Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OwenX (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 20 July 2024 (Undid revision 1235647592 by 2C0F:FC89:80AD:B99C:1:0:24EE:CFFB (talk) please do not remove replies from other editos.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Can this process be automated?

The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the {{Delrevxfd}}, {{Delrev}}, and {{DRV notice}} templates? Jarble (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @Anomie and Timotheus Canens: Can this bot be programmed to do the tasks that I listed here? Jarble (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by due to a cross-post, but could a script be written to deal with this, similar to how Twinkle takes care of all of the XFD nomination steps? Primefac (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sounds more like a script is needed. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over half the time, even the first template ({{drv2}}, on the deletion review subpage (no, there's no {{drv1}})) gets filled out wrong. The deletion discussion isn't linked, or the wrong one's linked, a non-deletion-discussion is linked in the xfd field, or a full url is used for the deletion discussion or page name or both, or even the page name is wrong. Mostly it's me who ends up cleaning it up and placing {{delrevxfd}} and sometimes {{drvnote}}, and the problems aren't consistent enough that I've ever considered automating it. A bot that assumes the first step was done right is going to break at least two other pages and probably end up being a net increase in manual labor. —Cryptic 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Wouldn't the bot or script detect incorrectly-formatted {{drv2}} templates in order to prevent errors like this? Jarble (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jarble, as a bot op, no. There are a million different ways editors can mess up wikitext. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If users screw up the {{drv2}} over half the time, that seems like the bot would run into too much GIGO to be useful. Anomie⚔ 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, it gives more reason to have a script, as there can be #ifexist checks and the like to make sure things are input properly. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to incorporating functionality into something like Twinkle or Ultraviolet (with preference towards the latter). — Frostly (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automating this would be great. But the process wasn't too horrible... SmolBrane (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I have to look at the instructions again every time I close DRV, and dearly miss WP:XFDCLOSER. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeleting the article: Salman Farhan Sudi

The article Salman Farhan Sudi was deleted due to several points which should be corrected instead of deletion the whole article, Please I am requeating to undelete that article and return it to discussion.

Thankz. Hawali Nur (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieval of Deleted Draft Content : YogiGuru Saugaato

Hi Team,

It is a humble request to help retrieve the content of the draft of YogiGuru Saugaato that was deleted. I require the latest version of the draft and have been unable to retrieve it from anywhere else. There is no copy, and was a dictation version. Kindly share the latest edited draft of the content. I assure it will not be used to published anything on any Wikipedia pages. Debottama23 (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted because it was a blatant advertisement. Such content is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you truly have no intentions of publishing this content on Wikipedia again, it may be possible to ask one of the admins who deleted it, Jimfbleak or Seraphimblade, to email its contents to you (note that they are not required to do this) Mach61 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​

Several months ago, I found the following note on my talk page:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:The sun1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

As you can see, the link is useless now. Just now I was curious to see what was involved, so I had to go to the image and check WhatLinksHere to find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23. Why must this be the case? Active DRV discussions are transcluded in log pages, so it's not like we have some technical barrier; the latest active discussion, for Elizabeth Shown Mills, can be linked either Wikipedia:Deletion review#Elizabeth Shown Mills or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 21#Elizabeth Shown Mills. As far as I can see, the template could easily link to the log page, which won't change, instead of to the main DRV page, which will always be changing. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{DRV notice}} has a parameter that makes the "a deletion review" link point to a log subpage. (Example.) Whoever left that on your talk page didn't use it, so the best the template could do was point at Wikipedia:Deletion review#File:The sun1.jpg. —Cryptic 20:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth changing {{DRV notice}} so that - in the absence of the |days= parameter being specified - it assumes that the DRV has been filed on the current day? To my understanding, this is what currently happens with (e.g.) {{Rfd notice}} & {{Tfd notice}}. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more harmful to point at the wrong log subpage than to point at DRV proper. If someone notifies late - either because someone yelled at the original requester for not notifying, or they're less of a jerk and are just doing it for them - and the template's not invoked until after midnight UTC, they're left pointing at the wrong page entirely with no hint of what went wrong.
I suspect most people besides me just paste the drv notice syntax from either the log page's commented text or from step II.2 of WP:DELREVD. (I don't, for example, ever recall seeing anything other than "An editor" at the start of the notice when I've checked to see if someone's been notified.) If {{DRV notice}} could accept an explicit date instead of the horrifically unfriendly days=0 syntax, we could make at least the commented text always be right ("<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|log=2024 February 22|page name}} on their talk page."...), and the instructions at DELREVD at least be obviously wrong if you're notifying for a previous date. —Cryptic 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if instead we just added a permalink to the current revision of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active—something like "An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lunatic Lateral (permalink)."? I wouldn't think that'd be too hard to implement, it's valid for the whole week, and the section anchors still seem to work even after the discussion is closed (here's the one for Nyttend's example). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an interface for getting the current revision of a page in the Scribunto documentation (I'd expect it to be in the title object). I know it's not possible short of that. —Cryptic 23:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template wizardry is all Greek to me, but wouldn't it work to just use whatever Template:Link current revision is using? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation for what it's using says it's disabled on WMF wikis. Serves me right for trusting it. —Cryptic 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the other issue with permalinks is that there's no section edit links unless you're still pointing at the current revision. If Fastily were only now seeing the notification for yesterday's review of File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg, the link would look like Special:Permalink/1209451477#File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg; that would let him see the discussion but have no way to edit it other than clicking on the only-barely-intuitively-linked date header. —Cryptic 19:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Squatch

I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested at participating in a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Split WP:DRV into two pages?

I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on DEEPER

I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER. Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER. The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER. I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests. Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct procedure is demanding a presentation of a draft that is prima facie worthy of a review, and if it seems that thre is no prospect for that submission to even be reviewed because it is obviously not worthy of a review, and a few participants have noted so, the DRV can be speedily closed as 'speedy endorse' due to no prospect of success. There must be a path to recreation. We can not know that BDFI will not be a notable topic in the future. If I start believing that BDFI has become a notable topic I will want to create an article, I will be able to draft something suitable for a quick review at DRV, and I will not be satisfied with my submission being dismissed on purely formal grounds (a fantasy scenario, don't take it at face value). —Alalch E. 22:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close

See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) § Frivolous_filings_at_DRV

I proposed at Village pump (policy) that DRV should have, and state that it has, closures of Speedy Endorse for a Deletion Review when the appellant has failed to state a case. On further thinking, I think that what is needed is Speedy Close, similar to the administrative closes sometimes used at XFD, and that the instructions for DRV should list the reasons for Speedy Close. The reason for changing the phrase is that some of the Deletion Reviews to which this should apply are not really appeals of deletion decisions.

I suggest, in particular, that the instruction should say, below "Deletion review may be used" and "Deletion review may not be used", there should be a paragraph beginning "A Deletion Review request may be Speedily Closed if:" followed by:

  • 1. The filing does not appear to involve a deletion action in the English Wikipedia.
  • 2. The filing does not address any of the reasons for requesting Deletion Review, either an error or new information.
  • 3a. The filer is a banned or blocked user.
  • 3b. The filer does not have permission to edit in the area, e.g., not extended-confirmed when the area is subject to an extended-confirmed restriction.
  • 4. The filing is completely erroneous, e.g., it misstates the number of !votes in the XFD.

We see such requests for Deletion Review from time to time, and they are often administratively closed, but it would be useful to list them as bases for speedy closes, similar to Speedy Keeps at XFD.

I would like to send this provision for Speedy Closes at DRV forward to an RFC to add it to the DRV instructions, after discussion and any changes to the rationales. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. While I occasionally procedurally-close disruptive or pointless DRVs, I always feel like I'm treading the gray boundary of policy-sanctioned process. Clear wording will make this more consistent and save us all time. I do, however, have qualms about C#1, which seems to exclude appeals to turn a Keep into a No-consensus or vice versa. While some dismiss such appeals as pointless, they do impact renomination delays, and also act as important feedback, especially in cases of BADNAC. I believe we also need clearer language for a speedy overturn for out-of-process speedy deletions. If any editor in good standing contests a G6, it is no longer uncontroversial maintenance. Owen× ☎ 10:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can already do that last bit if you feel strongly enough about it. From WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care. —Cryptic 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Admins who routinely delete out of process are the worst ones with whom to get into a wheel war. While policy allows us to revert them, the caveat it spells out should be heeded. A speedy overturn supported by two or three participants is more effective and less prone to prompting a wheel war. This usually happens within a few hours of the DRV being listed, so I don't think we're adding unnecessary wonkery here. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So wait until it racks up those two or three overturns. I don't think that "immediately" language means "only if you do it right after it happens" so much as "without further discussion". —Cryptic 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this proposal, we need to be mindful of two things.
Firstly, DRV is a backstop against various kinds of abuse: things that don't usually happen on en.wiki, but theoretically could -- such as a bad faith user gaining control of a sysop account and using that account to delete inconvenient articles or speedy-keep inconvenient AfDs. As a guard against that, I'd suggest an explicit rule that any sysop can overturn or revert a speedy close of a DRV, on their own authority, with or without giving a reason. (Sysops can revert each other's administrative actions but are usually hesitant to do it. We want wording that empowers and encourages them to use that power here.)
Secondly, DRV has another purpose as well as reviewing decisions. We also explain decisions. An inexperienced user ought to be able to bring a DRV and come away with a clear understanding of all the reasons for a deletion decision, and that occasionally happens. So we want a rule that says that when speedy closing a DRV brought by an inexperienced user, the closer should pop over to their talk page and start a discussion explaining all the reasons why the deletion decision was correct.
I wouldn't want to pass this without those provisions.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose codifying how to run this review process. It should be run by humans, not algorithms. The problem being fixed has not been explained. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is instruction creep, and the worst sort of instruction creep in that it's mostly redundant and the remainder is actively harmful.
    #1 is already covered by the speedy close criteria we already have. #2 and #4 are frequently accompanied by the sort of accusations for which we could invoke the other speedy close criterion we have at WP:DRVPURPOSE NOT#8, but for reasons incomprehensible to me we usually don't. #3 is covered by the combination of WP:BANREVERT and WP:ARBECR, doesn't need repeating here, and is already the usual practice if nobody who's permitted to edit has agreed with them yet.
    When somebody has agreed, and for the remaining, milder cases of #2 and #4, speedy closing is harmful because deletion reviews are essentially never reviewed or overturned - the buck stops here - and have zero effect on content namespaces while in progress. Even when it's a kept page that's being reviewed and {{delrev}} is supposed to be put on the mainspace page (or category or template or whatever), it's usually forgotten, even by the people who clean up broken and incomplete drv nominations. —Cryptic 13:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the exception of 4, I IAR close all of these. I'm not sure I need a rule telling me I can't, as I don't think any have even been challenged, never mind overturned. Just my .02 Star Mississippi 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language improvement, here & Refund

from @SmokeyJoe's comment here, @Robert McClenon's thread above and note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Margaret_Nichols_DRV and my fairly regular "We're not doing 7 days of bureaucracy", it appears there's a start to consensus on how to improve and streamline DRV to allow it to focus on the discussions where it's needed vs. where there's another solution. Thoughts, suggestions on where else this should be? Star Mississippi 13:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal about just this a while back at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 56#Split WP:DRV into two pages? Mach61 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no good reason to split DRV.
Uncontroversial REFUNDS should be advised to go to REFUND to ask.
REFUNDS to draftspace are almost always uncontroversial.
REFUND should plainly distinguish between whether the REFUND is to draftspace or to mainspace, and give simple advice on both. REFUNDS to mainspace are rarely uncontroversial, except for late disputed PRODs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history - partially deleted category tree

Not sure where to ask about these two:

As a result the category tree is partially deleted and partially extant. Would it be possible to revert the first deletion (as mentioned would be appropriate by a couple people in the second discussion)? I will note that the second nomination got more attention, I think because it included lower-level subcategories that get more "circulation".

jengod (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Harsora

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to Neha Harsora, you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, Explicit (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review&oldid=1235648140"