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 GoodDaz (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 24 February 2012 (→‎{{Help me}}: new section). 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

How are re-directs enforced?

I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews and cannot see a description of what happens when an administrator's decision calls for a re-direct. What happens to the contents of the deleted page? Is it automatically included in the page the deleted article has been re-directed to? If not who takes care of making sure the contents are not lost? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misunderstanding your question, but the history of an article replaced with a redirect is still available in the article history of the redirect. While not a deleted article, here's an example of what that looks like: [1] (for the redirect here: [2] ) Did that answer your question? --j⚛e deckertalk 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although some admins (including myself) do, on occasion, delete the article before creating the redirect. In those circumstacnes the page history isn't viewabe.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, many respondents suggest some variation on "merge & redirect", in which content from the redirected article be incorporated into the redirect target. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the case I was inquiring about - one where the decision is to merge&redirect. What happens to the contents of such an article? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell whether my question is too basic and as such does not require an answer, or whether there is simply no one here with the knowledge to reply. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any user may follow Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger to merge the nominated article into the target article. --Bsherr (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review shouldn't end with such a decision. AFD's tend to end up with one of two "real" outcomes, one involves deleting the article, one involves leaving it in place. A merge outcome means that a deletion won't occur, since (a) the content can't be merged if it's deleted and (b) if a merge occurs, in order to retain the original authors attribution the original page history needs to stay in place. A merge outcome doesn't require the admin who closes it do the work and usually they won't, it's up to those who think the merge is a good idea to do the real work (so perhaps no one will do the work, or may not do it for a long time). As a note merge isn't really a deletion discussion outcome, it's more an editorial decision, so a later editiorial decision can of course undo it, or a merge can happen without going through a deletion discussion. To expand on why deletion review wouldn't end up in such a decision - Assume the article was deleted at AFD, DRV may overturn that outcome which would involve restoring the article, after that any decision to merge is an editorial decision, not something DRV would dicate. On the other hand if the AFD ended up with a keep and some thought it should be a merge, then DRV wouldn't look at that, since it's a purely editorial decision which doesn't require the use of the administrative deletion tools. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 82.7.40.7 - I don't remember seeing a Merge as a possible outcome. So how come some deletion discussions end with this type of decision? (sorry for the delay - I was away for a couple of months) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and sometimes redirects are a form of keep. It's just a keep with a consensus to go a certaibn direction editorially. So with a merge the history is kept and it's up to an interested party to merge in the info. It's not too much different than if there was a talk page discussion where there was consensus to merge the article with another.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with Merge decisions is that they do not specify who will carry out the Merge. This can be a problem when all participants in the deletion discussion are of back-seat drivers variety. No one volunteers to do the Merge work, even if they voted for this option, so the end result materializes into a Delete - not a Merge.Ottawahitech (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a problem with unexecuted mergers. While talk page discussions may get better participation from the articles' editors, this problem not limited to mergers decided at AfD. A forced redirect is not a delete, since the history is available under it. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WT:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect shows wide support for merge and redirect as valid AfD outcomes. The RfC hasn't been closed yet, so feel free to weigh in. It's less common, but DRV does distinguish between keep and merge, such as WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 10#Mims–Pianka controversy. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went to WT:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect but right at the top of the page it says the discussion is already closed. What am I missing? Is there still a way to participate? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion. It had been sitting unclosed for over a week despite a request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard, so I assumed that it would remain open a while longer. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed between when Flatscan posted above and when you looked. Timestamps indicate this fairly clearly. As for a way to participate, I somehow doubt that you could by yourself change the long-held consensus that redirect and merge are valid ways to close an AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for educating me about time stamps. You say it is clear, but since I still have not figured out all the intricacies of Wikipedia even after being around for a few years, I had to drill thru all the (many) recent edits one by one to find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_deletion&action=historysubmit&diff=416053357&oldid=416021031 And yes, I agree, my voice probably does not count for a lot here at Wikipedia, but it does not stop me from trying :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G4 (copied from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 4#Carli Banks)

  • Comment Note that the article survived a prior AfD and is not eligible for speedy deletion of any sort, including G4, per WP:CSD. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very extreme interpretation of CSD as it was deleted after the second AFD so you cannot possibly argue that it is wrong to G4 something because there was a prior discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very bad faith not to mention AfD #2, which resulted in a delete, clemens. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to assume that you missed AfD #2. Because otherwise, if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, any article that survives at least one AfD can be recreated at will. I'm not going to mention specific articles, but anyone with any sense of Wikipedia's history will know what I'm talking about and why that this is an incredibly bad idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To reply to all three at once: 1) It's not extreme, it's a plain reading of WP:CSD, which says, and has for some time now, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." It could say, but does not, "If a page as survived an immediately prior deletion discussion". A previous discussion, at WT:CSD, failed to achieve consensus for a change to this wording just a couple of months ago. Thus, it doesn't matter how many additional deletion discussions have happened, per the current wording of CSD, it wasn't eligible. No assumption of bad faith or overlooking the second deletion discussion is necessary to my point, because a subsequent deletion discussion, closed as delete, doesn't erase the first one. If there hadn't even been a second discussion, just an outright G4 without any prior deletion AfD, this would be an entirely different conversation. Spartaz and Tarc, you are welcome to post appropriate retractions and apologies. IronGargoyle, you bring up a good point, but one that can be dealt with without needing a change to CSD: if there has been a previous deletion discussion survived, then one that an article should be deleted, it may then be appropriate to discuss WP:SALTing. Absent that, the CSD process expects that once something has been kept in a deletion discussion, it will forever after get the benefit of an AfD discussion. That's not so unreasonable or extreme: if consensus can change, then the expectation that consensus can change back does not require much imagination. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Previous discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#G4 clarification. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • This might need separate discussion. Let's just say that I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation where, and only where, (1) the article in question is a BLP, or (2) the most recent deletion has been confirmed via DRV. I agree with Jclemens' interpretation in other cases, because for low-risk material has been kept once and then deleted once, then it's reasonable to presume the matter's borderline and the consensus could have changed again.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you're right that this needs a separate discussion, S Marshall. Thank you to Jclemens for pointing out that language in the preamble of the CSD policy. My thoughts, however, are that specific criteria overrule general principles (but I could see how a reasonable person could disagree on this point). If we leave G4 relatively toothless for multiple-AfD articles, as Jclemens would suggest, it doesn't encourage the improvement of the article (and over time our editorial criteria should become stronger). I don't think it's unreasonable that we should expect ANY article to be substantively improved for restoration if it fails ANY AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • When we prevent G4 for multiple AfDs where one was a keep, almost all will be one keep and one delete and there is no reason to suppose the later decision invariably the better. It would not discourage the improvement of articles--repeated re-creation without improvement often leads to salting at the subsequent afd. The idea is that if a prior AfD any time said keep, then it is not a rationally incontestable deletion, for at least one closer thought otherwise. Multiple AfDs bias the process to deletion; this decreases the bias, but it is still be biased that way. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The problem is that denying G4 in multiple-AfD cases relegates the later AfDs into near meaninglessness. It turns them into a glorified PROD. I also don't think that it necessarily biases the process towards deletion as you assert. Consider that many repeated nominations attract speedy keep !votes. In many cases, this is despite legitimate flaws in the article that should indeed warrant deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, repeated deletion via AfD sets the stage for SALTing. SALTing is even a better outcome than endlessly repeated deletions per G4, if the same unacceptable content is repeatedly submitted by different users. (If it is the same user, you have a behavioural issue, not a CSD issue.) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I agree about the merits of SALTing, SmokeyJoe. In common practice though, SALTing is applied following the course of a speedy deletion (i.e. CSD G4), so it doesn't seem like good practice to take that point away. Now, I do think that CSD G4 is often misapplied (and consequently reviewed at DRV), but that is more of a function of failure to review past revisions in cases where there is substantive improvement of the articles in question. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (moved from specific article discussion) I don't think it does. Repeated AfDs tend to have an air of stare decisis about them, where a nominator is expected to put forth a compelling argument why the previous consensus was incorrect. Failing a good rationale (and given adequate AfD participation), the decision is often reconfirmed by the new AfD. Thus, there is some amount of churn on repeated nominations, but not significantly more or more futile when a previous deletion discussion has been "keep" or "delete". Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 and Generalia specialibus non derogant (need a separate article for that). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that IronGargoyle's interpretation may be based on a fear of what can happen with extreme cases. I think what IronGargoyle may have had in mind is a certain often-AfD'd BLP about a man whose initials are DB, or similar cases, and in those cases he has a truly excellent point.

    However, hard cases make bad law, and the slippery slope argument is a kind of informal fallacy. DGG's remark above is very cogent. If we decide that an article that's once been deleted at AfD can be G4'ed ad infinitum thereafter, then are we not overruling the principle that consensus can change? Speedy deletion should surely be reserved for blindingly obvious cases, and material that's survived AfD at one point may be assumed not to be blindingly obvious. In those cases G4 should surely be restricted to copy/paste recreations, or other extremely similar recreations, of the deleted material.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that this has been copied over into this forum I will post my fuller views here. Jclemens' interpretation of G4 is not consistent with the words of G4 nor a common sense application of G4 in light of its purpose. It would permit an article to be recreated at any time after a clear consensus to delete it, without any improvement. The view that if there have been multiple discussions with different outcomes means the article is marginal and should be ineligible for speedy deletion overlooks (1) consensus not only changes, it gets better over time as our decision-making processes mature; and (2) "no consensus defaults to keep" is the mechanism we have to ensure that genuinely marginal articles are kept (DGG's claims of a "bias" to deletion are rendered nonsensical by this defaulting). The community's consensus should always be measured, definitively, by the outcome of the most recent consensus-building process. Now of course consensus can change to inclusion, but we have mechanisms to deal with that: either the article can be substantially improved and avoid G4, or a DRV can be brought to question the previous consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you understand DGG's point to be, Mkativerata? (DGG's given in shorthand here something that he's explained at great length elsewhere, so misunderstanding is very possible.) I believe that what DGG's saying is far from nonsensical. It seems to me to follow from Wikipedia's custom and practice at AfD that an article that's put through AfD enough times is going to be deleted regardless of its merits, simply because the outcome of an AfD depends so much on who shows up to discuss it, and (dare I say it) whether it's a deletionist who closes it, too. After about five or six AfDs the probability of at least one "delete" consensus approaches unity, irrespective of the actual content under consideration.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's interesting, given your frequent participation at DRV. I find your trust in your fellow Wikipedians heartwarming, and I admire your ability to see so many DRVs without losing faith in the AfD process. But personally I find that my own participation at DRV has led me to believe the proportion of bad decisions is unacceptably high.—S Marshall T/C 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to find most bad calls at DRV are on speedy deletions; very few AfD closes get overturned and when they do it's often for a reason unrelated to the closing admin's performance. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you talking about bad calls occurring at AfD/Speedy that get reviewed at DRV? Or are you talking about bad calls by DRV closers? In either case, I don't share your cynicism, S Marshall. If it is the former you are concerned about, I think the opposite is actually happening. I could be misreading things, but I perceive a noticeable decrease in the number of pages that show up at DRV on a daily basis, versus several years ago. Other areas of Wikipedia may be a worse battleground now, but I don't think that is true at DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm talking about the former. DRVs are generally closed well, even when I don't agree with the outcome.

    I think "cynicism" is perhaps a bit strong. I'm concerned about FairProcess but the main reason I participate in DRV is because I don't believe AfD closers always get it right. I think the proportion of bad closes to good ones could be improved. And should be improved. I feel our (largely well-meaning) admin corps contains individuals who occasionally rush AfD closures a bit too much, and this bears watching. I also think that sometimes, the discussion itself is inadequate or fails to find an important point. I don't accept that this is "cynicism" and I'm somewhat surprised that others who participate in DRV don't seem to see it that way—why else participate in DRV?

    I agree that there are fewer pages showing up at DRV than a few years ago but I think this correlates with the decline in the number of new editors that Wikipedia's experiencing (which is itself a worrying problem and I think it's partly because most of the important articles have been written now, but also partly because after so many years of WP:CREEP new participants can't make head nor tail of the labyrinthine bureaucracy we've built up and they give up.) I think, too, there's less willingness to discuss administrative decisions because they're increasingly seen as beyond appeal. And I've just seen evidence that there are administrators who think that too. Last night, an administrator came to my talk page apparently in order to tell me that he agreed with my non-admin closure of an AfD, so he wasn't going to reverse me. (Peculiar.) His opinion seemed to be that only administrators are allowed judge consensus. In the Wikipedia I remember joining, the rule was that anyone can judge consensus but only administrators are allowed to delete material.

    In short, I think we're inadvertently evolving towards a culture where administrators are no longer ordinary users with extra tools, and have become mandarins. DRV is an important counter to that, and the decline in the number of cases being brought here is of concern to me because of that. I'm even more anxious to see that anyone who comes here goes away feeling that they've had a fair hearing and the closure has been properly examined rather than simply rubber-stamped.—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree with Mkativerata 21:42, 6 November 2010 "The community's consensus should always be measured, definitively". Consensus is not measurable definitively, short of unanimously, and consensus is not unanimity. Requiring definitive consensus would prevent timely decision making. AfDs often close with sparse input. An old AfD represents consensus only per WP:SILENCE. If a subsequent AfD comes to a consensus that the previous Afd was not (or is no longer) correct, then consensus is clearly found in only the latter AfD. Arguments in the former AfD must be addressed in the latter.
However, I do, like Mkativerata, have faith in experienced-wikipedian AfD participants and closing admins. Inaccurate presentation of facts, or policy, or bad faith arguments, and bad closing, are all resoundingly counseled as required by DRV discussions, and such problems are not the norm.
Most admins seem know good content and to readily recognize when a new re-creation should, or should not be G4-ed. But should anyone disagree with the deletion, and the G4 deleting admin insists or doesn't respond, then WP:DRV welcomes such questions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intent/purpose of the criteria is the key thing,, given these pages get edited/tweaked all the time and those tweaks can in subtle ways alter the meaning, getting tied up in precise wording is pointless, not to mention policy is descriptive not prescriptive. CSD in generals purpose is to allow immediate removal of material where it is a broad agreement aren't "permitted". G4 as a specific criteria is to prevent recreation of material where a deletion debate determined it wasn't "appropriate" for wikipedia. In that intent I cannot see any difference between something allowed to be kept once (or no consensus) and that always deteled. The plain intent of the criteria seems clear to me.
That "consensus can change" would be undermined is a nonsensical argument to me. I can see it (though disagree) with relation to G4 as a whole, but not relative to this loophole. Are we saying "consensus can change only if we once decided to keep, or couldn't reach a consensus, however if we decide it should be deleted in all discussions, then consensus can't change...", of course not, the principal of consensus can change should hold in either case and if we see G4 as a restriction on that then G4 itself is the problem regardless of deletion debate outcomes. That said "consensus can change" as I've said before as a bare argument with no "evidence" that it has is a rather impotent argument. We wouldn't/shouldn't entertain relisting of items for deletion in case consensus has changed since last time around, nor should we in terms of recreation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reinforce my comments in the DRV. Its ridiculous process to argue that you can't G4 something deleted at AFD because an earlier discussion was keep. Stuff gets kept all the time that should be deleted and standards have moved significantly over the last few years. Something kept as notable 4-5 years ago because enough people said its notable would be deleted now because the community has moved on and users now expect actual sources to demonstrate notability rather the assurances they exist. If there is a problem with a G4 DRV can easily send any new sources for discussion and I would expect admins to have the sense to AFD rather the G4 if there is an improvement in sourcing anyway. Anything that add additional hurdles to G4 is process for process sake adding unnecessary complexity to an already unwieldy and confusing set of conflicting rules and regulations. Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quaint that you think it's ridiculous, but it also happens to be the clear wording straight from WP:CSD. Several other editors, besides just me, have explained why it makes sense, and why it's not the tragedy you think it must be. More importantly, you appear to be advocating that DRV judge the content of an article, rather than the process. Is that your understanding of DRV? Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two things relating to this. First, the words of WP:CSD are mutable. I hold, therefore, that quoting from it is not necessarily meaningful, but rather the intent behind the words is. It is my reading of CSD that the intent is to prevent deletions by it that are even vaguely contentious, regardless of all external circumstances, as you are suggesting. If this interpretation no longer has consensus, that is in itself an issue to correct, but this is not the best place to be so doing.
        Second, I have never been lead to believe that the job of DRV is anything other than correct mistakes, regardless of where the mistakes originate, especially given that few new users who bring issues to DRV read the instructions and "What is this page for?" section. It strikes me as silly not to consider the content of the article, just as it strikes me as silly not to consider the processes by which it was deleted before being brought here. Both are important, in differing amounts based on the exact circumstances, and neither should be viewed in isolation, lest the results here be so divorced from reality as to be unusable.
        On a side note, the above debate seems to highlight a problem with the wording of parts of WP:CSD rather than anything else. Perhaps a discussion at WT:CSD would be fruitful? lifebaka++ 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I ask about process vs. content, because the "DRV is not AfD round two" mantra is often used against editors who point out legitimate deficiencies in argumentation in an appealed (hence previously closed) AfD. I have no particular opinion, but there are a number of users who seem to alternatively argue "The process was valid, we're not here to revisit the outcome" or "The process was wrong, but the outcome was still valid". Both cannot be right: either DRV is the point of appeal of all encyclopedia-damaging outcomes, or it's not. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jclemens, could you point out these "Several other editors" supporting your interpretation? Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (Moved and indented the above to keep threads together) I said "seem" vs. providing specific examples for a couple of reasons: it's a side topic that I think should be solved in generalities vs. accusing any particular editor(s) of improper behavior (especially since the "impropriety" is up for discussion), and because I don't keep track of who said what when, so what you're getting is an impression, rather than a specific recollection. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV is inevitably going to become a bit process driven but policy is what we do as much as what is written and I think Lifebaka has it right. The issue is that G4 needs a better description not that we should restore and AFD a BLP without any realistic reliable sources when it has already been deleted on notability grounds and nothing has changed. Spartaz Humbug! 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "BLP deleted on notability grounds" is an argument for what, exactly? To me, it seems obvious that such a matter can afford more debate than a BLP deleted on BLP grounds, yes? Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that only the most recent deletion discussion should be considered for G4 eligibility. If the page is recreated unchanged, the last XfD still applies, regardless of whether there was a non-delete discussion in its history. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the problem is the definition of "unchanged". If you're talking a character-for-character recreation, I agree. If you're talking about a different article which "doesn't address the cause for the original deletion", that's more of a subjective matter, and subjective matters should generally go to AfD rather than a speedy. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, in some cases, the wording of G4 has been interpreted to allow rather large amounts of admin discretion inconsistent with CSD in general. I think any problems there should be addressed on a case-by-case basis at DRV. My objection to this "survived a prior deletion discussion" loophole is that it doesn't differentiate identical recreations – any G4 (any speedy except G12) is invalid, period. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit I only skimmed through this discussion, but are people seriously arguing that you can't G4 anything if a deletion discussion on that page has ever ended in keep? That's plain ridiculous. Let me show you why in an example that such an interpretation of G4 cannot work. Article A is kept in 2005 in a 2 keep, 2 delete discussion where the closing admin merely looked at the numbers and not strength of arguments, but the discussion was never brought to DRV. Let's go further and say that Wikipedia policy has changed since the debate and the article unambiguously would not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion by today's standards. Let's say in 2006 another AfD is started, with a unanimous group of 10 users all giving well reasoned arguments for why it should be deleted. Now, in 2010, someone recreates the page substantially identical to the original. Someone would seriously suggest we cannot G4 the article? Let's pretend that such an interpretation of G4 is the rule. We bring it to AFD, wait 7 days, and finally get it deleted. Then another user (or the same user) comes along and re-creates the article, proclaiming it cannot be deleted without a deletion discussion. AfD, 7 days, repeat. Basically this interpretation would allow a user or users to game the system to keep pages on Wikipedia indefinitely, as they could be immediately recreated after deletion so long as the page has ever had a keep result. This interpretation cannot be in the spirit of G4, regardless of the wording, and as such I will continue to G4 things that have been kept at one point, so long as the most recent discussion has resulted in deletion. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, policy and guideline pages are generally supposed to follow common practice, and not usually the other way round. So if the text on this page doesn't reflect common practice, it should be changed. - jc37 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. The problem is, in this and previous discussions, there's no consensus for a change: some would like the change in wording to be made to align with the practice they prefer, while others believe the applications of G4 in line with the desired (vs. current) wording to be inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that people still believe that consensus = some discussion/straw poll. Consensus is reflected actually what we have done and continue to do as normal practice. Interestingly enough the change which move the CSD page towards that description here as the edit summary notes was done by one editor when no one engaged in discussion on it. It was further revised to add the clause regarding copyvio's again without any discussion. So by the logic that we need some discussions to form the consensus to change the actual illegitimate policy is the one currently written as essentially being the product of two editors. To be clear I don't believe it to be illegitimate in that as consensus is reflected due to the fact that is the common practice, as it the common practice that G4 is applicable regardless of older keep discussions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a heads up, I intend to send this dispute back to WT:Criteria for speedy deletion in the next few days, unless there is a sudden burst of activity here. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll see your proposal, and raise you a suggestion that we make it a full RfC and advertise it at WP:CENT to get a good, community-wide set of input. I endorse and understand the way it currently is worded, but don't think it will be the end of the world if it's changed. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or we could just do it the way the change was done in the first place... Above "Except that multiple discussions have failed to repudiate the 2007 change." - it'll be for those who don't like it to gain consensus to change it back, since you appear to endorse that mechanism. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) You're an IP. Register or log if you want to be taken seriously in a policy discussion. 2) The edit summary indicated that the change was discussed on talk without objections. 3) BRD if you want (and if you can--is it semiprotected?). I'll revert, and we're right back to where we are now. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tut tut! If you aren't taking people seriously because they don't have accounts, then it is not they that need to change anything. Anyway, surely a Deletion Review regular would recognize 82.7.40.7? I know that I do, not least because of the disturbing number of times that we seem to be in agreement. ☺ I'd like xem to get an account too. But not because I don't take xem and what xe writes seriously, but because I'd find a name easier to remember than a number. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Anonymous editors are always welcome to improve articles, hence my emphasizing the word "policy". If a user doesn't want to self-identify, even pseudonymously, then his lack of investments undermines his expectation of input into site policy and governance, as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • (1) My status as an IP is irrelevant, I'm happy to accept that in certain areas I don't qualify for a vote (arbcom elections etc.), however in any discussion it's what's being said which is important not who is saying it, registered users can make as equally bad or good arguments as non registered. Frankly I couldn't care less if it makes my input lesser in your view, thankfully you don't speak for the whole of wikipedia yet. (2) The edit summary indicated no response, that's not a consensus and it wasn't a discussion as widely broadcast as you seem to be suggesting is appropriate for the subject matter. (3) Regarding just changing it, it wasn't a serious point as I've said many times now, the broad view of it I'm perfectly happy with and I believe has consensus by virtue of what is commonly enforced. I guess your confidence that your interpretation regarding G4 is widely supported isn't that great you think you could actually obtain consensus to implement it today, you'd rather rely on the "keep the status quo" mentality which is a much easier bar to meet. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • To your last point, why on earth would any editor suggest that his own interpretation, consistent with current wording, expect any other treatment? There's no question in my mind that the biggest problem with CSD in general is the number of trigger-happy people who want to use it for things that don't merit it. In full disclosure, I was one of these when I was first highly active about three years ago. I've since come to understand the damage that bad CSDs can do, but many other editors and administrators are not as enlightened. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not going to labour the point on policy forming any further, I guess you either can't see what I'm getting at or don't want to. On your other point once again the discussion is about the interpretation in regard to G4 when the previous AFD returned delete but one prior to that returned keep or no-consensus. Tyring to convert that into a discussion about CSD being applied incorrectly elsewhere is at best disingenuous. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • RfC, CENT, and anything else from WP:Publicising discussions is fine. I think that we should draft a combined presentation including both sides and release it for discussion all at once. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it amusing that people think that we should keep quiet about some aspects of this because we don't want people stuffing beans up their noses. A little history should help: These speedy deletion criteria came about in the first place in part because people had already discovered how to tie Votes for deletion in knots through its own process. There really isn't anything to hide, here. Troublemakers knew how they could use the rules here to make trouble years ago. It wasn't exactly a secret unknown to the masses that if an article got deleted through VFD, they could just paste the wikitext back in and re-create the article afresh. (I've done my share of history-only undeletions in cases where people did that, in order that the edit history not falsely attribute the entire content to the re-creator. Indeed, some people contest Proposed Deletion after the fact in this very way.) There was a time in our history where MediaWiki didn't have creation protection. These mechanisms have been reactions, to people already knowing how to do the things that you're worried about talking about. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you suggesting that G4 should be eliminated in favor of create protection, now that we have Mediawiki create protection? Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now's the time to call BEANS!—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. The availability of both approaches allows one to tailor an approach to circumstances. I think that a choice of approaches is a good thing, here. There's a spectrum of circumstances, ranging from the innocent "Where did that article go that I wrote six months ago?" re-creation to the disruptive vandal who insists upon re-creating bad content on a non-subject. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs of people under 18

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Skomorokh 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make an addition to the "Principal purpose - challenging deletion discussions" section

I propose we make an addition at Wikipedia:Drv#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions changing it to the following (addition in italics):

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

  1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
  2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
  3. Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
  4. Deletion Review may be used if an editor believes consensus has changed regarding previously deleted content.
  5. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

(suggestions for changes or additions to the wording are welcome)

Basically, this is in response to several editors complaining that there is no real venue to discuss reversing a past decision that is 100% procedurally correct, where no new information has come to light such as the case for #3. An example would be a category being deleted ages ago, only for the trend to actually come back to that naming scheme for similar categories, but not being able to recreate the particular category in question because it would be subject to G4 deletion. In my experience there's generally been confusion when such nominations are brought to DRV, with people saying overturn for completely procedurally correct closures, or endorsing the deletion because it was procedurally correct, without regard to if consensus has changed or not. In theory, the proper responses would be "keep deleted, consensus hasn't changed" or "allow recreation, consensus has changed" (followed by reasons, of course). I would say if we didn't allow this at DRV, it would be ignoring the principle that consensus can change. VegaDark (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd object to the change in wording, though not the principal. I don't think mere "belief" should the threshold, it would need to (a) have a sensible gap since the original discussion (b) present some reasonable evidence that consensus has changed (e.g. subsequent change in guidelines/policy or several similar discussions which have occurred since that ended in a different debate).
So something like Deletion Review may be used for historic deleted content, if there is strong, recent evidence that consensus has changed.
The terms historic, strong and recent are of course a bit loose, but that can be expanded upon in the mass of other text we have.
I don't think that you could have the "consensus has/hasn't changed" responses in general since it's not really for DRV to dictate that it has or hasn't changed, more that sufficent reason has been presented to suggest it has. (I know this is quibbling about wording, I'm just trying to forsee the confusion which arises, when someone lists one of these at xFD and start saying the DRV has said there is consensus to keep). To that end I guess I'd see the standard three responses, Endorse, Overturn and Relist, the first being for no real sign that consensus has changed, the second when there is a particularly strong case and the third for the borderline where pushing it back to xFD to decide immediately seems the best option.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make some good points, but I'm not sure I'd make it quite as restrictive as requiring it be historic, there be strong and recent evidence that consensus has changed. For instance, there could be old evidence that nobody ever noticed, or could have come about when interested parties were on an extended Wikibreak and brought it up as soon as they got back. Basically, I'd support a "historic" deletion (although how old? A year?) and strong evidence that consensus has changed (how "strong" the evidence is seems to be more of a decision for the DRV rather than using it as a barrier to even start a DRV, however, so I might simply make this "reasonable evidence" or something along those lines), but to require the evidence be "recent" seems somewhat unneeded. In any case, I highly doubt that even adding this provision as-is in my original wording would cause a flood of DRV nominations or anything. VegaDark (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we know there are some people who will look at the wording very literally, and then in the future will use the established wording to push a view point, rather than looking to the real intent. They'll then rely on the conservative "keep the status quo until there is a consensus otherwise" to enforce that. So unforunately (and belive me I really don't like it) spending some time on getting "good" wording is worth the effort. Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't cause a stream of new DRVs - what I was really trying to avoid was it becoming a possible 2nd xFD. We get a few where people just don't like the original outcome and we say not xFD round 2 and send them on their way, if they can just change that to "I belive consensus has changed" then we'd end up doing just that. The recent was more about it being since the original deletion took place - i.e. it's "changed" in the period since the deletion, it's not people dragging up older arguments. I have some thoughts on your other points which I'll think through a bit further and comment later. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further thoughts. As my original comment I suspect whatever we put in the summary is going to have a level of vagueness about it and experience suggests people don't necessarily read all the supporting stuff, so I favour making a fair indication that a consensus can change argument has to be well founded, not merely an excuse to try and reargue an AFD. The words of Recent, Strong and Historic I chose were to try and suggest some broad principals, I'd define them as "Recent" - essentially stuff since this was last debated, be that an AFD debate or DRV debate. "Strong" - ok this is a harder one to define and of course you are correct that ultimately DRV would debate the strength, I'm not sure "Reasonable" is much better for defining the requirement. What I was really trying to get at is that we wouldn't want something relisted frequently on the basis of any debate which is just vaguely similar turning a different result. maybe "significant"? "Historic" - again for me this is a difficult one, I'm not sure setting a time limit is in and of itself useful, this almost comes back around to the "strong" bit, if there are a lot of very similar discussions going the other way then an earlier rather than later listing would seem reasonable, so saying 1 year in some cases will be far too long. On the other hand we don't want it listed a week after the deletion with weak arguments... All in all I was trying to mirror a bit how I perceive it would be for re-AFDing an article. In that case I'd expect a new debate to be started only if some significant reason to believe the debate will end differently has come to light, I'd expect that has come about since the AFD closed, not someone going and digging back through historical debate and I'd expect the time between listings to be based on the strength i.e. something which closed as no-consensus a month ago and since then a flurry of similar articles have been deleted through AFD, then relisting is probably reasonable, whilst something which was closed as keep where there have been one or two inconsistent results since, should probably not be relisted. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...I kind of forgot about this discussion. Six months later and I stumble upon it again. I still support making this change in some form, although I don't see an easy way to word this that could satisfy all concerns. Perhaps "If an editor has an objectively reasonable belief that consensus has changed regarding previously deleted content and an objectively reasonable amount of time has passed since the last discussion." - Sure, there are plenty of people that might assert that their belief is subjectively reasonable, but the community will have to agree for it to be objective. This will allow for speedy closes for stuff that obviously doesn't fit. This would also account for unique situations where perhaps an immediate DRV is justified based on new info coming to light. Once again I'm not liking the wording 100% but suggestions are welcome. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worst Actor Golden Raspberry Award winners

I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion.

As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of copying this to today's DRV log page, where it will get more attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have subsequently found that an appeal was already filed in this case and have copied my remarks there. However my remarks here were intended to point out, to the folks who are more regular practitioners of this deletion process, this particularly egregious example of the abuse of this process. It may have seemed rhetorical, but I sincerely hope the folks who enjoy spending their time searching for articles and categories to delete rethink this process. Trackinfo (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions don't make any sense to me. For several reasons. (1) It's not a vote, it's about strength of argument so throwing up numbers of votes doesn't make much sense. (2) It's stuff which is listed for deletio, so being suprised that they often do get deleted seems a rather naive viewpoint. By it's very nature people won't list them unless they think they don't meet the standards and therefore are likely to be delete, more experienced editors will have a better idea about what it/isn't within the communities standards so will likely be more accurate in their listings... It's then of no suprise that stuff that is listed for deletion regularly gets deleted. You need to consider the vast quantity of stuff out there which never gets listed for deletion in the first place... (3) The idea that there are a set of people called deletionist out there who will just opine to delete anything is ridiculous, sure people vary on the scale of what is/isn't suitable for inclusion as a general trend, but no guarantee that you can get x to come along an support your view on a given topic. (4) If it were being delayed to let some more people come along and opine for deletion, why bother? Why setup this mass conspiracy, if you can organsise that you have enough control to just delete the stuff without a debate? It is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I doubt there is anyone who enjoys spending time hunting stuff down for deletion, believe it or not most people actively involved in the project believe they are contributing to improving the encyclopedia in one way or another, I'm sure if you asked the people you are targeting they'd say, I wish these people would stop creating this stuff in the first place, make my life far more enjoyable... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Template:Delrevafd applicable for all types of DRV discussions?

See User talk:Bsherr for the full discussion:

Is Template:Delrevafd applicable for all types of DRV discussions? One type involves an XfD being reviewed, while the second involves reviews of {{db-repost}} deletions or when possibly new information about a topic deleted at XfD has come to light.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet, Bsherr (talk · contribs) has removed all the Delrevafd templates I placed on it because the deletion reviews are not directly reviewing the AfD. I have tagged the AfD with the Delrevafd template to allow DRV participants to know how many times Mikie Da Poet has been brought to DRV and to prevent gaming of the system.

Bsherr advocates for using two templates to tag the two types of XfD discussions, the second of which would be Template:Olddrvfull. I do not see any need to distinguish between the two types of DRV discussions and oppose this change as needless complication of the deletion review process.

The current wording of Template:Delrevafd states that "This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on Date". This is true for both types of DRV discussions. The discussion is being reviewed to see 1) if it is correct or 2) if it is still applicable in light of new information. One template should suffice. Cunard (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to removing DRV templates, Bsherr recently posted in a DRV discussion, "DRV does not review articles for recreation, WP:AFC does."[3] In regards to Template:Delrevafd, the Mikie Da Poet case makes it clear why there needs to be one location, the AfD, listing all of the DRV discussions. However, the template should further be revised to fix the appearance issue as seen here, such as
Consensus at DRV is not a XfD2 consensus. Rather, DRV uses an underlying XfD consensus discussion to make decisions, no matter they "type" of DRV request listed at DRV. Since G4 references "a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion," it is appropriate to use Template:Delrevafd on the underlying AfD page when the topic is listed at DRV. Also, when possibly new information about a topic deleted at XfD has come to light, the XfD discussion still forms the consensus against which the topic and new information is reviewed such that it is appropriate to use Template:Delrevafd on the underlying AfD page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the problem at Template talk:Delrevafd. Since this is only about the template, why can't we have the discussion there? --Bsherr (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't grasp the problem here, and don't find any explanation at Template talk:Delrevafd, but I do think it is a very good thing for old XfDs to get linked to newer XfDs, as starting to happening automatically using a clever template, and to link an XfD to any related DRV, and I very much appreciate Cunard's work in this respect in the past many months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template talk:Delrevafd#Cunard's revision. I don't have a problem with Cunard's purpose. Only with the means, which I've explained there. --Bsherr (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think modification of the template wording is a good idea here. I also suggest that only DRV "overturn"s belong at the top, with unsuccessful appeals belonging as footnotes, under the discussion, at the bottom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate my suggestion to Cunard to simply use {{Olddrvfull}} which is designed precisely for the purpose of presenting a history of deletion reviews. It need only be modified to appear as an ombox instead of a tmbox on Wikipedia pages, easily done by changing the "tmbox transclusion to "mbox". --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no benefit to switching from Template:Delrevafd to Template:Olddrvfull so have not done so. The former was created for discussion pages, the latter for talk pages. Template:Delrevafd works well so there is no need to use another template. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Gamal, I agree with your consolidation of the listings, but do not know how to implement that into the template. Do you? Cunard (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I think that all the templates should be placed at the top of the XfDs because that is where they are most visible. Splitting the "endorse" and "overturn" between the top and bottom of the page would lead to confusion. Furthermore, in a long AfD, editors will have to scroll to the bottom of the page to find the DRV notice. Most users only view the first page of the AfD, so they would likely miss the DRV notice. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that Delrevafd is used for advising that the instant deletion disucssion is being reviewed at DRV. Using it to provide the entire history of DRVs will frustrate its purpose. Contrast that to Template:Olddrvfull:

Look familiar? It's practically identical to Uzma Gamal's proposal. So why not use it? --Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be possible to ask for a bot that would automatically update the template when the DRV was closed? The extra fiddly-ness of having different templates for in-progress and finished DRVs would be tolerable if it didn't take any human editor time.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hold on, because the distinction isn't between in-progress and finished DelRevs. Here's an example. Let's say an article has three AfDs: years 2006, 2007, and 2011. Cunard is proposing that, when the 2011 AfD is reviewed at DelRev, Delrevafd be applied to all past AfDs: 2006, 2007, and 2011. I reverted Cunard's edits because Delrevafd says "This discussion is under deletion review...". That would be true of the 2011 AfD, but false and misleading of the 2006 and 2007 AfDs. I don't have a problem with putting notice on the 2006 and 2007 Afds that there have been DelRevs of subsequent AfDs, but not by compromising the ability of Delrevafd to notify users that the decision on the page to which the template is applied was or is under review. I explained to Cunard that Olddrvfull already displays DelRev history on talk pages, and it would be easy to adapt it for XfD pages too. Unfortunately, the use of a bot would be unworkable here because of the difficulty bots would have in transcribing the DelRev "result" automatically. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not proposed placing the Delrevafd templates on all AfDs. See this AfD (the 18th nomination of GNAA) for instance. I have not placed the Delrevafd templates on the rest of the AfD nominations and would not do so for the situation you describe above. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how you come to your decisions, please? --Bsherr (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I place the new 2011 Delrevafd on the most recent AfD discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would editors review this edit by Bsherr that prompted this debate? The comments by Uzma Gamal and SmokeyJoe about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet indicate that I have not incorrectly used the template on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somastate. Cunard (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 14 January 2011 deletion review of Somastate was of the 13 January 2011 criterion A7 speedy deletion of Somastate, not the 2008 AfD. The discussion was about whether to overturn the speedy deletion, not the AfD. A template saying that the 2008 AfD is being reviewed would be false. --Bsherr (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been repeatedly explained to you on your talk page and here by both myself and Uzma Gamal why the template is applicable for the new DRV discussion. The deleting admin even cited the AfD decision as a reason for protecting the page. Please reverse your removal of the valid Delrevafd tag. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that a deletion review of a speedy deletion is automatically a review of the last XfD? --Bsherr (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The deletion review of a speedy deletion intrinsically asks whether the last AfD's result is still valid. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there is the crux of our disagreement. Such a position is inconsistent with our practice and unsupported by the documentation. A page speedy deleted may have no likeness whatsoever with the page previously considered at XfD, possibly years ago. In some cases, the two pages may actually have no similarity except in name. For example, "Bob Johnson" is AfD deleted as a unnotable politician, and then, three years later, "Bob Johnson" is speedy deleted as an unimpotant musician (not the same person). Or "Template:One" is TfD deleted as deprecated, and then, three years later, a new and entirely different "Template:One" is speedy deleted G11. Treating a speedy deletion review as a review of the previous XfD would be nonsensical. In fact, a routine outcome of deletion review of speedy deletion is "overturn and send to XfD", clear recognition that delrev of a speedy deletion is not a substitute for XfD. The only situation in which your position might make sense is for a G4 speedy deletion (a possibility I recognized at Mikie Da Poet), but the nominator should make that explicit, so the XfD closing administrator and other interested parties are notified and consulted. --Bsherr (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are making false comparisons. Only pages about the same topic ought to be tagged. Let's say Bob Johnson is deleted in November 2009 at an AfD and then recreated and speedy deleted under A7 in December 2010. A deletion review is held and concludes with allowing recreation. It would not be unreasonable to document that at the AfD to notify editors and admins that the recreation has been endorsed by community discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing recreation? What does that mean? In your hypothetical, either the A7 deletion is endorsed or overturned. And that would have no effect on the AfD. Just because an article is recreated does not automatically mean that the prior AfD decision was an error. If you want to document it at the AfD, I don't take issue with that. But to say that because a speedy deletion is being reviewed that the prior AfD is also being reviewed is not correct. Can you identify any documentation that supports your opinion? --Bsherr (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of "allowing recreation", see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 1#The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). I have already addressed why a review of a speedy deletion is intrinsically a review of whether the result of an AfD is still applicable. There is no documentation about Delrevafd on any policy pages so there is no way to address your request for documentation. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Template:Delrevafd

Bsherr's move of Template:Delrevafd is against the general naming conventions of the other DRV templates at Template:DRV see also documentation. Bsherr, please stop moving templates without gaining consensus first. I supported the move to Template:Delrevxfd because it is in line with the other templates, but your move to Template:DelRev XfD is contrary to the titles of the rest of the templates at Template:DRV see also documentation. Perhaps a discussion should be held to standardize the DRV templates (there are two types of naming—e.g. {{Newdelrev}} vs. {{DRV top}}—and you added a third one—{{DelRev XfD}}), but you should not move war to force your changes in.

Bsherr, you have made repeated mistakes in regards to DRV. As Uzma Gamal stated above:

In addition to removing DRV templates, Bsherr recently posted in a DRV discussion, "DRV does not review articles for recreation, WP:AFC does."[4]

This is untrue, as explained by Uzma Gamal and S Marshall at the DRV. Yet you refuse to accept the consensus that you are wrong. Several days before that discussion, you non-admin closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15 as "Referred to WP:AFC. Nonadministrator close." This is wrong because DRV does review articles deleted by AfD for recreation. I ask that you refrain from closing DRVs or from moving templates without gaining consensus first. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense. The closest thing is WP:DRV scope item three, which states: "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Uzma Gamal cited it. But that is a provision for overturning a prior AfD and restoring a previous article, not recreating an article. WP:RECTEATE supports my interpretation: "Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden". But show me policy or procedure stating that a deletion review is required to recreate an article, and I'll relent. But to say that I'm wrong without any evidence is unconvincing.
  • I agree the names of deletion review templates need to be standardized, but your move did nothing to do that, and my move did nothing to do that. All I did was correct the capitalization and spacing. Template names should be natural, with natural spacing and capitalization. Of course, there's nothing wrong with keeping a redirect with all lower case and closed spacing. Consider {{Talk header}} and its redirect {{talkheader}}. That's all I'm trying to accomplish. Specifically, what is your objection? If you really wish to contest the move, we can go through WP:RM, but if you'd only advise me of your concerns, we could work on a solution. --Bsherr (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, as to MotionX, I did indeed close the deletion review and send the article to AFC. There, a neutral editor reviewed and recreated the article. Then, an editor identified the article for AfD. It was discussed, and a decision to delete the article was reached. That's exactly how the process should work. --Bsherr (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For years, DRV has reviewed the recreation of articles deleted by AfD. Not WP:AfC. As my previous attempts have been unsuccessful, I have asked DRV closer Spartaz to provide input about this.
  • The status quo ante should remain in place when there is an editorial disagreement. When I reverted your move, I followed WP:BRD. The burden is on those who want to make a contested change to discuss using venues such as WP:RM. Although I dislike how you have move warred to force your position, I will not be contesting the move. The titles of the DRV templates are inconsequential to bettering the encyclopedia.
  • The deletion review, in my opinion, should not have been closed as move to AfC. AfC is for IP editors who cannot create articles. DRV is more suitable to review such deletions. I have asked Spartaz to review your closure of the DRV. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DRV no doubt could "give permission" to recreate an article, but what would be the purpose? There is no speedy deletion criterion for an article recreated without the "permission" of DRV.
Where does documentation say that AfC is limited to unregistered editors?
While I would welcome the opinion of anyone you solicit, unless you can show me documentation for your position, I'm inclined to believe the contradictory documentation I identified.
I didn't edit war. I moved a page to location "A", you moved it to location "B", I moved it to location "A" and created a redirect at location "B" while explaining that a redirect was preferable to a move to that location. Each edit was progressive. Indeed, the burden would be on me to use RM if the move were contested, which is why I asked you to inform me if the move is contested. You say it is not, so then there is nothing further I need do, correct? --Bsherr (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Debrahlee Lorenzana, Gay Nigger Association of America, Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie, or David Shankbone were created without explicit endorsement from DRV, they would be speedy deleted per G4. If an editor requests that editors at DRV review the request to ensure the article meets the criteria and to provide a safety net against speedy deletion, their wishes should be granted. A community review is much better than an individual review at AfC (which can also, I have just learned, be used by inexperienced editors).

Your move-warring occurred here.

The Bold revert, and discuss process, which is endorsed by the policy Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is, was not followed. You boldly moved the page to a new title. I reverted the move. Discussion should have followed, not a reversion of a revert. Discussing page moves through page move reverts is edit warring and would have resulted in us both being blocked or the page move protected.

The move was contested when I reverted your move. Yet you chose to revert back instead of discussing. That is edit warring. During discussion, the status quo ante should be held (i.e. the long-standing title). This is endorsed by policy:

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. (mine emphasized)

I reverted your move to prevent there from being a third style of DRV names. I do not have a strong preference for any of the three styles (my preference for Template:Delrevxfd over Template:DelRev XfD is because it is easier to type; since the transclusions work through the redirect, the current title is of no import). If you do decide to standardize the DRV templates, I ask that you initiate a WP:RM here at WT:DRV to give the community the opportunity to decide upon a standard naming convention. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're plainly wrong about G4. G4 only applies to "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". (Are you arguing that any recreation is such? That would be curious.) If one were to write an entirely new and improved article about any of the topics you identify, it would not be eligible for G4 speedy deletion. You pick some of the most controversial deletions on Wikipedia, many if not all of which happen also to be creation protected, and would likely be IAR deleted out of exhaustion.
On the other matter, your excerpt is from the protection policy, which is irrelevant because none of the templates are protected. If you believe me to be "edit warring" (and I take it you're not applying a three revert rule), please make a report on the noticeboard. Then you'll have your conclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many cases where G4 was misused by a tagger. I have removed many of these tags, but in some cases, a careless or fatigued admin might delete the article despite G4 not applying. A link to the DRV discussion on the AfD will enlighten both the tagger and the reviewing admin that recreation has been endorsed. The Delrevafd tag is a safeguard against mistaken taggings and deletions.

Your move warring was not block worthy, though if we had continued discussing through reversions, we would have both been blocked. Making a report on the noticeboard would be punitive and unnecessary. I am not the type of person who would want to exact abusive vengeance against those with whom I disagree.

My excerpt from the protection policy is relevant because it underscores that the status quo ante should remain in place during the discussion process. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea is that a DRV would "G4-proof" a recreation; many editors may desire to get a definitive answer before recreation rather than recreate and then hope that a passing admin would decline to G4 the new version. T. Canens (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens, thank you for your succinct explanation. You have explained in one sentence what I have tried to do in several paragraphs. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is too much noise here for me to work out where to place this comment but I want to respond to the referral of the article to AFC. DRV is a consensus based process that allows users to discuss the merits of a particlar deletion. If an article is permitted to be created then the decision will be made with a consensus that is valid and overrides any other discussion. DRV will refer borderline cases to AFD for further discussion as that is another consensus based process whose outcomes are binding. AFC is based around the opinions of single editors and therefore is not the appropriate place to review disputed deletions. Further DRV closes are not subject to appeal. They are an appeal. It is for this reason that non-admins are not supposed to close DRVs. Especially when their decision is frankly perverse and outwith accepted practise. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of DRV any changes to process or procedures must be discussed first and only changed where there is consensus as it is imperative for retaining credibilility with users - both new and old - that we have robust and sensible procedures that have a broad consensus. Any further disruption to the DRV processes - for example edit warring to force through undiscussed changes to templated will not be accepted because of the need for DRV to remain stable and understanable. Please desist until there is a consensus or I may decide to start handing out blocks. Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~cough~ when I was talking about DRV I meant you can't really appeal that a DRV has been closed incorrectly. Obviously, you can raise another DRV at any time against a deletion close even if its been reviewed before but worthless repeat requests tend to get closed as disruptive very quickly. Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you correctly distinguish between a later DRV discussion that reviews a previous DRV close versus a later DRV discussion that reviews afresh the deletion of the article. We do like to think that only very experienced wikipedian administrators acting cautiously and conservatively close such important discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does one characterize Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 13#Slovio, for example? --Bsherr (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unhelpful. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful bescause it's irrelevant? If so, why? --Bsherr (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say it was irrelevant? Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking whether you mean it was unhelpful because it was irrelevant. You didn't say it was irrelevant, but you didn't explain why you thought that example wasn't helpful. So why isnt it helpful? --Bsherr (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, I agree that AfC is not for deletion reviews. That much is obvious. But when I user comes to DRV asking to recreate an article about a topic, and the article to be recreated would not be eligible for G4 deletion because it is not a copy, why should the article not simply be recreated, and if there is an issue, sent to AfD? The user is not asking for the old article to be restored. How does that fit into the scope of the page: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion."? What exactly is deletion review reviewing?
I restrict my nonadministrator closures to situations when the DRV is moot. I hope it's usually helpful. But if it's not, please just revert it. That's the same process used at XfD. Does that remedy address your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't remedy my concern. Non-admins should not close deletion reviews - period. If someone raises a DRV - even incorrectly - then let process take its time. If its clearly a mistake, an admin will be along to deal with it. I have explained why this is important and I'm disappointed by how resistant you appear to be to accepting concerns raised by other editors. Your first reaction seems to be to argue that you are right and everyone else is wrong. A little reflectance when you get feedback and a willingness to accept your view may not have consensus would make your and other users' editing environment much nicer. I have been a regular participant at DRV since 2006 and have a fairly long term view of events here. What we have works and there is relatively little strife around the process - this is astonishing given how emotive deletion is as a subject for so many users both new and old. Please don't upset the balance by trying to shoe-horn in your own conception of how you want it to run without first getting a consensus. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, could you share with me how you arrived at the conclusion I'm wrong? If I can understand that, I might agree. --Bsherr (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I refer to using DRV for recreation, not nonadministrator closures, which I'll refrain from and revert others I see.) --Bsherr (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Archive <------ You will find plenty of precedents here. Please leave any DRV close alone and let the admins deal with it thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but you have no comment on the issue of recreation at DRV? --Bsherr (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We did that already. DRV can permit recreation if the consensus is that the previous discussion close is no longer binding. How many times do we need to say this before you accept it. Your trolling is becoming tiresome. Spartaz Humbug! 04:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking whether recreation is an acceptable outcome. I'm asking whether recreation is an acceptable request. (In other words, can someone come to DRV not to review a prior deletion discussion, but to seek permission to create a page using a particular user draft? T. Canens suggests that this is a permissible way of G4-proofing a page.) If it is, why isn't it documented in the directions on the page? Do you understand the distinction? --Bsherr (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And do you really think it's disruptive for me to ask? I could just as easily say it's disruptive for you to insist you've addressed a question you haven't, but that's not very productive either. Can't we just discuss? --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not "revert others I see". If you see a DRV closure by a non-admin that you disagree with, please ask an admin to revert it. Cunard (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it's not just ones that I disagree with. According to Spartaz, all nonadministrator closes are wrong, no? --Bsherr (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At DRV yes. Elsewhere its OK but here its an admin only zone. Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly, it's only necessary for DRVs that require any sort of judgment call. If the nominator and closing/deleting admin come to an agreement, rendering the DRV pointless, I doubt anyone will complain about a non-admin closure. Still, it doesn't hurt to be overly careful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those two positions are contradictory. So which is it? --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you revert a non-admin DRV closure, you might spark an edit war. If I reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15#MotionX (as I did with your move of Template:Delrevxfd), you would have likely reverted me. Neither of us has the remit to close or unclose DRVs. An admin does have this authority and will prevent an edit war. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you had reverted that close, and cited a policy or guideline that said nonadministrators cannot close DRV discussions, I would not revert you. I think most people respond well to a reversion that is justified by documentation. Do you disagree? --Bsherr (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If non-admins should not close DRVs, non-admins should not unclose DRVs. It is a given that most people respond well to justified reversions, but some may not be that reasonable or may have a different reading of the policy. To avoid an edit war, it is best to leave any unclosings to admins. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On putative DRV reviews of DRV discussions

How does one characterize Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 13#Slovio, for example? --Bsherr (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question.

I see a bit of confusion due to a misleading opening statement by the nominator of DRV#2. DRV#2 was explicitly stated to be a review of DRV#1, but then clarified otherwise. The nominator quickly went on to say "[The DRV#1 closer] closed the deletion review on the grounds that [some reason]. This is understandable and I don't dispute that part of it at all." That is, the actual close of the DRV is not being challenged. The closer goes on to write "However. ... unearth sources and it ought to be possible to create a fresh article based on the sources" In other words, there are now sources that have never been previously considered. DRV#2 was therefore a fresh review of whether the subject is suitable for a standalone article. Five "endorse" !voters failed to decipher the confused nomination statement, but regardless, an uninvolved experience admin found that there was a consensus to allow recreation of the article.

I would characterise the whole brief affair as inefficient. A comment might be that it was unfortunate that the DRV#1-closer conducted a less-than-ideal discussion with the DRV#2-nominator. The talk page discussion might have gone differently, but there was the problem of there not being clear authority to unsalt the title. DRV#2 accepted that sources have been identified, identified that there was a motivated editor in good standing, and clearly established a consensus to allow recreation (i.e. unsalt). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five "endorse" !voters failed to decipher the confused nomination statement, but regardless, an uninvolved experience admin found that there was a consensus to allow recreation of the article. – I find this statement inaccurate.

1. Stifle (talk · contribs) – "Endorse ... but "unprotect to allow recreation by a good-faith user"

2. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) – "Endorse (but allow recreation by a good-faith user)"

3. Martinp (talk · contribs) – "Endorse DRV close, encourage attempt to build an article compliant with Wikipedia's mission and policies."

The other two endorse votes were accorded less weight because one failed to address the sources found in the previous DRV and the other referenced non-policy-based reasons to deny recreation such as Slovio being a hate site.

It is therefore unsurprising that King of Hearts (talk · contribs) found the consensus to be allow recreation. Cunard (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, are you saying their !votes were not !votes to endorse the DRV (putting aside the effectiveness of that as a position)? --Bsherr (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. My point is that they not only endorsed the DRV closure by JzG, they also opined to permit recreation. They did decipher the nomination statement. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I think SmokeyJoe's point (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) is that DRV cannot be used to appeal previous DRVs, so votes to endorse the previous DRV failed to recognize that the nominator was actually looking for a rereview of the underlying deletion decision, not the previous DRV. --Bsherr (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the cited DRV (=DRV#2) was not a review of DRV#1, because neither the nominator nor anyone else made any criticism of the close of DRV#1. DRV#2 was an "allow recreation" proposal for a previously salted title. I do not say that DRV cannot be used to appeal previous DRVs. A few times, once or twice successfully, I have suggested the discussion resolve to slap a closer, but generally, if the nominator is not here to discuss the reversing of a deletion decision, then they are at the wrong forum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I might need clarification. When can DRV be used to appeal a previous DRV? --Bsherr (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that if a DRV overturns an AfD keep and deletes an article, a subsequent DRV would be reviewing the earlier DRV. However, a DRV should not overturn an AfD keep and authorise deletion, it should only lead to a vacated close, a relist, or point out a previously unnoted CSD reason.
  • If you don't like a DRV overturn to keep, you should go to XfD.
  • DRV is about reviewing deletion decisions. (Some overlap with Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for unsalting happens.) DRV dicussions themselves should not be deletion decisions. Therefore, there should be nothing in a DRV discussion for DRV to review.
  • If you think a DRV was conducted or closed improperly, start a fresh DRV, but be sure to focus on the actual deletion decision and your desired outcome. But don't do this lightly. If you don't gain traction, find something elsewhere where you can be more productive.
  • And DRV shouldn't be used for pre-emptive G4-proofing. Better to (1) address the original deletion discussion in the article creation edit summary and on the talk page; (2) discuss with the deleting admin if it is then G4-ed; and (3) come to DRV only when #2 is fruitless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems right to me. (Thanks for the "bonus" opinion on the recreate issue.) Except in your first point, it seems to me that, from a keep XfD outcome, overturn to delete is more frequent than reclose or relist. I think the justification is that, rather than deferring to reclosing the discussion, it's more efficient to instead determine the correct outcome at DRV. Is your sense of current practice different? --Bsherr (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On overturning a keep to a delete, my feeling without checking, is that it doesn't happen all that often, and when it does, it is because the outcome is obvious. Usually, we properly resolve to "relist" for a dubious deletion decision, or advise returning to XfD after a delay for a dubious keep decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe and Bsherr, I've compiled an incomplete list of deletion reviews of deletion reviews if you're interested. See:
1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#Darvon cocktail
2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 28#Slovio
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 6#Phillip Greaves. Cunard (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV not showing

OK, I've followed all the instructions, but the DRV is not showing against today's date, although it shows when the edit button is clicked. Anyone know the reason for this or how to fix it? Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first, the page did not appear to me when I accessed Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, when I clicked the "(purge cache)" link at the top of the page (here), the page appeared. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

I was trying to fixup a DrV entry for Structured dialogic design but can't figure it out. Help? Plus I'd love to know what was wrong. Hobit (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the xfd_page parameter. I also moved it back to WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 4 so that User:Redesignresearch would be able to find the filing at its original location. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standing

Copied from March 30th

  • Yup, I concur with Simon Dodd's second point and with the outcome. I'd question his first point because I think the "threshold" for DRV is set very low. There's jurisdiction and standing. In terms of jurisdiction the questions are:

    a) Has a deletion been performed; or

    b) Has a deletion discussion been closed.

    Provided either of these two limbs are satisfied then DRV has jurisdiction. In terms of standing the question is, does a good faith user want a deletion review to take place? If the answer is yes then that user has standing. Access to DRV is not otherwise restricted.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that deletion review is limited to cases where there has been an unreasonable decision or process hasn't been followed. We don't allow a DRV just because you disagree with a deletion. tfeilS (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much as tfeilS said; at the threshold, DRV requires something more than bare disagreement with the outcome, but the petitioner relies on nothing more than that, advancing an argument that could have been made (although it wouldn't have been accepted) during the normal run of the AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the custom and practice is that deletion reviews can be, and have been, opened when the petitioner agreed with the outcome and had no quarrel with the deleting admin whatsoever. (Petitioner might be seeking unprotection of a page, for example.) DRV is usually adversarial in character but not necessarily so.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do any of these is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. For all practical purposes, this opens up everything. As a principle, there needs to be a way of correcting mistakes, even if the community has made them, and in many cases, this is the only place available. The ultimate guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV says, in as many words, "[t]his process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." We should either adhere to that or delete it, and I think we should adhere to it. As to WP:BURO: Generally, see WP:PIMP, and let's look more closely at BURO while we're at it. "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." What principle is served by letting every nomination be refought here? "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." That obviously doesn't doesn't apply here: making it harder to purge fancruft makes the encyclopedia worse, not better. And while it's true to some extent that "[d]isagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures," the fact is that without rules and procedures for moving from proposal to execution by way of consensus, the search for consensus telescopes into infinity (which is why MERGE is such a total disaster). BURO is not the ultimate touchstone; WP:5P is. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. To the extent bureaucracy and rules hinder that goal, they're bad, which is all BURO and WP:IAR say. But in the mine run of cases, process helps build the encyclopedia.
None of this matters in this case, of course, because even if review of this result is appropriate (and I say it isn't), the result should still be endorsed, because the closing admin correctly interpreted the result of the nomination and correctly applied WP policy.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied section

I wanted to reply to the first part of Simon Dodd's remark here. The rest of it seems uncontroversial to me, but the passage I wanted to discuss is: [WP:DRV]] says, in as many words, "[t]his process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." We should either adhere to that or delete it, and I think we should adhere to it.

It seems to me that the magic word is "should". Those nominating a deletion "should" state some basis for it, certainly. It does not say "shall" or "must", and I think the subjunctive is important. If there's no valid reason for the deletion review, then fine, it should be closed, and speedily at that. This is so for the specific case under discussion. But what if there were some valid grounds that were unstated? I wouldn't want DRV to be debarred from considering the matter.

I want to emphasize this because there has been a time when this "should" clause was mentioned as a reason to close a review that I felt should be continued—in other words, it's not just a theoretical objection, it's based on real experience. (I ought to insert a link here but I'm blessed if I can find it. As I recall the DRV remained open because I threatened to re-open it myself as a good-faith user, and WP:BURO was invoked to keep it going.)

In any case, the principle I want to establish through discussion is that requirements of "standing" are satisfied just by the fact that a good faith user wants a deletion review to take place. This should not be an obstacle to speedy closure if no valid grounds exist.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with several points in this (some substantive, some terminological: for instance, I don't think standing is the right legal analogy, jurisdiction is), including the conclusion, but I will confine my response to one of them. While I agree that "should not" is not as strong as "cannot," it has more bite than allowing any editor to reopen the debate for any reason, which is the sum and substance of "a good faith user wants a deletion review to take place." I think the right way to think of the jurisdiction preserved by "should not" is to leave space for the exceptional: Users who couldn't participate, and/or new information that wasn't available in the Afd. (For instance, the AfD centers on notability and the morning after the DelClose, the New York Fishwrap runs a front page story on the subject, thus arguably satisfying notability.) In the case occasioning this discussion, both prongs are failed. We may infer that the user knew the AfD was happening, and the objection raised was nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. The value that is being ignored or underestimated here is procedural finality: Wikipedia needs to have definite processes, with a beginning, middle, and end, that take an idea from proposal to acceptance or rejection by way of consensus, after which we can all move on to do other productive things rather than getting trapped in an endless loop dealing with the same idea.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with S Marshall here. DVR is the only realistic way to review deletions and they should not be speedy closed because the appellant failed to cite the right formulas in the petition. Procedural finality is provided by the heavy presumption against second or subsequent DRV's which can and are closed unless new information is forthcoming. Now it is true that if someone comes to DRV with what is just an ILIKEIT argument they have not stated a claim on which relief could be granted, but I'd rather not have admins speedy closing such DRV's by analogy of a "motion to dismiss". They only run for a week and content is not automatically undeleted. It is not like a frivolous request can keep an inapropriate article sitting around for months (as would be the case if these legal analogies were close approximations rather than rough analogs). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, is this actually happening, or are we merely speaking hypothetically, here? With the exception of repeated DRVs for the same subject, I don't remember seeing a DRV speedily closed without an opportunity for people to weigh in (yes, they are sometimes closed after a day or two when the outcome is indisputably clear, but I don't have a problem with that). Certainly people do sometimes scold nominators for making an "I like it" argument, but that's a different question, having more to do with civility than with DRV process. Chick Bowen 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[insert begins here]
Here is a case in which I brought a review to DRV, after the closing admin refused to make a supplemental ruling of the AfD as per the guidelines.  Early participants IMO took WP:IAR positions during which time no discussion of the guidelines developed.  Another admin snow closed, also refusing to discuss the guidelines, and in circular reasoning here explained that I should take action that would have required that I knew the closing admins supplemental ruling.  In summary, it was a total waste of everyone's time.  Would have preventing the early close have helped?  We will never know, and this is exactly the point, on analysis, the snow close was unconstructive.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[insert ends here]
  • Yes, it's actually happening—Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30. Sorry, I thought SMarshall had included the link so I didn't bother to add it in my remarks. Petitioner has done exactly what Eluchil404 posited: "[S]omeone comes to DRV with what is just an ILIKEIT argument they have not stated a claim on which relief could be granted…." Unlike Eluchil404, however, in this kind of situation I would "have admins speedy closing such DRV's by analogy of a 'motion to dismiss.'" Review should be confined to administrator error or serious flaws in the the AfD itself. I gave an illustrative example of a reviewable case before, so here's another one, illustrating what I mean by "serious flaws" in an AfD: nom claims that the subject isn't notable, there's a cascade of delete !votes, closing admin (or NAC) follows consensus, but no one has bothered to check google and discover that there are oodles of reliable sources that easily establish notability. But that almost never happens. DRV should police outliers and error, not serve as an on-demand extension of an AfD.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, by "this" I meant closing a review instantly because of a flawed request. I sympathize with your view, but I think it's a little further than I'm willing to go. After all, there have been many circumstances in which someone has objected to a close without a good reason, and someone else has pointed out an actual flaw in the XfD. Chick Bowen 16:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes a DRV is challenged because of new information, and tI don't think that the acceptability of such DRVs is in question--there's never a period at which we should refuse to entertain new information. I think we're talking about other sorts of challenge.
Any other challenge to an AfD can be seen as a question of whether or not it was closed properly. :Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so in any of these respects is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. I think it would be rationally possible to challenge about half the AfD decision and quite a number of speedy deletions on some such basis (the other half are so blatantly obvious one way or another that there would be no point in it, and such DRVs are now normally closed very quickly without any problems. The people who regularly work at DRV know how to recognize nonsense). The reason most of these appealable closes are not appealed is because it seems fairly clear that another AfD would come to the same conclusion, or because it's not sufficiently important to bother.But a substantial number are not appealed because of unfamiliarity with the process, or an unwillingness to challenge the closer, and I'd say we should be reviewing twice the AfD closes we do , and many more of the speedys.
The correct basis for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can be reviewed here. All admin decisions are reviewable, otherwise the community would not be willing to have admins, as nobody agrees with every single decision of every one of the admins here, The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is not applicable. The way to make the present statement applicability is to read it. Don't bring something to deletion review without a good reason. Disagreements with well-established policy should be discussed elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current statement, that deletion review is not for cases where you disagree with a deletion decision for reasons previously presented, ought to be enforced more rigourously. I don't think there's any argument that deletion review is appropriate where an administrator has made an unreasonable decision, or when new information has come to light that was not [sufficiently] taken into account in the discussion. Is there any remaining disagreement here or do we just need to reword the DRV instructions? fteSil (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it should be made clear that any flaw in the deletion process is reviewable (including CANVASS, absolute policy violations etc.) but that simple disagreement about deletion is not reviewable? Collect (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I could go for that. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my point of view the ideal phrasing would say "a deletion review may be speedily closed by an uninvolved administrator if the nominator has presented neither evidence of procedural error nor new information". I like that phrasing because clearly if there are grounds for concern about a deletion/close, then there's no wording for the deleter/closer to hide behind; "may" is not the same as "must". I would shy away from the "not reviewable" phrasing, because I prefer the principle that any deletion or XFD close can be reviewed here.—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be fine with that.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the wording, although not the justification (I don't agree that "any deletion or XFD close can be reviewed here"). "May" instead of "must" is merely WP:IAR, which we have anyway. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you give me an example of a deletion or XFD close that could not be reviewed here?—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Articles removed for specific legal reasons, including, but limited to, OTRS actions. MfDs sometimes end with "mark as historical" which is also something a "deletion review" could do anything about. Lots of potential wikilawyering exceptions - hence the word "can" (implying all) is not the best word choice IMHO. Sticking to DRV for flaws in the process (including but not limited to CANVASS violations) would seem logical. Collect (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • We wouldn't review an Office Action. Review of an OTRS action is certainly an available option, but apparently RFC rather than DRV is the preferred venue, so in practice it would probably be speedily closed. An MfD close as "mark as historical" would be within scope although I don't think most DRV regulars would be all that interested.

            Okay, let's adjust my previous phrasing. Instead of "any deletion or XFD close", let's say "any XFD close or deletion not marked as an 'Office Action'."—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • /////////////8 Perhaps you would like langage to the effect:
Deletion Review is not available for actions deleting articles taken by or on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or OTRS.
Accurate enough? Collect (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is accurate. May I suggest saying "Scope: Deletion Review is not the right place to deal with Office Actions or OTRS-related deletions. The venue for contesting an OTRS action is WP:RFC. Office Actions may not be contested via on-wiki processes" ? The reason I prefer this is because for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it's slightly more helpful with the links and pointers.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could one know?

Quoting the article: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly".

If the entire "report" by the closer is "The result was no consensus", how could one possibly know if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself two questions. First, could the closer have reasonably closed as keep? Second, could the closer have reasonably closed as delete? If the answer to both of these is "no," then the closer was right. If the answer to both of these was "yes," then the closer was right. If the answer to either or both of these was "maybe," then the closer was probably right. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a particular case I wonder about, I think a keep would be reasonable. I don't think a delete would be.
But I argued for the keep side so I can't think I'm totally impartial. Also I have no prior experience of these debates. I understand that keeps and deletes are not votes to be counted. This means the closer must weigh the points made on each side. But how high is the bar set before it is a consensus? For example, if there are twice as many deletes as keeps and the delete side has generally stronger arguments, is that a consensus? If there are 3 times as many deletes? Or 4 times?
Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Large numerical differences are usually closed in that direction, barring things like sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing. It really depends on the specifics. There's a wide allowance for "admin discretion". Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quotation from item 2. Go back to item 1 and ask the closer directly. Many closers will explain their thought process if asked. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an entry

What did I do wrong? My entry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 16 isn't being transcluded onto the main DRV page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did everything correctly - it's showing up on the main page now. Patience is often rewarded in these matters :) Thparkth (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I kept refreshing the page, but nothing happened. Oh, well. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely showing up for me, but you might be seeing an old cached version. Does it show up if you purge the server's cache of the page? Thparkth (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now. <shrug> The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madness

i've been writing articles for a while and i made this account for a fresh start (which is allowed) now, i have never had any of my articles deleted but i have had threats before. So i finished an article about one of my facebook friends (which again is allowed) 2 hours after i moved it DANGER deleted it, so i messaged him but no reply. i got it back on my user space and thought that i should just edit it for a few days thinking maybe i had put something in there wrong, then he deleted it from my user space (i'm not sure if that's allowed) so now all my work is gone just because he was on a power trip. Space-Man 112 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it appeared to be a hoax. Even if it isn't, the article's subject is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia.[5][6] Apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Deletion review Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being discussed in at least two other places (perhaps four other places). The discussion at WT:AFD is getting the most attention, so please place replies at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. lifebaka++ 12:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive help please Carleton Student Engineering Society

I did a wikiseach on the term "Carleton Student Engineering Society" and this was in the results:

Wikipedia:Deletion review

WP:DRV | WP:DELREV For articles deleted via proposed deletion or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for ... 6 KB (601 words) - 16:23, 30 September 2011

I then proceeded to the Sept 30, 2011 archive, but there are only two other entries there. Can someone please help me find the discussion about Carleton Student Engineering Society. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply have replied on user's talk page here. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There wouldn't be a discussion regarding the most recent deletion, as that was a speedy delete according to the log; the last time it was discussed was in June/July 2009, here. Doniago (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFD

An WP:FFD was just closed and I find the closers rationale to delete flimsy and more like a WP:SUPERVOTE than a closing statement. However, the image is now deleted and I don't have the object that was the subject of the image anymore. Can it even be restored or would a DRV be basically moot? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can temporarily restore the file for the purposes of a deletion review. The picture is still here: [7]. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Stricchiola

I was pointed to this blogpost today http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853 which goes in to some detail about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Stricchiola. I'm not taking a position on the matter, but I thought people here should know about it if they didn't already. Perhaps the article could be investigated again? Not being an admin I can't see the article as it once stood, but I suspect it looked like this User:Stricchiola/Jessie stricchiola. Wittylama 13:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah, and here's a thorough rebuttal blogpost http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3272466 . Wittylama 13:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit on review

Came across an article that had a previous AfD which was closed as no consensus, IMO a strange decision by the closing admin, the AfD was closed in May this year, would a deletion review be appropriate or would a second AfD be the best option? Mo ainm~Talk 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • After more than a couple of months it's probably better to just relist the article for discussion at AfD. It is rarely worthwhile to list a "No Consensus" close at DRV. Waiting and starting a new AfD, which is probably what DRV will recommend, is usually better. There is no hard and fast time limit on successive AfD listings, but over 6 months is unlikely to spark much opposition unless the article has been listed multiple times already. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done about a disputed merge summary?

At Talk:Climate_change_alarmism#Inappropriate_merge_tag_removed. the merge template put in by the admin closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change alarmism (2nd nomination) was removed and there is a bit of a dispute about it all. What should be done where the article is not deleted but the close of merge is disputed please? Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to raise this as a deletion review. Dmcq (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 2#Climate change alarmism. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Improving_AFD_debates

Appreciate any comments/opinions on this. I have asked Snottywong if snotbot can compile a list of the 20 most active AFD closers/relisteres to get them interested in this. Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a DRV appropriate?

More of a procedural question. This AfD had a messy close. Initially User:Tom Morris closed as delete, following several comments on his talk page he re-opened it. Then User:Causa sui closed it as keep on the basis that it should have been taken to DRV rather than a second nomination. After explaining the second nomination arose from the discovery that the group OccupyMarines claimed a relationship with wikipedia it was changed to no consensus. I don't consider either admin as being at fault here.

Rather the problem is that the AfD was subjected to on and off-wiki canvassing with the call going out on Facebook to save the wikipedia page, there was also adversial discussions with some fairly unpleasant accusations levelled at wikipedia's editors. Any admin who stepped into such an environment would be extremely brave indeed.

So at the moment we have an article dedicated to what is effectively a non-notable group, maintained on wikipedia by a vocal and aggressive campaign, with wikipedia used to raise the profile of a non-notable group. I have prepared a DRV here but I'm really wondering if its appropriate. I would appreciate some independent comment as I'm in somewhat of a dilemma here. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The actual relevant debate over the article subject at AfD was whether it met WP:GNG. Reasonable people disagreed and reviewed the sources, and a no consensus close was appropriate and wholly within the close admin's discretion. Thus I think a DRV would be pointless. I know you feel strongly about this article, so please think hard before starting this. What you see as grave problems are everyday affairs here.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate at AfD in two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD/DRV speedy-keep policy discussion at Village Pump

FYI, there is a current proposal to modify the AFD/DRV speedy keep procedure in this thread at the village pump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do appeals of AfD redirect closures (without an edit-history deletion) require DRV

Are AfD redirect closures (without an edit history deletion) binding fox six months, and must be brought to deletion review for appeal

Editors have recently been taking articles to AfD to get a closing that says "Redirect" (without an edit-history deletion).  One admin supporter argues that such a decision is binding for six months, such that objections must be brought to Deletion Review.  I (and at least one admin) say that such decisions are not binding.  I say that rather than Deletion Review, the appropriate venue for appeal is the Talk Page of the redirect.  IMO, these editors are adding discussions to AfD that never needed to leave the Talk Page of the article, and can be overturned on the Talk Page even if achieved.  This alternative viewpoint is that AfD means "Articles for Deletion or Redirect", and that DRV means "Deletion or Redirect Review".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not really as stated. Redirect closures are not “binding”, but “consensus” is binding. Was the redirect the result of a clear consensus, or was the redirect done by the closer as editorial discretion as a compromise following an unclear discussion. Even if the redirect reflected a clear consensus, note that “consensus can change”. However, if you wish to argue a change in consensus, you have to demonstrate evidence for the change. Ideally, new sources will be provided.
If the redirect was clearly supported by an AfD discussion, then to reverse it, I think you really need to propose the spinout, and receive support, on the talk page of the redirect target. Opposition to the proposal should be along the lines of why a separate article is a bad idea, and should not be couched in terms of “The AfD close is binding for 6 months and you haven’t waited long enough”.
Also note that something should only be brought to DRV where there is evidence of a difference of opinion (where a talk page discussion can’t resolve the issue), and this is especially so where there is no actual deletion to discuss. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Active/Recent

The discussions for Feb 14 have been moved off the active list, although none of them have been closed. Is that what we usually do ? DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What we usually do is rely on Cunard.  ;) In the past, Cunard usually seems to keep a quiet eye on old unclosed DRVs and he has on occasion posted a note on WP:AN asking for an uninvolved closer.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They keep deleting photos I put up(I am the owner of the images). How do i get them to stop?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review&oldid=478521380"