Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

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

Archives
Pre October 2003 December 2003 – May 2005 February 2004 – August 2005 August 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – June 2009 July 2009 – February 2010

Hidden archive

Please see Template talk:Hidden archive top#Potential merge with Template:Collapse top -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Selective notification of an open DRV

I notice that Lanternix (talk · contribs) has chosen to selectively notify some users about the DRV for a userbox of his that I deleted. Specifically, he has only notified the users who wanted his userbox kept. Being mindful of WP:CANVAS, I'm reluctant to send out notifications to the participants who favored deleting the userbox, but at the moment the notification situation is rather one-sided. --RL0919 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I shall do that myself. I actually only did it to see if you were Wiki-hounding me. Seems like you were indeed. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ALL users have been notified. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed two of the "deletes", but I went ahead and notified them since I assume that was just an oversight. As to any purported "wikihounding", when participants from one side of the TFD discussion (and only one side) appeared almost immediately to comment on the DRV, I became suspicious. Given that my only interaction with you has been related to the issue of deleting this one userbox, I'm not sure what your point was in acting in a way that created that (justified) suspicion. Keeping track of edits related to a review of my own actions is hardly wikihounding. (If I start following you around on unrelated matters, then by all means file a complaint about wikihounding.) --RL0919 (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

There seems to be a growing trend here for people to be asked to create a user draft first before an undeletion, or more precisely a "un create-protect" request is considered. Could someone please point me at a policy for this decision. My understanding is that protection should be used for as short as time as possible to stop vandalism etc but recently a user has been asked for a user draft for a title protected over a year ago. Surely, according to current policy and guidelines, the title should just be unprotected and we move on from there. I can understand the advantage of a user-space draft but I can't find any consensus for this - it appears to have come about organically on this page. My concern here is that there is only a select few people that regularly contribute here (mostly admins) and they seem to have come up with a new procedure without wider community input (for example from the editors trying to create articles). I may have missed something obvious so I'd appreciate it if someone could either point me at somewhere where user drafts are explained or else explain the history themselves. Dpmuk (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any explicit policy page about it (beyond the "policy is just a codification of what everyone does" sense), but in general a page is only create-protected after multiple inappropriate articles have been created at that title, generally within a short space of time. Assuming that the deletion decisions were taken appropriately (because if not, they should of course be overturned), it seems reasonable to request at least a minimal draft showing an article that will not be immediately deleted rather than go back into the cycle of deleting articles. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

how many people's opinion is enough ?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Worlds is only three people's opinion are enough? if were only two voices or even one voice would it be enough ?
I'm sure that it's really silly to consider only few voices as enough for such important decision as deletion (Idot (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

That depends on the strength of the arguments. If one person, such as you, could find independent third party coverage from reliable sources indicating the importance of this topic, that would be enough to keep it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• it is an absurd!
  if no one else except deleter knows about that (just people who could talk arguments for keeping were absent or just were not informed) there will be only one argument and no others
  if I did not visit this page will it be decision made like "we are two decided to delete?" and if no other people will it be decided that argement of only one or two persons fully represents all opinions?!
  as if to the cort arrived only prosector (as other people execpt a responded who couldn't arrive were not informed) who told "punish by death!" and a judge deicided that only his/her opnion is enough and other opinion is needed
  butr frankly speaking is it enough?!
  it is not fair! and defentily it is not a judgement
  even notrious Stalin's Troikas (by the way I'm from former Soviet Union) had more people, but even they were known as "death punishment commitees" as if usual decion was "punish by death!" and their arguemnts were always "strong" as no other opinion were presented
  the problem not in deletion of this ceratain artcile! the problem is taht articke is executed for deletion even if a number of discussants is not representative!
  has any body here have ever heard about quorum or not?
  and has any body heard about judgement and justice? (Idot (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

current wikipedia rules mean: that only one person is enough to lynch anybody and this will not be considered as murder and it will be fully legal (Idot (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Even if something is deleted as non-notable, if later someone can find appropriate sources to demonstrate notability, the article can be re-created using the new/additional sources. It is not analogous to the death penalty at all as recreation is always possible. I suggest you read WP:N and WP:RS. LadyofShalott 03:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note this topic has also been raised (with identical hyperbole) at WP:VPP. LadyofShalott 03:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives

I was disturbed to find that this article was deleted. This is probably the biggest leap forward in the area of pairwise comparison since Thurston mooted the idea in 1927. I have no doubt that the creator of this innovation will recieve great accolades for his work. I am a researcher in the area of MCDA and it concerns me that people ignorant of the area are making deletion decisions. The person That nominated this article for deletion will be thought of as a short sighted idiot, in academia, in the years to come, like the editor(s) of the the journal(s) that turned down the market for lemons paper by Akelof; that went on to earn him a nobel prize. I will be using the deletion reasoning in my teachings on innovation to show how the establishment can stifle new ideas. The establishment in MCDA though what Hansen and Ombler did in their algorithm to be impossible in 1974 and dismissed it as to computationally difficult. I would like to nominate this article for undeletion as it represents a big leap forward in the science of MCDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.40.149 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What article? What was it's exact name? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article was legitimately deleted. Why do you think the deletion was improperly deleted? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Where to go to Request Unprotection of a page that is create-protected?

I've noticed that the Deletion review page is for undeletions. I want Statik to be unprotected because I am planning on simply redirecting it to Static because of spelling errors. Where do I go to request unproection of Statik? Keyboard mouse (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually such requests would go to requests for protection, but since you're already here I'll just create the redirect for you. Do head there next time, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting for undeletion of Turki Faisal Al Rasheed article

Greetings!

I am requesting for the undeletion of Turki Faisal Al Rasheed article which was deleted last April 29. For me to improve it and if there is a need to reconstruct all the article, I am willing to spend all my time once again. I already checked the listing of deleted articles in this section, but our articles is not listed in here. Here is the deletion log from my talk page.

29 April 2010

   * (Deletion log); 09:51 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed)
   * (Deletion log); 09:51 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed)

Any approval for my request is highly appreciated and with thanks. Turki Faisal Al Rasheed 19:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Regards,

Carlo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfrasheed (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• This was userfied, then the user was blocked for spam/username. –xeno^talk 13:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done something wrong

In order to insert my entry, I have done something wrong, and do not know how to correct it. I appologise and request to someone who knows better to correct my error. The error is very simple, I believe. Bhaur (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The duplicate header?  Fixed. Thanks, –xeno^talk 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nasty Party should be still online

I do not understand why Nasty Party was deleted it had sources to support the article .[1],[2],[3] Dwanyewest (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno how to get a deletion review Dwanyewest (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)