Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Recent discussions: hmm |
(BOT) Updating discussions: Dec 27, 28, 29. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DRVClerk |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{NOINDEX}} |
{{NOINDEX}} |
||
==[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent|Recent discussions]]== |
==[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent|Recent discussions]]== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 31}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 30}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29}} |
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 28}} |
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 28}} |
||
Revision as of 05:05, 8 January 2013
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
29 December 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was deleted because the "references do not appear to be from independent reliable sources". This decision was incorrect, as the references meet the Wikipedia:GNG guidelines as multiple, independent sources were listed that established notability for the game (the article contained references including: a review in the February 2007 issue of PC Zone, a review at Just Adventure, and a feature at Adventure Gamers as well as an award from Adventure Gamers). All of these sources are independent reliable, notable sources (PC Zone, Just Adventure and Adventure Gamers are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources as reliable sources). In addition to WP:GNG, the reviews also make it meet Wikipedia:Notability (software), since the software is the subject of multiple reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.JenniBees (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There were two keeps. However, the administrator deleted it without proper rationale. Attempts to contact the administrator were unsuccessful because he retired. Also, the administrator was subject to Arbitration until motion is suspended. If temporarily undeleted, then we must know whether the image can increase readers' understanding of the episode in question. By the way, it was reviewed one month ago, but it was mass deletion review. This deletion is a test to find out whether we can go one at a time or make one review on two or three files. As for the file itself, I bet it worked in Production section of "Burns' Heir". I mean, why using a free photo of Richard Simmons? Robot and human being are different from each other. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The deleting editor, an administrator, Nyttend, has twice deleted a series of valid redirects in September and again in November, for a set of NRHP-listed places in Ohio for which I had created a combo article, Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works to cover them all. Each redirect pointed to a subsection about one NRHP-listed place in this combo article. Covering multiple similar NRHP-listed places in one article is fine and good; other editors concerned with NRHP short articles have so argued, in other contexts that Nyttend is familar with (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site where Nyttend commented). What seems salient here is that the places are in Indiana or Ohio where the deleting editor has been exercising extreme oversight, to put it mildly. The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria, having been so informed by me at least twice. First discussion is archived at here (in Nyttend's archive 24), second "discussion" is at discussion that was at Nyttend's talk, was still showing but was archived during this discussion to Nyttend's archive 25. (The link in previous sentence updated by doncram 1/4/2013. Please note it is necessary to "unhide" much of the discussion there, hidden by Nyttend.) (A Nyttend statement to me also appears at User talk:Doncram#Hobart steel houses, but I quote that fully and respond to that in the Nyttend Talk page discussion.) Nor would their deletion be justified by any regular deletion criteria, nor by any redirects for discussion criteria, but that has not been tested by any such proceeding. The speedy deletion argument cited in the twice deletions was argument R3, which is for "Implausible typos", which always clearly never applied.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
28 December 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I do not have much of a personal opinion on the article but I do think people should take note of my opinion that it has good sourcing, just needs a small formatting touch to be up to Wikipedia standards, and the consideration that Mrs. Domingues is now considered to be the oldest person in the world at one point. The reason I am listing this here for deletion review though is because I think any article that is reinstated without the deleting administrator's permission or the consensus of the majority of the community but is not a violation of section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion should be reevaluated for deletion no matter how good the article itself is. Thebirdlover (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article about the highest-selling singles in New Zealand was listed for deletion due to a failure of WP:V as there were no sources. Two editors !voted keep after a source that showed the content was provided. However, an analysis of the page containing the content showed that reproduction of the content is not permitted. The RIANZ explicitly stated on the website that "any unauthorised copying, reproduction, linking or framing of any information included herein is strictly prohibited". I pointed this out on the Afd discussion but the comment was ignored, and the discussion was soon closed as "keep" with no further commentary about the newly pointed-out issue. I discussed this with the closing administrator who admitted to overlooking the problem. He suggested to take it to WP:CD which he did, although the discussion has died down and not much insightful input has been provided. The concern that this list is a violation of copyright is still unaddressed, and this article should have been deleted on CSD G12 grounds. Till 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 December 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
30 being the lowest number with three prime factors, Base 30 hase less recurring fractions than any base less than Base 210, which is far too high a base system to be used in any practical sense. This makes it incredibly useful when dealing with fractions, as in Base 30 every fraction between one half and one tenth can be easily expressed apart from one seventh which is scarcely used, so for example if I want to scale an object down by a fraction (which I actually have to do quite often with 3D modeling software) you are able to enter a complete number in the number field without having to round, which would result in a loss in precision. Aside from the reason mentioned above, it is also used in geocoding when working with converting longitudes and latitudes. Robo37 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Disagreeing with the close, I discussed it with the closing admin here. We couldn't come to an agreement, which is why I am now listing this for DRV. In short, I do not feel that the arguments within the discussion should lead to a delete result. A no consensus result would make sense, but certainly not a delete one. The first two voters in the discussion, even after their affirmations of their votes, did not return to comment on the finished product of the article, after I had improved it even further than the point where I had informed them, adding a history section and a number of references. Not to mention that their arguments (WP:GNG) are not backed by further explanation. Simply saying GNG isn't appropriate, because after my expansion, GNG certainly appeared to be met and they didn't expand their arguments to explain why it wouldn't have been met. My improvement of the article changed Cindy's vote and the two delete votes referring to subscription websites are both incorrect (the sources were not majority subscription articles) and also unimportant, as we allow subscription sources per WP:PAYWALL. So I didn't then and still don't understand what their argument was and neither of their votes should be weighted at all. Other than DGG's neutral uncertain vote, that leaves just two (three if you count the nominator) unsubstantiated votes of delete per GNG and four keep votes that say it meet GNG (with me expanding the article to show this fact.) Therefore, I do not believe closing the discussion as delete was appropriate, nor do I feel like it appropriately weighted the arguments. SilverserenC 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |