Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Steps to list a new deletion review

Wikipedia:Deletion review § Steps to list a new deletion review step 1 states "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly." I think we should change this to "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly." I see no reason why an attempt to discuss the matter with the closer shouldn't take place before a deletion review regardless of whether or not they're an administrator (unless it is repealed altogether). Step 4 already states "Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion". — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• You have a point. Another is that non-admins should not be closing discussions if their close may be challenged, and consequently, this is instruction creep. Can it be fixed without increasing the word count? Can the word count be reduced? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You also have a point. A non-administrator shouldn't close a discussion in a way they believe could be controversial. Unless the system is changed so that if anyone expresses disagreement with a non-administrator closure it is simply reopened and relisted (uninvolved administrators may already reopen discussions in their individual capacity), deletion reviews of such closures are inevitable. "Attempt a conversation about the deletion discussion closure with the user who closed it on their talk page before listing the matter here. This gives them a chance to clarify the rationale behind their closure, amend it, or reopen and possibly relist the discussion. It is possible that there was a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a review may not be needed. If things don't work out, note that you tried in the listing." is a slight reduction in size which may be an improvement. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: How about Before listing a deletion discussion here, attempt conversation about it with the closer on their talk page. They may clarify, amend their closure, or reopen and possibly relist the discussion, negating misunderstanding, making a review unnecessary. If unsuccessful, link it in the listing if proceeding.? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Clarify that "no consensus" DRV for most speedy deletions should generally be treated as "list at XfD"

The speedy deletion policy currently says that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Consequently, less than obvious cases should be handled at XfD instead. If an admin's speedy deletion is appealed using DRV and there is no consensus to endorse the deletion, this means the deletion was not in an obvious case. In my experience, most admins closing such a DRV will treat this outcome as "list at XFD" in almost all cases which is the only correct interpretation of the speedy policy's "only obvious" rule imho. Since I saw an admin write that they think "no consensus" means the speedy is endorsed though, I propose we amend the DRV page to clarify this. I had made that change already, believing it to reflect consensus but I was reverted by Timotheus Canens (pinging) which is why I am raising it here now. Regards SoWhy 17:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this in the cases of copyright and BLP/G10 deletions, in those cases material shouldn't be reinstated unless there is a consensus that the content is acceptable. As Timotheus Canens says this shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule. Hut 8.5 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why I worded it as "should". Although I cannot imagine any DRV for such material that was correctly speedy deleted ending in "no consensus" because what policy-based argument could one make to restore clear G10/G12 material? Regards SoWhy 18:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no valid argument that would support a copyright violation, of course, but one could argue that the copyright status of a work is not clear, or that its status has changed. Mduvekot (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If "most admins closing such a DRV will treat this outcome as "list at XFD" in almost all cases", then I'm not convinced that there's a problem to solve. I do not see in March 2017 any DRV on a speedy that was closed as "no consensus, default to endorse". An admin did make the point that he could have closed a couple DRVs as "no consensus to overturn", but chose to close it as "list as AFD" instead, but that's just a strangely worded way of exercising the closer's discretion already permitted by the current wording.

Even "should" is stronger than I'd support. This should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a multitude of factors like the state of the discussion, the CSD at issue, the content deleted, the chance that the page would survive an XFD, and so forth. If a closer mistakenly believes that they had no discretion to close a no-consensus DRV on a speedy as "list as XFD", they can be easily pointed to the existing policy and asked to reconsider. I simply don't see the point of introducing the extra constraint on closer's discretion.

T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The Speedy criteria are supposed to be clear-cut, bright line criteria. If you can't get a group commenting at DRV to endorse a given speedy, it wasn't clear-cut and that is that. Restore, and list at XFD if that seems warranted. Had just one of those opposing the speedy noticed it first and declined the speedy, that would have settled the matter -- next stop XfD. The fate of a page shouldn't depend quite so completely on who happens to be patrolling Category:CSD at the relevant time. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The place for nuance is in the DRV discussion, and perhaps in a following XfD discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• By its nature, DRV sees a lot of corner cases and one-off or bizarre situations. We rely on the DRV closer's integrity, wisdom, and occasionally, creativity. I don't yet see how putting boundaries on that creativity will help DRVs be closed better.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• We should clarify that the default for a speedy deletion brought to DRV is that it is overturned. Thus, when the consensus is clear that a speedy was right, nothing changes. Ditto for when the consensus is that the speedy was wrong, nothing changes. What this WOULD do is raise the bar: if a contested speedy isn't reaffirmed by DRV consensus, then an XfD is triggered. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is right. I feel there has been, in the last year or two, a definite slackening in interpretation of the text of WP:CSD, and DRV has been trending from asking "was the CSD policy applied properly" to asking "should this page be deleted". By moving to the second question, the de facto power to delete shifts from "per policy" to "administrator's judgement", which is a shift away from Wikipedia being a community run project to administrators-oligarchy. CSDs are supposed to be for objectively incontestable cases where there is no point in discussion. If someone wants a discussion, they should be allowed one. In almost all CSDs, where a CSD is challenged, either at the tagging stage or post-deletion, XfD should be triggered automatically. For some, like G10 and copyright, there needs to be administrator discretion on whether the offensiveness or copyright violation is "objectively incontestable", but these tend to be the exceptions in cases of CSD complaints at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Jclemens's view, he put it perfectly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• I would like to support this, on the basis of this case. The nom was an editor with a history of hostility to the Soka Gakkai, Japan's largest Buddhist movement. What he did here was to delete from Buddhist humanism all cites to sources not related to the movement, and then claim that since the remaining sources were related that the article was "promotional" of its philosophy and should be deleted G11. I found this to be a rather outrageous example of a bad faith nomination. Ultimately, despite a lack of consensus on whether G11 should apply to the description of a philosophy, it was deleted on the grounds that it was a "POV fork" of another existing article. This seems unfair, since the only way to tell whether the article was POV was to read it, which non-admins couldn't do because it was gone. One of the "restore" !voters pointed this out. Others pointed out that since there was no consensus it should go to AfD. To no avail. I might add that since this decision I've scaled back my contributions to Wikipedia. Up to that point I had been participating in AfD and thinking I might accept if someone nominated me as an admin. Now, not so much. Up to the day it was deleted, I had spent a couple of hours trying to improve the references in the article. That work is gone now, so it really seems like, what's the point? You try to be responsible and do good work, but it's so easy to spoil. If there's no recourse, why bother? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support proposal per SmokeyJoe and Jclemens. Basically speaking if you can't get consensus that a speedy was done correctly, it shouldn't have been a speedy. Speedies are for clear cut cases. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to the idea here. The original edit was too verbose, though, especially when the instructions at DRV are already far, far too verbose. "However, in some for speedy deletions and some other cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." gets the idea across without adding another half inch to the DRV header height. —Cryptic 02:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a bit weaker than I would prefer. I'd rather have something at the end like "For speedy discussions, no consensus should generally result in a listing at AfD." I'm not sure that your wording make it clear that CSD "no consensus" results should, in most cases, become a listing at AfD. Which is I think what people are going for. Not a "must" but a "should". Hobit (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Nitpick: XfD, but yeah, this. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • My intention was to be brief, not to weaken it.
      Alternately - would anyone object if I just put the "Closing reviews" section in a collapse box, or maybe merge it into Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Administrator_instructions (and then link that directly from WP:DRV, instead of just the daily pages)? That's how most other deletion process pages do it; the people most likely to get confused by the pages and pages of text at the top don't need to read it; and we'd be able to be as instruction creepy wordy as we like with this. —Cryptic 05:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with a collapsed box. I'd rather be complete in the directions to closers than worry about being too verbose. And so if there are concerns we are getting too verbose here, collapsing seems like a good way forward. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing the impetus for this was the discussion concerning "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids", which does seem to be to be an unusual case requiring some discretion rather than a straight up-and-down restore. For certain classifications (attack page, copyvio, etc) I don't think that a split decision should result in an overturn, but for other more subjective types like A7 I can see an argument for that. Are there any other recent examples of discussions of those sorts of speedies being closed as "no consensus default to status quo"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 17 but I doubt any lessons should be drawn from it. The closer gave a rationale for not listing (in this case not reopening the listing). Thincat (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was not, rather comments by some admins that they believe no consensus to mean the speedy deletion is upheld. But the DRV you mention is another good example. As I said above, I really don't think there can be a "no consensus" when it comes to clear attack pages or copyvio but ff it's really unclear, then speedy deletion clearly was not the correct way to go since "uncontroversial" is a major requirement. There are sufficient ways to hide such potentially problematic content (blanking and such) for the duration of XFD after all. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that one, although I think that's even more of an unusual case than the one I brought up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC).

• Support as per SmokeyJoe, Hobit, and Jclemens above. Note the recent close: No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether this text was spammy enough to warrant the G11 deletion. For lack of consensus to overturn, the speedy deletion is maintained by default.. Speedy deletions should be for clear-cut cases. If there is not a consensus to endorse not just the deletion but the CSD reason in the log (or some other specific CSD reason, as when A G11 is contented as not too promotional, but found to be a copyvio during the DRV discussion) , the deletion should be undone by default. "If in doubt, don't delete." applies particualrly strongly to speedy deletions. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The CSD give consensus in advance, but only for pages strictly within their written terms. If a page doesn't fit, and there isn't some other consensus to delete (at an XfD or by PROD) no deletion is justified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• absolutely not  DRV should not be forcing nominatorless nominations on the deletion community, ever.  If there is no one willing to prepare a deletion nomination, there is no need for a deletion discussion.  There is nothing to prevent anyone from creating a page "WP:Requests for deletion discussions", if closers need to give such direction.

Note that a closing admin is using a !vote count if he/she documents that a "non-controversial" deletion was controversial, and then sustains it as no consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Unscintillating, I agree that, in general, automatic or "procedural" nominations at an XfD are a bad idea, but I don't see what that has to do with this proposal. This is simply a proposal to change what happens when a challenged speedy deletion is brought to XfD and there is not a clear consensus either to overturn or to endorse the speedy. Currently the default is to "Endorse". This proposal would change the default to "Overturn". That is all that it would do, as I understand it. DES ^(talk)[[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_DESiegel

• Oops I see that the original edit did include a provision for automatically listing at an XfD. I will provide revised lanaguage below. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Modified proposal

I propose that the following language should be inserted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Closing reviews:

"If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate."

I think this is much clearer and simpler to administer, with no significant downside. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Modified proposal

• Support as proposer. Speedy deletions should be for clear-cut cases. If there is not a consensus to endorse not just the deletion but the CSD reason in the log (or some other specific CSD reason, as when A G11 is contented as not too promotional, but found to be a copyvio during the DRV discussion) , the deletion should be undone by default. "If in doubt, don't delete." applies particualrly strongly to speedy deletions. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The CSD give consensus in advance, but only for pages strictly within their written terms. If a page doesn't fit, and there isn't some other consensus to delete (at an XfD or by PROD) no deletion is justified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per what I wrote above and DES's comments. Speedies are for clear cut cases. If you can't get consensus it was appropriate, it wasn't. Plus, I like the wording. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support and since discussion has found no opposes to this wording after ~2.5 weeks, will be implementing this presently. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Late Support as initiator of the discussion. Closes like this one show that this is needed. Regards SoWhy 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, that was a bad close. This language should make it easier to close better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. A speedy that doesn't enjoy consensus is a bad speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why no requirement to notify the nominator?

The instructions state to consult with the closing admin on his talkpage, but don't even suggest contacting the original AFD's nominator. Why this oversight? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the close their contesting, the admin can explain their closing and how they read the consensus. If that's not good enough then DRV discusses if the process was followed correctly and if the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. I fail to see the original AFD nominator's significance in any of that. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Template?

There's a variety of templates for article talk pages recording the result of afds. But, I don't see any for DRV discussions. Does one exist? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Nevermind. I found Template:Olddrvfull. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to begin hosting "merge reviews" on this page

I'd like to discuss the viability of gaining consensus to begin hosting "merge reviews" in a similarly named subsection of this page; it seems like this page is best suited for such reviews, if it is determined to be a thing worth doing.

For some background, I recently discovered a page I had created was unilaterally merged to another page and converted to a redirect by the wp:bold actions of a single editor.[1] Because no notifications are triggered by such an action, any contest I might otherwise have levied would now be untimely per Wikipedia:Merging#MergeReverse where it says: "mergers can be easily reversed if a consensus against the merger is formed shortly after the merger was performed." The emphasis is mine.

To save time, I am merely asking if there are others who tentatively agree that this seems worthwhile, or; if instead: there are those who disagree, if they will explain why this wouldn't work or is otherwise a bad Idea so I may know this as well. The discussion should indicate which direction is best, from here; either endeavoring it as a proposal, or letting it go as unneeded. Thank you for considering this; I look forward to, and hope to see, all replies that may come. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The Bold merge&redirect should be freely reverted per BRD, and the action not to be repeat until supported by consensus through discussion preferably on a talk page (either the first page, or target page is OK). I assume you know this, but let's be clear that revert and discussion comes before a formal review process.

2. DRV should be reserved for deletion decisions and the deletion processes. This can include Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection as this is a common AfD result, but would exclude a merge&redirect like you highlight. DRV should be reserved for deletion because it is important to be kept a clean location for review, as a check and ongoing education forum for misuse of the administrator delete button. It should not be diluted for what is really an editing conflict. DRV is alread very busy with very diverse appeals concerning a wide variety of formal and informal deletions, XfD, CSD, PROD, BLPDELETE, IAR-DELETE. Limited OTRS and oversight deletion appeals are occasionally entertained, not that they have ever been successful.

3. Very similar to my March 2017 suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review#Expand_scope_to_review_challenged_RfC_closes, I think WP:MR would be a good forum for "Merge Reviews". WP:MR is functioning very nicely, and in large part thanks to the setup work by Mike Cline. It has had a substantial calming effect on the preceding practice of move-wars and lack of respect for the WP:RM process. I think it can similarly serve "Merge Reviews" in addition to RfC closes, in addition to probably several other things that involve an administrative close of a discussion. Merge Reviews fit because if a merge is challenged, it should first be attempted to be resolved by discussion, and all contested discussions do well to be formally closed. A review forum would encourage good practice in the closes of merge discussions. WP:MR has the infrastructure already set up, and has room to broaden its scope. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe on #1 and #2 and have no opinion on #3 (don't know that forum well enough to comment). Hobit (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Smokey Joe gets it right when he says, DRV should be reserved for deletion ... as a check and ongoing education forum for misuse of the administrator delete button. The important point there is that admins have the ability to delete material, which is an action that cannot be reversed by most editors. Along with that power comes the requirement for public review, to ensure that it's not misused. Any editor can execute a merge, and any other editor can revert that action. There should be collaborative discussion around these actions, but such discussions don't require special admin abilities to resolve, so there's no need to bring them here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with SmokeyJoe, Hobit, and RoySmith above: DRV is not the place for such discussions. I haven't been at WP:MR much, but that seems like a plausible location. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  I appreciate all of the replies above. I agree with the counsel that reasonably dissuades advancing a proposal such as I had begun, and for adopting that counsel, I would now, myself, oppose the same. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Bold merge and redirects are one thing, but we also have AfDs closed as merge/redirect (like Covfefe). While not technically an admin action, these are in practice because AfD closers need to be able to delete if that's the decision. The AfD process has a sense of near finality to it, whatever the outcome. So whether it's here or at WP:MR, a well-defined appeal process is needed to enable discussion.

I'm for WP:MR as the place for two reasons. One, we unclog WP:DR. Two, it makes closing these realistic for more editors, not only admins. —Guanaco 08:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Just checking to make sure I submitted request properly...

I just submitted a request re: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. I am not very familiar with WP:Deletion review, so I hope I submitted the request properly. Is there a template that needs to be added to the top of the page being discussed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm unable to create a article because it was protected by you.

Hi there,

A brief about me.: I'm Vinuthnaah Neela. Senior Journalist to a Reputated Telugu News Paper and News Channel.

Why am posting this. : I'm right here to write an article on Person Krishna Hoccane but I can't because it is Deleted Various time by the Administrators. So I asking and requesting you to unprotect and share the rights of the article to my WikiPedia Account.

Thank You May I hope, you understood my intention -Vinuthnaah Neela(Journalist) Vinuthnaah (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest you create a userspace draft with the content you would like to add to this page and then post here for review. Given the number of inappropriate pages created at this title the title has been locked to prevent further inappropriate creations. Hut 8.5 17:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: Actually, it's been salted in draftspace as well per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Krishna Hoccane. See also conversation at User talk:Randykitty. --Finngall ^talk 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article and its draft, according to the MfD discussion, has had 'repeated sock/spam creation'; the problem is, when an account appears to be set up purely in order to request its creation (and, incidentally, whose first post was to set up an RfA poll for itself), I'd be tempted to ping User:Bbb23, and to hell with the consequences. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)