mills Monster cereals, from the popular Count Chocula to the discontinued Fruit Brute?

I am just writing to express my sadness at the way Wikipedia seems to be heading. I will lose all faith unless it is re-instated within the month and the Brutus' that stabbed it in the back are reprimanded.

   "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity"

-From W.B. Yeats "The Second Coming"

(William Butler Yeats Wikipedia Entry: 7457 words Buffy the Vampire Slayer(TV series):9811 words) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Emo Hobos... how dare you delete my page on them...

Well, people, it appears that my page titled "Emo Hobos" has been deleted. I think that this was an asinine decision, because it was a quite crucial page. Does this mean that we should, then, delete the page on Emos, and the page on Hobos?Is Wikipedia not a group effort, with many different ideas and articles? Is that not what makes it so unique, and famous? Surely you must agree that just because not everyone uses the term "emo hobo", it is still used by some people, and deserves to be on this site. I have received commentary saying that the page was "written by kids". Now that's just idiotic, and derogatory. First of all, it was written by distinguished individuals, and was not intened as a joke, but as a real cotribution to Wikipedia. Second, so what if it had been written by kids? Many of the worlds authorities and geniuses have said that children are the key to our future. Many children are actually smarter and more well educated than adults.I think that is a derogatory comment, and the peron who wrote it should be admonished, just as I have for writing a page about a matter that I find important. So, I beg of you, please put my page on Emo Hobos back up, because it IS a real article, and deserves to be treated like any other important article.

Hobosaver (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)\

Not to sound flippant, but I would be very interested in any outside Secondary Sources regarding emo hobos to validate your claims of Notability on them. Just fascinating. Zidel333 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link

My page was deleted. It is not a book advertisement. It's an information page about a book relating to a theological issue within the Hare Krsna movement. The external links section includes links to various critical perspectives on the book and on the issues it raises.

I missed the Afd process, and found out today, after the fact, that my page was deleted. On March 19th 2008, user "Syama" had written: "Mild Keep Notable, needs a rewrite. I think that the controversy surrounding this book makes it notable, that so many are stirred to action, article should focus on the NPOV of the controversy not just provide links to forum topics."

I'm willing to re-write the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. The book is notable. The controversy surrounding the book is relevant to those within the Hare Krishna Movement and to those observing or studying it from outside. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I'm learning about how to present things so that they are acceptable to Wikipedia.

The previous deletion was the result of the first nomination, but I did not participate in that process. I did not give my input on why the article should be allowed to continue to exist. I was not aware that the process was taking place. I found out about it today. On March 23rd, 2008, user DGG wrote the following in the History section of my page: "books can not be speedied". I've recreated the page. I'm willing to discuss.

Below are some links to articles and spoken word audio, relating to the book, and the associated controversy, from various perspectives:

        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1185/1/Prominent-Issue/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1207/1/Considering-Things-Fully-and-Rationally/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1178/1/Genuine-Dialogue-and-Deeper-Realizations-of-Truth/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html
        o http://www.iskconirm.com/Dhira_Govinda.htm
        o http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/10/danavir.swami.on.dhira.govinda.das/index.html
        o http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1177/1/Concerning-the-Satvatove-Experience/
        o http://gbcsaysdontgohere.com/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/dhira.govinda.on.prominent.link/index.html
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3
        o http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm
        o http://zavestkrisne.org/ritviki_neznanje.htm
        o http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-07/editorials1312.htm

--AlexandreJ (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Commnent This article was deleted as a result of an Afd discussion. The present discussion is located at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What the Buck

I feel What the Buck should be merged with Michael Buckley (Internet celebrity)Dwanyewest (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC) the original article I wrote about it has references and noteworthy

request unprotection of the page PayPay

Please unblock the artcile PayPay. This article was just discribing another payment system like moneybookers, paypal, etc I've prepared it according to moneybookers article to avoid advertising but the page was even though deleted. If moneybookers article wasn't deleted than what is the difference, one article is advertising and the other not??? People should know about other payment system options, it's all about informations and not advertising. You cannot say that some websites(companies)can have their articles and the others not. Thank you. --AndreYoung (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we can say that, and we do say that. To have an article, a subject (be it a company, website, person, or little green man) must be notable; that is, must be covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject in a significant way. If Paypal has been covered in this way, and something else has not, then Paypal will have an article and the other will not. This is not the fairness in advertising department. Of course, if you can show that such sourcing is available, that is a good way to show that the subject is now appropriate for an article. Still, if you are affiliated with or have an interest in the article's subject, it shouldn't be you who writes it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I do understand the notability but could you show me some "multiple reliable sources" on moneybookers article, because i don't see any. I prepared the page according to them and moreover add some references and still it wasn't sufficient. Anyway, please unblock the article to other users that they can write the article in a better way than i did. Thanks --AndreYoung (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Al-kitab (Quran)

deletion policy is , first it should be discussed on discussion page. article Al-kitab ( Quran) has been deleted by an editor without completing the discussion...wikkipedea is truth hider....Farrukh38 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• The deletion discussion was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al-kitab_(Quran). Black Kite 15:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing templates?

Could someone kindly point towards where I'd find the templates for closing discussions here, and proper usage? I'm clueless, and my search-fu is failing me miserably today. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

{{DRV top}} is the top template and has the directions; the default value for the Decision parameter is "Deletion endorsed.". The template will sign for you; you don't need to include your signature. {{drt}} is a handy redirect shortcut. {{DRV bottom}} (shortcut {{drb}}) is the equivalent bottom template. GRBerry 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas, why these templates result in strange line breaks, centering the last line?--Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but I'd look more at the code of DRV top than the code of the bottom one... GRBerry 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I see actually a left align tag at the beginning. Anyways, the content matters more and I'm still tuning that. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on next step to suggest

I'm unclear on the next step to suggest to an editor who is unhappy with my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peaknik (2nd nomination). He !voted "keep", and feels that transwiki and/or redirect are inappropriate outcomes. Since the page wasn't deleted, it doesn't seem like deletion review is the next step for him. Or is it?

Additionally, I'd welcome constructive comments on the close, if anyone has them. Always happy to hear other opinions (and hopefully learn something!)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that deletion review is the appropriate next stage, the instructions on the main page say "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate" so challenging a redirect closure here, would seem to be an appropriate course. That said, having looked at the discussion, I think your closure was appropriate as none of the keep supporters were able to find significant coverage in reliable sources to answer the nomination and one of the keep supporters said a merge would be ok. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- very helpful!--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your closure was fine and that if the user disputes the decision to redirect, he/she should make the case on the respective article Talk pages. This is not an issue that is normally within the scope of the Deletion Review process. Merge, redirect and even transwiki are all flavors of keep in that they do not destroy the pagehistory and can be reverted without the need for special admin powers. To that extent, they are ordinary editor decisions which are decided through consensus. That aspect of the AFD decision is no more binding than an equally well advertised and attended discussion anywhere else.
That said, the AFD discussion got substantial visibility and debate. That previously-demonstrated consensus must be taken into consideration during any subsequent discussions on the Talk pages and should be given substantial weight before being overturned. But once the pagehistory is kept, normal editing resumes. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the helpful comments. I think I'll encourage the editor to read this discussion and let him decide where (if anywhere) he'd like to go next with this.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

April 26th log not displaying properly

The April 26th log is not displaying properly on this page; can someone who is knowledgable fix it? Thanks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Querying a DRV closure

I am unsure the closing admin managed to gauge consensus correctly here.

Following a DRV discussion in which the participants' views were: "overturn deletion", "overturn deletion", "overturn deletion", "overturn and AFD" and "merge", the closing admin decided it should be closed as "Send to AFD and if nobody does in 7 days I'll speedily delete it".

When I queried this (both the gauging of the consensus and the basis on which a speedy deletion could be justified), I was told as I was "disputing the closure", there was "nothing to discuss", and that I should submit the article to AFD (or, presumably, it would get speedily deleted). Why would I send an article to AFD if I don't want it deleted? Is there any kind of procedure to review a DRV closure when the closing admin won't entertain discussion on the topic? Neıl ☎ 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The close makes no sense that I am able to determine. The thing was a crappy stub, now it's a better stub. Surely nobody still wants to delete it, right!? The most that should be done is a merge, which can be done by anyone at any time. But that's a matter for the talk page. Friday (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Even this rampant deletionist (apparently) doesn't understand that one. It's not going to win any prizes but it certainly asserts notability - a position created 165 years ago, for a start - so it can't be speedily deleted (I don't believe a "position" qualifies for A7 anyway). Black Kite 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty weird. If the closer wants to take it to AFD, I think that's fine, but imposing on others who presumably want to keep the article, as a condition against future speedy deletion is a bit off. And it's certainly not a CSD that I'm aware of. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad close, and needs to be revised. AFD nominations are supposed to be done by people who want the article deleted, not by those who want it kept. We do allow DRV closing admins to make an AFD nomination themselves if they feel the consensus is for an AFD, as an exception to that rule. If the closer believed there was a consensus to list at AFD, it is their job to make the nomination. If there is no such consensus, they certainly can't impose a "AFD or speedy delete" requirement. So the close is clearly wrong, regardless of what the consensus is in the DRV. If I was closing it myself, I'd have closed as deletion overturned, as there is a clear consensus that the original deletion was wrong. I'd have commented that AFD nomination and merging remain options for those editors who think that is the better route. Powers was fairly new to DRV, and I suspect his opinion reflected poor wording in the instructions rather than a serious belief that the article actually should be deleted. Merge is a process that should not got through AFD, so I don't believe there is a consensus for an AFD, but if the closing admin read Powers opinion differently he could have decided there was such a consensus and listed it himself. GRBerry 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin self-reverted, and I've reclosed. GRBerry 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. Neıl ☎ 10:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Change to DRV instructions

A deletion review has been opened regarding this discussion. See [link].

This was brought up at VP proposals (here).

In conjunction with a new template for this purpose, such as the example displayed to the right, it might be beneficial to make DRV notifications within XfDs a standard practice. Please state your thoughts on this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem moot since the XfD is closed and archived by the time a DRV is opened. No one would see the template. (I suppose you might get a notice if you watchlisted every deletion discussion that you ever participated in but if you did that, your watchlist would be insanely large. I can't think that very many people do that.)
Our process around deletion is already far more bureaucratic than any of us would like. This extra step feels like instruction creep to insufficient benefit. Rossami (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I watchlist every AfD I participate in. I suspect that many others do, as well. It poses very little burden to my watchlist, since as you note, very little editing happens to the discussion after it is closed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares to do it, it can't hurt much. I don't see it as likely to have significant benefit. It certainly should not be presented or viewed as an obligation on anyone's part to place such a notice. GRBerry 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To Rossami, I think everyone pretty much does watchlist every XfD they participate in. Most people have the default preferences setting of watchlisting every page they edit. To GRBerry, I think it should be part of the instructions for starting a deletion review. As it currently stands, people who participate in deletion discussions have no way of knowing if they ended up at DRV. And they should know -- shouldn't they? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it absolutely should not be part of the instructions. We do not want bureaucratic hurdles that get in the way. Very few AFD opiners actually return to AFDs to follow the discussion; even fewer will want to come to DRV and opine again. If you personally believe everyone who participated in an AFD should be notified when a DRV is raised, I have no objection to you personally notifying every one of them for every DRV nomination. But don't make a requirement for others to do. As far as the benefits of the proposal, I really don't think the proposed notice will actually be beneficial. If the choice is between a requirement and not doing it at all, I definitely prefer not doing it at all. GRBerry 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it would be very beneficial. I myself have found it rather annoying when I find out about a DRV regarding an XfD I participated in only after it's finished, and I've seen other people complain about this too. It seems only logical to me that people who participated in an XfD should be given the opportunity to participate in a discussion on whether or not that XfD was handled correctly. It would also be useful, and again, seems obvious to me, that a record that a DRV took place regarding a closing be stored with the archived XfD discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those who typically watchlists every XfD discussion in which I comment. I support this idea. In response to GRBerry, I think that everyone who starts a repeat XfD of a page that survived a previous deletion attempt should have to notify everyone who participated before, or at least those who didn't favor deletion. In the reverse situation addressed by this proposal, the only question in my mind is whether such individual notification should also be required or whether the requirement of a notice on the XfD page would be adequate. JamesMLane t c 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that it shouldn't be a requirement for a DRV, I don't see the harm in adding it to the instructions simply as an optional/recommended practice. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's call it a "recommended practice" then.

I wouldn't think that a drv would be closed as malformed for not having the tag, but I also think that helpful editors could add the tag if they notice that it hasn't been added. (As they often helpfully aid inexperienced DRV nominators with formatting the template/header.)

And Yes, I've long supported this idea. This should not be seen as a burden, but as an aid to navigation and communication. - jc37 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be required. Its a good idea, and the way to get it done in a standard way is to make it part of the necessary procedure. Surely someone can figure out how to do it programmatically.DGG (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I watchlist most I participate in. Some that get particularly contentious and blow up my watchlist, I may take off and check in but I can't think of more than a handful that filled that. I watchlist all I initiate. I've commented to two, do I need to comment to all on my watchlist.. I'm happy to, but I don't want to spam watchlists either. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

you'll find now that you are an admin, that watchlists grow indefinitely. :) But as for commenting, of course you dont have to comment on afds you've participated in if they go to review, but you should have the opportunity to be aware of them for the ones you want to do so. DGG (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Testing the hypothesis

During the past week, I ran an informal test of the use of watchlists on closed deletion discussions. I selected 10 closed deletion discussions from Jan-Feb of this year and added a tag at the bottom explicitly asking users who watchlisted the page to return to it and log the fact. Here is an example. I also included an edit summary to make sure that it was clear on the watchlist.
Across the ten deletion discussions, there were 71 unique participants. The tags sat on the deletion discussions for just short of 7 days. (I'd originally proposed 5 days but with the holiday, couldn't get to closing the test until today.) In that time, 7 participants returned to the discussions. Six of the seven returned and logged in within the first day of tagging (and the 7th just barely missed the first day, signing in 26 hours after the page was tagged). Four of the ten discussions had no participants return at all. From the nature of the responses, I am reasonably confident that everyone who had those discussions watchlisted actually participated in the survey (or if they missed it, would also miss the proposed notice of the deletion review discussion).
If this small-scale test holds true, it implies that the notice would be helpful to only about 10% of our participants. Frankly, that's a higher percentage than I'd anticipated but still far below the "pretty much everyone" that was posited above.
With all that in mind, is the benefit to 10% of participants enough to justify the extra bureaucracy and instruction creep of a new template, instruction and process?
Second, if the process is only "recommended", that would presumably reduce the concerns about instruction-creep somewhat but would also reduce the benefit since participants of untagged discussions get no notice. Does making it a voluntary process make the cost/benefit to the community better or worse? Rossami (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I personally only watchlist about 10% of the deletion discussions I participate in, usually the ones I am most interested in. I would certainly like to know if those go to deletion review, but the others I don't feel as much need to know. While I hate instruction creep, it would be nice if there was some way to know. Is this way it? I'm not sure.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off biographies of living persons

A significant amount of DRVs seems to concern biographies of living persons, largely centring around the same arguments or requiring the same kind of judgement. Would it be an idea to split the deletion reviews of these off the main DRV page? It would increase the amount of attention each of these reviews gets from editors who know a lot about this quite intricate area, and at the same time decrease the clutter for those who have no interest there. User:Krator (t c) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need, firstly there are not that many deletion reviews each day, most often less than five. I cannot see that deletion review could be described as getting overly cluttered. I would think that splitting the BLP ones away would lead to some deletion reviews getting less attention due to the split attention between the two areas (some people only focusing on one of the two areas. Secondly those who contribute heavily on BLP issues do get involved in deletion reviews on BLPs and I do not see any lack of attention on BLPs which usually get a high level of discussion compared to other deletion reviews. Lastly those who want to contest deletion decisions have a clear place to come to raise their concerns at the moment and I would not want to make it harder for often new contributors to find the right place to raise the issue. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the past, splitting has resulted in less attention, not more. Until the volume gets unmanagable, the list should probably stay consolidated. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Looks like everything prior to May 16th has dropped off the page. Anyone know what happened? -- Kesh (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

archive alignments

When browsing closed deletion reviews (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17), I've found the collapsed versions to now be center-aligned. They used to be left-aligned, and I thought it looked much better that way. Was this a specific and conscious decision, or an accident of coding? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific and conscious. —Cryptic 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it's been fixed since. But since those were substituted, they remain center-aligned. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Relist of AfDs

I just closed the DRV of a recent AfD closure (delete) as 'relist'. Now I might understand 'relist' here literally, that is as undoing the previous closure of the AfD (and if necessary restoring the article) and then relist the existing discussion in today's log. Nevertheless it seems to me that often in such cases rather a fresh AfD is opened as if it was a new nomination. Both a approaches have their pros and cons, but it isn't obvious to me whether there is a common understanding.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Relist" to me almost always means "open a new discussion". The only time that I have ever restored an existing discussion was when the only relevant issue in review was the premature closure of the discussion (closed as a speedy-keep or speedy-delete in violation of the rules for that decision). The new discussion should, of course, clearly disclose and provide links to both the prior AfD discussion and the DRV discussion. Rossami (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Relist normally means list again by opening a new discussion. The prior AFD if any and the deletion review should both be linked. I think that now the AFD templates will link the prior AFD, but the nominator needs to link the DRV in their nomination. I did them in the form "Article on a/an X. Prior AFD(link) was closed as Y. Deletion review(link to daily log) discussion determined that relisting was appropriate." Normally I continued with "This is a technical nomination on my part, I offer no opinion.", but sometimes I continued with "The article should be kept/deleted because of Z." Reopening the prior AFD is an exceptional action, that should be only undertaken if the DRV consensus to relist is clear within at most hours of the closing of the AFD. GRBerry 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Note the {{Template:Relist}} which results in a Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached message being placed at the end of the existing AfD. Of course that template is most often used for XfDs in which there hasn't been enough participation to form a consensus. A new deletion discussion looses the discussion thread and arguments already made and starts fresh which probably has both advantages and disadvantages. Checking several old DRV logs, it looks like a relist closure in a DRV results in a new procedural AfD. Of course, that would also require restoring the article. — Becksguy (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with those who commented above a new discussion is best with appropriate links provided to the old AFD and deletion review to inform the new discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions

I have proposed a new way of handling XfDs & DRVs - please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. JohnnyMrNinja 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Update {{DRVNote}} to link to logs?

Now that I've got what I think is a workable solution for it, I've updated a discussion at Template talk:DRVNote#Link to log page instead of regular DRV page? about linking directly to log pages in Template:DRVNote. Anyone interested should head over there to register their comments. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Monk's Mound

The information that was added on an external link is being attacked on the Monk's Mound site by a number of disruptive editors including Doug and Trochos. Ronz apparently added an unrealted claim to the removal of this information pertainting to conflict of interest. Wikipedia policies are not being followed here including personal grudges, adding External Links, and removal of pertinant information by these editors may be considered vandalism or disruptive edits. See personal website and talk page for history.Marburg72 (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content from an article is not deletion in the specific way we use that term here on Wikipedia. All the disputed content is still visible to any editor via the article's page history. Content disputes such as this need to be worked out on the article's Talk page or, failing that, through one of Wikipedia's conflict resolution techniques. Deletion Review is not the right forum for this disagreement. Rossami (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)