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 81.104.39.44 (talk) at 06:33, 31 March 2009 (→‎Not AfD2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Shortcut
Archive
Archives

Stats

I don't really follow the actual DRV closes, but my sense is that it is not often that DRV results in an outcome different from what the closing admin posted. The rare overturn outcome of List of bow tie wearers got me thinking. Are there statistics somewhere that indicate how often DRV's outcome is different from the XfD reviewed? I think such stats would help give those desiring to post a DRV request a better sense of what they are up against. DRV does seem to be a very good educational tool for the nominators since most participants provide suggestions, so the stats should be presented in a way that does not discourage posting DRV requests. -- Suntag ☼ 02:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any recent statistics. I know Badlydrawnjeff made some at one point, but those would be pretty old by now. It shouldn;t be too hard to get a month or two of statistics; it just depends on someone being interested and willing. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latest I know of that evaluated the overturn rate are at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 9#December 2006 Deletion Statistics. Those are almost two years old. Badlydrawnjeff's are at User:Bdj/DRV is Broken and were instead an attempt to answer the question of whether or not DRV was producing the "right" outcome - and that made his data highly contentious. GRBerry 04:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could be me!

I have just, for the first time, used this process.

I can see a pair of problems, technical ones, not process problems:

  1. The Namespace in the thing we have to Subst: - it really is not clear what to put in when it is in the Article space. I got it wrong.
  2. Unless it is some form of cache, when you place a review request in today's page, it only appears to get transcluded when the new date is opened and today becomes yesterday. I tried this in a browser I almost never use as well as my normal one to see if it was a local cache issue, and it is not.

So, unless it's me, which is always a possibility, it is not entirely working. Happy to be shown how wrong I am :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the template, and haven't had time to finally get around to fixing it properly. I guess now's as good a time as ever. It should be done in not too long (meaning up to a week).
I'm not sure what's going on with the latter. Like you said, it shows up fine now. It's possible there was an issue with the server cache. I don't visit the actual WP:DRV page often (I usually navigate directly to the log pages), so I don't know if this is a recurring issue. If it looks like it's happening again, try this link. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was easy. Only slightly longer, now just using a #switch. Should be nearly bug-free now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've tried this check for #2: Put a temporary piece of text on the current day's paage; See if that is transcluded in a normal way; see if the turning of midnight (presumably "server time"?) changes that. I don't want to try this because I'm "nothing to do with the page" and have no skills in the rather arcane templating language.
Kudos for sorting the other out at a technical level. I've not looked at the instructions, they were pretty "huh?" too. Mind you it does no harm frightening the unwashed off! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When someebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

  • I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really something that this talk page can help with. Supposing that either of your suggestions are implemented, DRV will still be where they're reviewed. If you haven't yet, try hitting up WT:DEL and WT:DELPRO. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will. If we nip this in the bud, perhaps you won't have so many things ending up here because they were (or were not) judged by the proper criteria for deletion to begin with. SBHarris 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble adding

I'm trying to get That Guy with the Glasses added to the log. It shows up as a subpage, and you can see the entry if you click today's date in the log, but the discussion is not visible like others in the log, and the link from the article doesn't work either. Never done one of these before, and I can't tell what I'm doing wrong. Help please. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Illustrated

Talk:Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

My extensive work on this Article was intended to assist professors of law evaluate this useful caselaw textbook for their use in the exercise of their profession as academic lawyers. I myself--as it would have become clear to the reader had he or she chose to investigate the available ancillary article information--inserted the "

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template, in an attempt at rule compliance.

It remains a travesty of justice that this Article was summarily deleted. Its inclusion would have done honor and justice to the great endeavor that is Wikipedia. I challenge the Wikipedian--if he or she has the courage--to identify himself or herself to me, on this Wikipedia talkpage or otherwise, ex gratia to paul.gill@usa.com--to answer as to why this important Article was destroyed.

I am not interested in the citation of the Wikipedia rules--with which I clearly was in the process of compliance, as each Wikipedian has reasonable latitude--but I am instead interested in being told, in and with preciseness of exactitude--again, if you have the courage--without passion or prejudice, why this was done.

Small-minded and closed-minded obfuscatory attempts to explain yourself are not acceptable and do no justice to the academic freedom that Wikipedia stands for. Although it is a universal and absolute axiom that actions always "speak louder" than words, I require you to explain yourself and the context of this destructive act. The Article was about the application of rules of law; your response should, in turn, cite the application of your destructive, even desecratory, act, without caprice.

I cannot see the redeeming worth of your despicable act. That does not necessarily mean one does not exist; simply, that I assert that unwarrranted caprice was inflicted here, in this precise and specific instance.

Professor Scott's work and academic freedom were compromised given your choice to take this unwarranted and reprehensible action. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School that Prof. Scott represents was similarly harassed in your actions. However, as Wikipedian and author of the work that would have comprised this descriptive and helpful Wikipedia article, I require your response be given to me. I am a graduate and alumnus of Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

John Paul Nelson Gill, D.Jur.

Hahbie 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the article in question is at Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work, and the above is a duplicate of what's posted to the article talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how anybody was "harassed" by anything that happened here, and Wikipedia is not responsible for anybody's academic freedom. Nobody has the "right" to post anything on Wikipedia. We, as Wikipedia contributors, are responsible to the encyclopedia, and therefore to the consensus of the community of Wikipedia editors on how to run the encyclopedia. Should you wish to contest the deletion, you may file a request at WP:DRV, by following the directions there. Otherwise, letters such as the one above will get you nowhere, and will in fact hurt your cause amongst Wikipedians. Please refrain from repeating such counterproductive actions. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you appeal a DRV decision?

For example, I closed a DRV decision as "no consensus to overturn deletion". The nominator, in good faith, thinks that I evaluated the debate incorrectly. Can a WP:DRV debate be started about whether the previous DRV debate was closed incorrectly? Or do they have to take it to WP:AN?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard and fast rule, but generally DRV is the end of the line. Unless there was blatant wrongdoing on the part of the admin, it's not likely to get overturned. They can go to AN if they want, but it'll likely be turned aside. The usual response to someone is to have them examine why the article was deleted, and write a new draft in their Userspace that addresses the problems with the article. Depending on the original article, if you feel it can be salvaged, the deleted version can be copied to their userspace for them to work on. Once they have a draft, they can post a new DRV request to have folks re-evaluate the article and see if it fixed the problems. If the user goes that route, I'd suggest abstaining from the discussion unless asked to explain your decision. Hope that helps! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, if someone has a new draft, or new arguments, they start another DRV. Some articles have gone to several DRVs. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page in question was actually a userpage, so you can't really userfy it. :) I've already advised the user to go to WP:AN, I was just wondering if I should've advised them that starting another WP:DRV to appeal my closure of the first WP:DRV discussion was also an option.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did fine. I can only see the need for another DRV if the issues of shortcoming are addressed, and the reposting to DRV specifically addresses how they were taken care of. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At 21:11, 22 October 2008, I posted above "If someone object to a DRV close, could they list the DRV at DRV?" to which GRBerry replied, "Attempting a DRV of a DRV has happened, though not successfully. From time to time, asking for a more senior DRV hand to review a DRV close has had results, but those cases are once or twice a year type things. ... GRBerry 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)" An additional way to resolve your question, Aervanath, would be to suggest to the editor to look over the past 30 days of DRV closes and ask one or two recent closer whether they thought your close should be change. If some other recent closer thinks it should be change, then you can work with them to address a reclose. If not, that would seem to be the end of the line for process review. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Wikipedia:Deletion review review? 140.247.248.104 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template pile-up

As usual on the happily rare occasions when I want to nominate one of these, I followed the template instuctions carefully, producing a pile-up on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 18 which any attempt on my part to sort out will only make worse. It doesn't appear on the main page & is generally screwed up, though all the information is there. Can anyone kindly sort it out? Obviously some people manage to use the template successfully, though God knows how. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok User:PhilKnight has kindly sorted. I see from the page above I'm far from alone in having difficulties here. Can anything be done to make the instructions clearer? Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an article - possibly deleted before December 22, 2004.

I see the prior-to-December-22,2004 deletion logs were never restored. I believe there was an Alice Crimmins article, but was unable to find one using the deletion log for the period since that date. I would like an admin with access to to indicate if there was an Alice Crimmins article or not in the Wikipedia. If there was an article, could I obtain a deletion review for it? The process seems to presume that the text is available in the article's deletion history. patsw (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look and personally cannot find a record of such an article. Davewild (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The older deletions are still listed at Wikipedia:Deletion log's subpages. If you knew a specific date for a deletion, you could look it up from those, but manually going through each isn't very practical. Neither google nor wikipedia's search (in the Wikipedia-namespace, which should include the old deletion logs) come up with anything that would indicate there ever was an article with that title. - Bobet 08:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing showing up at Special:Undelete either. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit?

Is there a limit on how long since an article can asked to be reviewed after being deleted? The reason I ask is that the List of ship launches in 1946 was deleted with two delete votes and no support back in 2006. It was commented that the list should be referred to WP:SHIPS but this wasn't done. I have asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and am awaiting his response. I have also informed the nominator that I have done this. What would be the correct procedure here? If the article is restored, then the material that existed then would be restored. If the article has to be recreated from scratch, then the material that was included at deletion would have to be recreated from scratch too. I suspect that a DRV would, on the face of it conclude that the original deletion was correct according to the votes given at the time. However, my opinion is that if the article existed now as it was when listed at AfD, the result of the debate would be to keep it. How do we get round this? One solution would be to restore it and relist at AfD to see what the consensus is now. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been restored after a discussion at WP:SHIPS so this case seems closed but the general question is still interesting. The best solution in such cases is often userfication, where the deleted content is restored and then moved to the requestors userspace for improvement before being moved back to mainspace. That way the deleted content is available, with proper atribution, for use in the article, but the concerns of the AfD can be addressed before the result is de facto overturned and the article fully returns. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was restored once it was clear that there would be sufficient material to vastly expand from the original deleted version, thus the concerns in the AfD debate were addressed. The deleting admin was happy that discussion was taking place and nobody was rushing to recreate the article until consensus had been gained that it should be recreated. I tagged the talk page with the deletion banner, and the reason it was restored. I'd be interested to hear what others think is best in these cases though. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eluchi is right; generally a userfication is the best way; most admins will do it for you. A list of them can be found at CAT:RESTORE. Once you're ready to put it back into mainspace, then I would re-read the original Afd. If you're confident the concerns have been addressed, then just be bold and move it back. If you're not that sure, or someone objects, then the guidelines at DRV say you should first discuss it with the deleting admin. If the admin thinks the issues have been resolved, then there's no problem in replacing it into mainspace. You only take it to DRV if the admin doesn't think the original concerns have been addressed. In cases where the deleting admin does not respond to queries, then you should take it to DRV to get more comments. I hope this is clearly written, since it's almost 5am here. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, makes sense here. I was erring on the side of caution rather than being bold. I'm sure you'll agree that the resurrected article is much better than the one that was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History merging?

So I was browsing archives and The Well (Church) was approved to restore at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19; but the article (which subsequently survived an AfD) was copy-and-paste recreated at The Well (church), and its old history never properly restored. What's the right course of action here? Should it be treated like a copy-and-paste move? Dcoetzee 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it was restored by the DRV and then kept at the Afd, then there's no problem with treating it like any other cut-and-paste move. I've now merged the histories, so no problems there.--Aervanath (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript slowdown

I don't know what exactly, but there is something on this page (JavaScript most likely) and only this page that brings my browser to a crawl. Please remove whatever it is. SharkD (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not showing up?

I added an entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_2 - but it doesn't seem to be showing up on the main page. Thought I followed all the procedures properly; can someone take a look and tweak, if need be? Thanks .. Jenolen speak it! 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up just fine here. You may need to flush your browser's cache. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yu gi oh the abridged series

There is lots of information on this so there should be a page about it but it is being blocked.

I am ironbatman (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go onto the main page and request it be unblocked. However, your best bet is to write an article in your user space (such as User:I am ironbatman/Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series and then go to DRV to request your version be moved to article space. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please-someone- post this insert at the top of my bio in hopes that I will get help on this matter

NOTICE: Charles Laquidara has, for several months, begged in vain for someone-anyone- of the many Wikipedia editors to make any corrections or changes in my bio which they deem necessary, in order for it not to have that ugly “citation” at the beginning of this page, (a citation which implies negatively that there are some lines in the content there-in that are illegal, immoral or just plain inappropriate and should be dealt with at some point before the (said) ugly “citation” can be made to go away). Charles pleads guilty to having written some passages that were, in retrospect, self-serving and he now regrets having done so and is just hoping to have a simple, no-frills biography posted on these Wikipedia pages.

Charles has already written several e-mails to these editors, who continually ignore him because he is obviously not qualified to even complain if he doesn't speak “Wikipedian” and can't figure out how to properly address this issue on the discussion pages.

Charles- not being a computer expert and, in fact, being pretty much of an ignoramus about these matters (He was a DISC JOCKEY for God's sake!) cannot for the life of him ascertain how to approach this problem in the proper Wikipedian manner using the Wikipedia criteria set forth in hundreds of pages of rules and regulations. Charles has even suggested (as a last resort) that if necessary, perhaps someone on the editorial board-if they weren't able to just change and/or edit out the “offending sentences”- could delete his entire biography ... but, alas! to no avail- his pleas continue to fall upon deaf ears.. and poor Charles has no way of dealing with the problem, except to kvetch here and now on this “edit page” hoping that someone out there will take notice and do something- anything- to make that ominous, ugly “citation” disappear once and for all. To make it more official: I, Charles Laquidara, hereby do swear that I am giving the editors of Wikipedia absolute authority and permission to make any changes which they feel necessary to this biography in order to make the below information appropriate to their standards of Wikipedia excellence. Mahalo. Laquidara (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have dealt with Mr. Laquidara's concerns.--Aervanath (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome - Redirect

I am having a hard time understanding the how things work here. A discussion takes place regarding deletion, merge and redirect; and the decision is to redirect. So how is a redirect considered proper when the article being redirected to makes no mention of the article being redirect to it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trunnell Elementary School Does one simply assume that since this is a school name and since it is being redirected to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky) that it must be part of that school district? And if that is the case, should there not be a redirect for every elementary school to a parent article? Dbiel (Talk) 10:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the easiest thing to do here would be to add the mention of the school to the Jefferson County school system article.--Aervanath (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template reform

Listing a page on DRV can be a daunting task because the current DRV templates and their syntax are not very flexible or user-friendly. They don't do well with requests to overturn RfDs, requests to overturn a second deletion nomination, or grouped requests to undelete multiple files. To remedy this problem I've created two new templates: Template:drv2 and Template:DRV links. Here are some examples:

Example 1

{{subst:drv2
|page=Fooo
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
}}

Fooo

Fooo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2

{{subst:drv2
|page=Fooo
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fooo (2nd nomination)
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
}}

Fooo

Fooo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example 3

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
}}

File:Foo.png

File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example 4

====Images related to foo====
* {{DRV links|File:Foo.png|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo}}
* {{DRV links|File:Foobar.jpeg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foobar.jpeg|article=Foo}}
* {{DRV links|File:Fubar.svg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Fubar.svg|article=Foo}}

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~

Images related to foo

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

My goal here was to make these templates easy to use, straightforward, and flexible. If there are no objections then I'll add documentation and update the instructions to say to use these templates instead of the old ones. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection. I certainly know that the templates have tripped me up before. Thanks for work. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two major problems to fix, based on my sandbox testing.
    1. The google cache piece is broken for any namespace. It failed for every example I tried, though the failure pattern is different depending on whether or not there is a space in the full name (namespace name + page name) of the page.
    2. The logs link is broken when a space character appears in the namespace name, namely for any talk namespace other than article talk, but works fine if there is a space character in the page name. GRBerry 17:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing those out! Those issues are now fixed, for example:
    • —Remember the dot (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cache link is still not working, but at least you fixed the space issue. Your cache link does not link to Google's cache, it links to a google search for both the word cache and the page title. This is significantly less useful than the current template. You want a url of the form http://www.google.com/search?q=cache=XXX where XXX is the actual URL the page had when it existed (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page name for article space or or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace:page name for other namespaces).
      • I also think the template should return the AFD link whether or not the nominator supplies an XFD, whether or not there was one is highly relevant information, and we should know whether or not the nominator chooses to point out a particular one. We just have to live with the possibility that the nominator doesn't list one and one later than the first is relevant, but experienced DRV hands already know to look for that. GRBerry 19:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, the cache link works now. I don't want to complicate things by adding too many options or behaviors, but I did add some useful defaults. If the user does not supply an XfD and an AfD or MfD page corresponds to the deleted page, that AfD or MfD page is used for the XfD link. For example:
          Talk:Guns n roses lyrics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
        • So, if you do not see an XfD link, rest assured that there was no AfD or MfD for that page. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks to GRBerry for taking the time to look at these more closely. All the concerns raised have been dealt with to my satisfaction. Pending the raing of additional concerns I believe that these templates are ready to go live. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, I've updated the instructions to say to use the new templates. I've also improved the page header system so that only one line of code appears at the top of each log page instead of 10. Please let me know if there are any problems with the new system. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have our criteria changed?

I've been pretty inactive for a few months, and I'm just starting to get involved in Wikipedia again. Therefore, I'm reluctant to be very assertive about something that may have changed while I wasn't looking. Hence, I'm asking here.

Is it still true that we require articles to be verifiable in independent reliable sources? I ask because I saw an article kept in AfD when nobody even suggested that there was coverage in independent sources. Most arguments ran along the lines of: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so why not keep this one, too? The closing admin told me he closed as no consensus because there were experienced editors on both sides. Apparently whether they were arguing from policy or not just doesn't matter?

So, what's up? Have we started keeping articles whose contents can't be verified in independent sources, and... if so, why? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such change has been made that I've seen, and I'd have surely noticed the kerfluffle such a change would cause.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sensible editor would advocate keeping articles where the subject lacks proper coverage. But, we get lots of clueless people spouting irrelevant nonsense on AFDs. It sucks when admins are among the clueless people, but it happens. Just ignore whoever is clueless and do the right thing. Friday (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was just reluctant to be as BOLD as I normally might, given my recent sabbatical. This is going to make waves, but I think it's worth it: Lsongs. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have not been keeping articles where the contents cannot be verified and I hope we never shall; we have been a little more flexible in keeping articles where the contents have not yet been verified, or where the sources may be somewhat other than the traditional ones. i think thise are positive developments and will rescue good articles. Thonk carefully, please, before you oppose this trend. DGG (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pending status

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review contains a prominent notice that instructs editors to "please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)" before starting a new deletion review. I would like to propose that we begin actually enforcing this notice.

I know that this issue has been discussed on other occasions and there has never been consensus to close DRVs solely because the initiator did not attempt discuss the matter with the closing admin. What I would like to propose is to temporarily place DRVs where there has been no prior attempt to resolve the issue in "pending" status. When a discussion is in pending status, it could look something like this:

Article (pending)

If an informal resolution (i.e. on a talk page, between the closing admin and the initiator of the deletion review) is not reached (within 24 hours, for instance), whether due to disagreement, the closer saying "take it to DRV", or the closer not responding, the discussion can be re-opened (by anyone) and allowed to proceed as normal.

It's an idea that's been in my head for a few days and I want to see what everyone else thinks about it. So, any thoughts? Is it a good idea, a terrible idea, a CREEPy idea, a solution in search of a problem, heresy, and/or proof of God or Satan (that last one probably is heresy in some jurisdictions...)? If there is support for the idea, a few tweaks to the instructions on this page and to Template:DRV top are all that would be needed. If there isn't, that's fine too, as long as you don't burn me at the stake—after all, we have to think of global warming. –Black Falcon (Talk) 08:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment is that 24 hours might be too short. There are one or two admins that have a real life. Or so I've heard... ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will put another, perhaps unneccessary, layer on an already complicated and slightly formalized process. And not always will the people involved like to discuss it with the deleting admin (perceived bias, ownership issues et. al). Lectonar (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This will just be another obstacle. We want to facilitate review of administrative functions... too many wp editors are scared of admins as it is. The message currently used was worked out by Stifle and myself jointly to try to give the right balance of encouragement to ask first without being too forbidding towards those who don't. I think we've got a good balance here and we should continue using it . response in the week or two it has been in effect has been positive. We may have fixed this, and if he and I could actually agree on this after fighting each other for months about it, please give it a chance. If we could agree on this in spite of everything we've said to each other maybe we can go on to solve all the other problems of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG on this one. The current message is more strongly worded than it used to be. If you'd like people to discuss with the admins, you could just follow Stifle's practice of opposing DRV's if the nominator doesn't provide a link to any discussion with the deleting nom.--Aervanath (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was unaware that the current message was the result of months of discussion, and I have no desire to upset the compromise that was reached. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template name

Question: Would it be better to rename {{Deletion review log header}} to {{Deletion review daily header}}, and create a {{Deletion review monthly header}} for the monthly log pages? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notification

I've now had two AfD closes go to DRV and not known about them - one of them closed before I found out it had even opened. Is it a requirement for the closing admin to be notified or not? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement, but certainly normally an expectation. As a counter-example, if the nomination is "the AFD was closed correctly, but I've found this additional information..." then the AFD is not under challenge and the AFD closer's opinion is neither more nor less valuable than anybody elses. And lately there has been a stronger push to get people to talk to AFD closing admins before opening a DRV, which may be leading to less attention to notifying closers after a DRV is opened than there used to be. Lovely little statistics challenge there if anyone wants to pick it up. GRBerry 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My close was challenged at the DRV for Alexis Grace, and I only found out about it by chance yesterday morning (UTC) after it had close. Which was a shame, as I was asked to consider all kinds of things in that debate and never got the chance. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not AfD2

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question. Please feel free to move if another place is more appropriate.

It is often stated that this isn't AfD2. However, this raises a question (which has seen some discussion in a recent DrV). Articles can (and are) sent to AfD many times. Sometimes they are deleted after many keep results. Say that there was nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. Can it ever legitimately come to DrV? After all things can change. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not AFD2 is a shorthand way of saying that the issues to discuss here are different from those to be discussed at AFD. If an article was kept at AFD and there is nothing procedurally/substantively wrong with the AFD or its close, then AFD remains the proper venue if things change. If an article was deleted at AFD, and new data has come to light - e.g. new sourcing for someone whose career has progressed - then it may or may not be appropriate to bring it to DRV. If an editor can write a new article that would escape WP:CSD#G4 and the page is not salted, it is usually better to do so than to bring it to DRV. If the editor is not certain if the new sources are enough or if the page is salted, then DRV could well be a good idea. GRBerry 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if the AfD result was just wrong? As noted before, people who feel "keep" results are wrong can (and do) bring them back to AfD (again and again and again) until they get the result they want. Assuming we had the "perfect" article on a topic and it got deleted (which could happen if notability was in debate) what is the process for trying to bring it back? As WP:CCC, there needs to be a way. Hobit (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define wrong? If you mean "I" disagree with the result, then that's pretty much what the not AfD2 is about. If you mean the argument wasn't weighed fairly or in line with general community consensus (as is tied up in our body of policy and guidelines as well as the debate itself) then that's DRV fodder, but there can be a fine line between the two. I can sympathise with the repeat AfD issue, though I was of the impression that relisting frequently when previous debates have been clear keep (rather than borderline or no-consensus) and very quickly after the last debate are often seen as disruptive (e.g. WP:POINT gaming the system). I'm not sure I agree that notibility should skew a debate so far that the only way to revive it is to bring it to DRV without further input. The things will be (i) If it's notable then in the intervening time there is likely to be more coverage about it, so more sourcing etc. to meet the WP:GNG, i.e. the reasons for deletion are overcome so either review or recreation are in order (recreation with the new sourcing that is.) (ii) in terms of the more general change of consensus, this maybe another reason to bring something to DRV, but not just a vague handwave towards CCC, show some evidence that consensus has indeed shifted, if the notability guideline has changed then show that in the DRV request, if a slew of recent and obviously similar articles have been kept at a deletion debate, then show that etc. The main thing is it shouldn't just be bringing up the same arguements about the same material which have already reached a consensus at AfD --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just recently I saw something deleted on AfD 4 (or 5?) and the !vote consensus was keep. It happens and in fact the admin discounted "NOTAGAIN" as a weak argument to keep. So if we are going to allow that kind of thing, we should be allowing DrV as AfD2. Or just not allow that kind of thing. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem is that why would we have DRV as AfD2? We'd just allow relisting at AfD, entertaining the same basic argument in 2 venues is pointless and likely to lead to more inconsistency in the process. There are also people who will read an argument there way regardless (or have some vested interest etc.) we don't want to be contintually revisting the same debate. Could AfD really take being inundated with replays of the 1000 upon 1000 of debates someone thought was just wrong? Regardless DRV has no special say, it couldn't decide that it can now replace it's AfD argument with the real one, you'd need to start a separate community to debate to reach consensus on that.
Regarding NOTAGAIN there are a couple of things, if the admin gave it too much weight (in this instance against) then that maybe a DRV issue anyway. Without seeing the debate it's hard to tell, but if someone genuinely raised new deletion issues then people failing to respond to those new issues is of course pretty weak, "we said last time that it is verifiable, so we aren't going to check if it's OR" is weak, if the deletion request was pretty much the same as a recent one, then references to the recent devate should be fine. If you want to change the perception of NOTAGAIN, then here is not the place, but a debate elsewhere showing a community consensus that they think it has a better amount of weight would certainly change things. (Remeber policy/guideline based arguements in debates get more weight because they reflect the broader community consensus). And there is of course the opportunity to educate people that NOTAGAIN arguments are often seen as weak. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review&oldid=280812390"