Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review. See § Purpose.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some 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.

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.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2018 July 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2018 July 16}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2018 July 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 



Active discussions[edit]

16 July 2018[edit]

15 July 2018[edit]

Malaysia at the 2018 Asian Games[edit]

Malaysia at the 2018 Asian Games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Malaysia has announced that they will join the 2018 Asian Games. See https://www.asiangames2018.id/participants/country/malaysia. 219.79.126.116 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Is there anything you can actually say about Malaysia's participation, other than the fact that they will participate? Such as which sports they will compete in, or which athletes they will send? That was a significant concern in the AfD and the recreation didn't address this. Aside from the heading "football" (with no content) it didn't say anything other than that Malaysia will be taking part, and your source doesn't either. Hut 8.5 10:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also worth nothing that the two most recently created versions were written by sockpuppets of Simon 1996 (talk · contribs). Hut 8.5 10:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

14 July 2018[edit]

Ethan van Sciver (closed)[edit]

Anal Cujt[edit]

Anal Cujt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:CHEAP, and "J" and "N" are next to one another on a keyboard, making it a plausible typo. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This exact argument was made at the AfD, and apparently failed to convince people. So, fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. Anyway, if you followed that argument to its logical conclusion, you would get that there's 8 letters in the title, and (ignoring end effects), each letter has 8 immediate neighbors on a keyboard, so there's 8 * 8 such one-key-away typos. Surely you're not arguing that we should create all 64 of those? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Reply - There were equal arguments on both sides for keep and delete, which defaults to "No Consensus". Since "Anal Cujt" was created, there was no reason to delete it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I provided a bit of an explanation of the close on my talkpage, but suffice it to say I did not find the arguments on both sides to be "equal." Regarding process, I think RoySmith is right that this nomination appears to fail WP:DRVPURPOSE. ~ Amory (utc) 00:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorseish - really says something that anyone bothers to nominate such a redirect to be deleted in the first place, can't see the existence making much difference one way or another, it's hardly making space for something more important. It also really says something that anyone bothered to try and debate keeping, where as noted it's not going to help anyone since the search function sorts it out anyway. And it says something that we (and I include this comment) waste so much time discussing the point. The deleting admins reading of the discussion to give more weight to the delete arguments doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable and since having the redirect or not seems to make no difference to the encyclopaedia's utlity - so endorse. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

11 July 2018[edit]

Vandana_Menon[edit]

Vandana_Menon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The given reasons for deletion are lack of sources and that the actress hasn't appeared in notable movies. However the actress has appeared in several notable movies including one that won the State Film Award and National Film Award. All of this is stated in the page. The page provides 3 citations and an external link to IMDB page. In addition, a simple Google search or Google Image search will show that the actress is reasonably famous in the Malayalam film industry. (I'm new to writing / editing articles in Wikipedia. Please forgive me if I haven't followed the proper formats/procedures) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienMaster (talkcontribs) 09:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Endorse Endorse or possibly relist. The AfD result was pretty clear. I'd like to hear more about File:Vandana Menon.jpg which the nom uploaded. It's listed as own work. It's a studio-quality photograph with no EXIF data in the file. One of two things is true. Either it's taken from a publicity pack, in which case it's a copyvio and not their own work. Or, the nom really did take the photograph, in which case they're a professional photographer who took this in their studio, in which case they have undisclosed WP:COI. Which is it? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This was answered on my talk page. Short version: it's copied from Facebook. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to relisting this, now that the image copyright issue has been resolved (the image has been deleted). There was certainly no fault with the close given the arguments at the time. But, if the arguments made by the nom for this DRV had been made in the original AfD, it seems plausible it would have been relisted for further discussion. I don't think the arguments made here are very strong, but adding them to the AfD and letting it run for another week would do no harm. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Not a huge NACTOR failure, but definitely a failure. Good close. The nominator here says “and that the actress hasn't appeared in notable movies”. I can’t find where that was given as a reason for deletion. It is in fact irrelevant. The actress may be mentioned in articles on notable films in which she plays a major part. The reason for deletion is the lack of independent secondary sources discussing the actress directly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse and the reason for deletion was the failure to meet NACTOR and GNG and not the copyright issue and the consensus was in favour of deletion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

10 July 2018[edit]

Raymond Weil[edit]

Raymond Weil (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deleted as spam without any discussion. Had been speedy deleted in 2007 but was restored later. I think this article can still have some improvement. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 00:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • This actually survived an afd in 2005, though I'm having trouble finding a revision that I wouldn't g11 myself. Even stub-length versions like this, where the edit summary reads "Cleaned to less commercial", still have unsourced effusive praise. —Cryptic 00:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Cryptic, thanks for ping. The article was created by and for the company, under the company name, and the main editor is now blocked as "Promotional username, promotional edits", the text is purely promotional, and the references are junk sources that don't meet the recently updated and tightened notability guidelines for organisations and companies. I can't imagine why we feel any duty to help this company promote its wares here, just because it's managed to get itself blocked. I strongly disagree with any restoration of this promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn, an article which has been kept at AFD is immune from speedy deletion. Therefore the deletion of this article was a procedural error. The article probably needs to be stripped back very severely however. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and salt. This page has a long history of WP:SPA editing. I've run out of patience to explore the history further, but I've already found:
    1. User:Markvaneck~enwiki
    2. User:Weilowner
    3. User:Madeleinedavis
    4. User:Hermes_2k6
    5. User:PeteDaMan
    6. User:Shamash624
    7. User:Valentinecharb
All of whom, over the span of 13 years, have only made edits to this article, or to closely related ones. The SPA involvement goes back to the original article creation. I've also found extensive copyvios in many revisions, also going back years. It's possible there are copyvio-free revisions somewhere, but I'm not willing to invest the effort to find them. If an established editor really thinks this company needs an article, they're free to research it and try to write something that meets WP:NCORP. But, let them do it their sandbox or as a draft for review.
Stifle is technically correct that WP:CSD says, If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations... But, the AfD was 12.5 years ago. Our standards for WP:AfD in general and WP:NCORP have changed significantly since then. Not letting such an old AfD be a bar to CSD seems like a perfect application of WP:IAR. Not to mention the copyvio issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
PS, for those of you who believe that a 12.5 year old AfD should be proof against CSD, go read the AfD. Arguments put forth for keeping include, Their ads are all over the place, Notable watchmaker with no explanation of what makes them notable, and a couple of, per somebody else comments. In the entire AfD, there's not a single WP:RS mentioned, probably because we hadn't evolved that concept yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse the article appears to be riddled with copyvio. The internet archive is having trouble showing me the contents of the one source present in the original version, but the same text is used to promote the company here and I strongly suspect it was a copyvio (as someone in the AfD also thought). I've found several chunks of copyvio in the most recent version. If it is kept then someone would have to go through the thing to exhaustively analyse which bits are copyvio and which aren't, and it really isn't worth doing that for a piece of spammy crap. The AfD is from 2005 and makes some pretty awful arguments by even vaguely modern standards (I suspect that even in 2007-8 those rationales would not have gone down well). If there is ever a situation where it's OK to ignore a Keep at AfD then this is it. Hut 8.5 18:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse. RoySmith is right--that 2005 AfD isn't good law and would never be closed that way now. I wouldn't read the speedy deletion policy of endorsing eternal stare decesis for any deletion discussion, ever. If we want to be formalistic, then I would also overturn the original AfD as being no longer valid in light of contemporary policy. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Send to AfD Based on what's been said above, I'm really tempted to endorse. But this is out of process and an AfD would be better for many reasons (in-process, likely to be the end of the discussion for a while, CSD is a bad place for IAR). I've no problem with taking some non-standard steps like having a temp. restore with the article otherwise blanked during the AfD. If for copyright reasons if nothing else. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, a new AfD would justify the salt given the long history of problems. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
      • If this is restored I will immediately blank it and list it at WP:CP, which will lead to it being deleted a week later unless someone is willing to put in the effort to weed out the copyright violations it is absolutely stuffed with. Hut 8.5 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse, this version, and pretty much every single previous one, is irretrievable copyvio and spam. That's not to say an article couldn't be written - the company is almost certainly notable. But not like this. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Bad Speedy, per Stifle. Should have been sent to AfD, or G12-ed if indeed it was riddled with copyvio. If not, it probably is riddled with bad attribution to sources. Leave it deleted but Allow re-creation, please ensure the first version includes 2 good independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC). Maybe this1 and this2. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

9 July 2018[edit]

Universa Blockchain Protocol[edit]

Universa Blockchain Protocol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted without providing any valid WP:CSD reason; under the flag of “page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto” which, no matter enabling some new possible page-level and editor-level sanctions, doesn’t enable any new administrator capability/“sanction” in deleting the pages especially speedily; deleted as “Covert advertising” overriding the ongoing page deletion discussion (if I recall correctly; being a non-admin, I cannot find it anymore) which provided sufficient argumentation about the page notability.

We had a discussion on the talk page of deleting administrator User_talk:MER-C#Selectively_deleting_the_Crypto/Blockchain_related_articles_for_the_reason_of_WP:GS/Blockchain, whether using a WP:GS/Crypto as an explanation of speedy deletion is acceptable to override the consensual decision regarding page notability; but they insisted that WP:GS/Crypto permits for “…any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project”, even though this is related to the editor-level sanctions in the original sanction document, rather than any page-level.

As to me, it seems that the community has authorized WP:GS/Crypto regime to prevent the tendentious and biased editing of the articles, rather than to give a simpler non-WP:CSD-requiring path to administrators to immediately delete pages they single-handedly consider spammy. As a Subject-Matter Expert in this area who made some edits to this page to make it more verifiable, and the person who probably could make this page even better, I’d happily get any guidance and objective third opinion if something indeed looks spammy/insufficiently encyclopaedically, and how it can be improved; but deleting a rather informative page seems an overkill. Honeyman (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Endorse as standard discretionary sanctions (which these are, even if community authorized) grant administrators the authority to take any reasonable action on pages as well as editors. WP:AC/DS is the controlling bit for the non-1RR section, not what Primefac copied from the Syria sanctions when formatting this page. I don’t see any of the protections being challenged here or at AN, and if they were, they’d be laughed out. The community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content, not just content disputes in the area in question. Additionally, as these are community authorized discretionary sanctions, only AN, not DRV has the authority to Undelete this page without the consent of the deleting administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - wrong venue. General sanctions must be appealed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. MER-C 20:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As long as they are the sanctions indeed. As I’ve mentioned already before, WP:GS/Crypto doesn’t enable any sanction like “deleting a page”, at all. Standard discretionary sanctions doesn’t seem to explicitly allow “speedier deleting” of the pages either (and “or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project” part hardly fits – removing a page is really tough to consider “proportionate”, as deleting a page is always a most extreme measure; and WP:DELETE suggests that improving should be preferred whenever possible). Therefore this looks like just a speedy deletion. Honeyman (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful. MER-C has claimed this as an enforcement action, which means it is presumed one until the community at WP:AN rules otherwise and only the community at AN can rule so, not a DRV discussion. This is because community authorized discretionary sanctions are authorized by the community as a whole at a more prominent noticeboard, so questions as to their validity are subject to community oversight at AN. This deletion can only be overturned there, so yes, I endorse MER-C's call for a speedy close. Also, of course it is proportionate: the creator is trying to destroy the encyclopedia to make a profit. Deletion is the only proportionate page-level sanction for that. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I disagree that he's trying to destroy the encyclopedia. He's trying to use it, abuse it, take advantage of it, but not destroy it. A successful parasite doesn't kill their host. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Fair point: makes my point as just well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
            • I trust that the creator and User:Honeyman are not implied to be the same person? Who was the creator? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
              • I made some changes, rather technical ones, to the article; and even found out and provided the logo image to be used in the article; but most of the article I believe was written by someone else. Being a non-admin, I cannot even check it; and even being an SME, I am not sure if I could have direct contacts of that person/organization. From my side, I could (as much as I can) try to help bringing the page to the Wikipedia level and provide the non-controversial information for it (as much as it seems non-controversial for others and doesn’t involve COI); though I’d definitely love to get some independent eye on it. Honeyman (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
                • What is "SME"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
                  • I mean, Subject-Matter Expert. Seen this term on WP:COI when have been trying to understand for myself if I am in COI with this topic, or just an SME to it. Honeyman (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Definitely reject the speedy close request. DRV is the highest court for reviewing deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn discretionary sanctions don't allow administrators to delete arbitrary pages within the scope of the sanction. The only sanctions permitted for pages (as opposed to editors) involve imposition of 1RR. The complaint here seems to be that the page was created by an undisclosed paid editor, which hardly justifies extraordinary measures. If the page was created by someone violating a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions then you could use G5, but I don't see any suggestion that's the case. Hut 8.5 21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The 1RR is automatic, and is not discretionary. Discretionary is broader than that and gives admins much wider discretion. As this is the only DS authorized for promotionalism, we’re in uncharted waters, but MER-C’s actions make sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This does not make any sense to me. The wording being cited to support this (which is from ArbCom sanctions) is that admins are allowed to take "reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Really? The smooth running of the project requires that this page is deleted now, and not, say, in a week after an AfD? If we were dealing with a serious BLP violation then that may be reasonable, but the only violation cited is undisclosed paid editing, which many people think isn't a valid reason for deletion at all. Numerous attempts to add a speedy deletion criterion for undisclosed paid editing have been proposed at WT:CSD and failed to reach consensus, it isn't appropriate to bring one in through the back door as discretionary sanctions enforcement. Hut 8.5 06:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The use of Wikipedia for the illegal touting of securities has the potential to be just as bad for Wikipedia's reputation, if not worse, than serious BLP violations. This page was, on the face of it, created by a PR company acting on behalf of the subject. MER-C 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If the page needs to be deleted for legal reasons then the WMF should either do it or establish a policy directing us to do it. If it doesn't need to be deleted for legal reasons then I don't see the urgency. It would at best sit around for a week with a bunch of warning tags at the top. Even non-blatant copyright violations aren't summarily deleted. And again the discretionary sanctions this is supposedly done as part of don't permit page deletion. Hut 8.5 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is much more limited in scope than those anyway, and yes, the DS permit any action deemed reasonable as page level sanctions: I linked to the arbcom page, but that is because these were authorized as ARBIPA equivalent sanctions, which are standard ArbCom DS. There is only one page on this project that defines standard discretionary sanctions, and that is WP:AC/DS. I'll grant whether or not this is a valid use of the sanctions is an open question, but that's not one that DRV is really equipped to handle. DRV typically reassesses consensus or determines if something was a deletion outside the normal process. The question as to if this was a deletion outside the normal process is an obvious yes: the point of general and discretionary sanctions is that the normal process isn't working so we need to give more flexibility for the subject area. The question of whether it is a reasonable use of sanctions is one for AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:Blockchain outlines what is permitted as part of the sanctions in this area. It covers a wide range of restrictions on editors but the only page restriction mentioned is a 1RR restriction. There's nothing there that would justify deleting a page. While this wasn't an arbitration sanction I don't think deleting a page would be likely to be seen as a reasonable use of arbitration sanctions. WP:AELOG lists zero cases of arbitration discretionary sanctions being used to delete pages, which means there haven't been any at all in at least the last four years. DRV is the accepted forum for reviewing deletions, including deletions done outside the usual deletion processes, and an attempt to appeal a page deletion to AN would be directed here instead. Hut 8.5 20:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse/speedy close - this page was deleted under GS. First, I believe that such spam should be removed as a sanction on the original creator (and possibly recreated from scratch by s.o. independent). It does not matter whether said subject is notable or not, whether there have been significant edits, it should go - no trophies. Second, the page was deleted under GS, so this is the wrong venue to discuss whether these deletions actually fall under GS and whether a DRV could be warranted, or whether other processes should have been followed or not. —Dirk Beetstra T C 22:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore' and take to AfD. WP:DS/Blockchain, is not a reason for Deletion, and no DS ever can be. DS are about conduct, not content. I know of no DS ever that that specified deletion as a remedy, and I consider that that such a remedy would be beyond the jurisdiction on ANI or ANB. (or , for that matter, ArbCom). Admins have a role in deletion, which is to interpret the consensus of the community at AfD, or the implied consensus at WP:PROD, or in obvious cases the assumed consensus of Speedy. DS would permit us to ban a person inserting spam, but not to remove the article. The article might of course fall under Speedy criterion, and if so it should be deleted as one -- by another administrator, and that decision, if challenged, can be brought here. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I would apply this also to Payment21, deleted by the same admin under the same rationale. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Even if a community general sanction could authorise speedy deletion, which it can't, the sanctions linked above don't specify deleting a page as a specified remedy. Needs to go to AFD and a consensus obtained. User:TonyBallioni quotes requirements that appeals of ArbCom discretionary sanctions must go to ARCA/AE/AN, but this action is not taken under an ArbCom discretionary sanction; it is taken under a community general sanction. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Stifle, the standard DS rules apply to general sanctions minus the arb stuff. Regardless, the page itself makes it clear only AN can hear appeals Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. from WP:GS/Crypto. Any appeal here is invalid, and can’t be used to Undelete a claimed sanction here, and I think that matters as the odds of this getting overturned at AN are significantly lower than they are of getting overturned here.
      Re: the merits of your point, the sanctions authorized were ARBIPA equivalent, which is an authorization for standard DS plus automatic 1RR, which authorizes admins to make any page level sanction they feel neccesary for the operation of the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
These have never been applied in such a way as to permit page deletion as a sanction. Trhying to fit an entirely novel proceedure into a general clause dealing with something else does not make policy. Admins deleting articles must follow deletion policy. Nobody in WP has the sort of plenary power that would permit doing "anything", and ANI or ANB or ARB cannot just assume it for themselves. Page sanctions mean sanctions applying on apage to page basis, not enforcement related to the actual content of a page, or to its inclusion in WP. I think we need to decide here in such a way as to put a stop to any such extension of arbitrary power. Normally, when an admin does a Speedy, any other admin can if the situation is clear enough reverse it for good reason after discussion with the first admin, and does not necessarily have to come here--and if disputed only has to come here, not to ANI/ANB. . Making it a page-level sanction means that any admin could delete any article within broad categories and force the discussion on overturning it to go to ANI, which would be a prime example of turning orderly discussion into chaos. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
DGG, I actually think those are fair criticisms, but I also think that this situation is unique in that the community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content that was flooding this area. There is no other group of sanctions authorized for that purpose, so we've never had a situation where deletion could be used as a remedy under them (though, to use the ARBIPA example, I do think we've had some summary deletions there for 500/30 violations, but I couldn't list them.) I think the novelty of this is in part why this is better suited for AN than here. I think MER-C was acting in good faith and in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, but clarifying the limits here should be left to the community as a whole on the board that authorized the sanctions, not to a much less watched board that tends to focus on bureaucracy and process rather than outcomes. That has its place, but it really isn't the best way to resolve this particular question. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If the sanctions allow admins to ban spammers easily but not delete the spam they added that would seem, from the outside, rather bizarre. The sanctions should allow comprehensive solutions to promotional behavior. Let's figure out the answer to the general question first, then decide what to do with this page. MER-C 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Not bizarre. WP:CSD#G5 does not apply retrospectively, and WP:BANning can't be applied hypothetically based on future actions by a user. Perhaps the creator was already a banned person? Is there evidence for that? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
We have a method for dealing with spam: G11. It has fairly well established limits and methods for review. It's not subject to individual admin idiosyncrasy-partly because it is an established convention (though not a absolute requirement that no admin delete under it without a prior nomination by someone else), and partly because of the availability of the present process, Deletion Review. The wording used in this DS has been used in other previous ones, and has never to the best of my knowledge been used to justify deletion of the articles. Using it here is my my opinion overinterpreting the wording, rather resembling wikilawyering. It's an example of what we have seen here beofre, wiki-panic, which is a form of moral panic, bu which a particular problem is seen as so immediately critical that it rerquires extraordinary measures. It's never a constructive response. It's especially not a constructive response to a situation where there is already well-established and workable proceedures.
Doing so is a major change, and in my opinion requires a general consensus to modify deletion policy, rather than the limited consensus of an ANI discussion.
MER-CIMER-C, why did you not simply list for G11?
There is, in fact, a very good reason why we don't have this sort of sticky singlehanded deletion at G11. The definition of spam is not necessarily as obvious as a single person thinks it is. My main current activity here is dealing with spam, and I deleted many thousands of G11s- and nominated many thousands that other admins have deleted. enormous amount of work in deleting spam. I think I am about as willing to use G11 as anyone else here--I don't think anyone could say I have ever been willing to compromise with promotional editing. Nonetheless, a few of my G11s have been challenged, and a very few of them have even not resulted in the article being deleted. Similarly I've challenged G11s from others, and usually they go to afd or prod, and are deleted--but a few of them have been kept by consensus. No one here is perfect in any aspect of their activity.
The point of having DS for this topic area is precisely the opposite of what you have stated. We already have an excellent way to remove the spam. We did not have an equally effective way to deal with the spammers. Now we do. Behavior is the role of DS, not content. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:DGG, which is itself something. Trying to wedge a general deletion power into general sanctions without obtaining very broad consensus cannot stand. Trying to strip DRV of its core power which is to review deletion decisions and correct those which do not follow policy cannot stand either. The assertion that some class of poorly-specified disruption can allow an end-run around consensus and the normal decision and policy making arrangements on Wikipedia does not stand up to scrutiny. Strong overturn. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Refer the deleting admin User:MER-C, and User:TonyBallioni commenting above the the first line of WP:CSD (admitedly after crawling through an awful lot of hatnote clutter) that says: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here."
The deletion of mainspace pages is most certainly a content matter, and is out-of-scope for arbcom. If the speedy deletion of bitcoin pages is authorised to any admin discretion, then get it written into WP:CSD. Note however the new criterion criterion, or is it that Wikipedia governance has been usurped and this is no long a community run project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant here as it was conducted under different authorization. I also consider Cunard’s notification at WT:CSD inappropriate: that is by far the most rabidly anti-deletion talk page on all of Wikipedia. This DRV should be shut down immediately and taken to AN which is the only valid forum for review here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The notification was highly appropriate, as what is going on here is a massive extension of deletion policy and speedy deletion policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It was a notification on a page where you could probably find consensus to remove the ability of admins to delete at all if you tried on the right day. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I find that unreasonable. WT:CSD has found and supports a very large number of diverse and broad criteria for speedy deletion, I have proposed a number of new criteria, and have found support and opposition there to always be very reasonable. Once the speedy deletion criteria is supported, there is barely any possible appeal short of questioning that the objective criteria applied. A much bigger issue is ArbCom rulings being interpreted as being above deletion policy. This discussion should probably be list at WP:CENT, or even as a watchlist banner. The policy expansion principle is massive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This is one page. Of course we don’t need a CENT notice on this. We just need an AN review of one deletion claimed under the sanctions. We’ll have to agree to disagree on WT:CSD. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#Log of notifications contains a large number of deletions of articles and drafts. I read no authorisation, but no discussion at all, of deletions. I think the solution is to discuss it and document a new CSD to cover it. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Discussion_of_speedy_deletion_under_WP:GS/Crypto_at_Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_July_9#Universa_Blockchain_Protocol. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Request temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC). Was the page WP:CSD#G11 eligible? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse-Per TonyBallioni's reasoning and IAR.WBGconverse 06:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn - Deletion did not come up at the community discussion that authorized GS in this area at all. Even if you can argue deletion is in the letter of GS (I don't think it is), this is clearly not what the community had in mind when they authorized GS here. If you want to use GS to delete, you need a community consensus somewhere that says deletion is an acceptable GS enforcement action. I haven't found any such discussion, and would invite a link to one if one exists. Addressing the article narrowly, change to G11 if it applies, IAR delete it if you can make an IAR case, or send it to AFD. This also applies to Payment21, per DGG. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    After reviewing the article, change to G11. That page would require a rewrite to be encyclopedic and has very little value otherwise. There's no need to use an out-of-process deletion method here. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
to expand on what Tazerdog and Stifle and I and others have said above, basic policies at WP cannot be overridden by ANI. Suppose under the asserted authorization to do anything necessary for dealing with Crypto, an admin had decided that the best way to deal with the problem was to remove every existing article in the field. Suppose an admin had rewritten an article on a cryptocurrency to be less promotional (which is fine), and fully protected his own version. Suppose an admin had thought necessary for balance to insert a poorly sourced negative statement about a living person. Suppose an admin had thought it appropriate to insert a copyvio from another publication. What the adoption of the sanction means, is that an admin had authority to use any appropriate remedy within the usual scope of what is done at ANI. All rules are to be interpreted reasonably, as Tony Balloni said above. . DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Inquiry I can't view the article, but I suspect it could be deleted per WP:G11, could some admins comment on whether they feel that is the case? If so, the rest of this discussion is not needed here, and the debate over whether Discretionary Sanctions allow for page deletions can be handled at the correct forum (probably ARCA). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I am still requesting temp undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
      Endorse call for temp undeletion Tazerdadog (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. As a straight G11, it is a complicated one because it was WP:Reference bombed (from the first version). I support User:MER-C's block of Artox.rb (talk · contribs), which includes the talk page notice that tells them how to appeal, in the unlikely case of a mistake. With the page history reviewable, I see the user was a four year old barely autoconfirmed sleeper account. I still think Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product is a better approach, one that allows non-admins to be involved in the fight. Even without access to deleted contributions, I think I can see clear patterns in an increasing amount of UPE spamming. I think this spammer is otherwise a user well known to us. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GS also doesn't allow its provisions to be circumvented or interpreted at random other noticeboards: THAT way lies madness. Settle/clarify the issue in the right place; i.e., not here. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close or endorse. Do NOT overturn. This falls under WP:GS/Crypto: if you think it doesn't, this isn't the place to decide or argue the issue. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that this was a reasonable interpretation of GS powers and the correct forum for reviewing those decisions is important I agree with those who say this is the wrong forum for appeal. Also strongly agree with those who suggest that GS didn't authorize circumvention of CSD policy (but I also think it should have and could be with further community consensus). Most content in this area is a scourge on the reputation of the encyclopedia and appropriate actions should be taken to prevent its infiltration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • endorse after checking the content it is clear that the purpose is promotion. A g11 delete would be appropriate. The advertising is not that covert. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Graeme, it’s not a surprise that it might be G11-eligible, but do you endorse the deletion log summary “09:31, 4 July 2018 MER-C (talk | contribs) deleted page Universa Blockchain Protocol (Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto.)”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
      • There is absolutely no requirement to link to WP:CSD or any of its anchors in a speedy deletion log comment. If you accept that this was a valid G11, then "advertising" was enough. —Cryptic 15:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Cryptic, surely you mean to include fundamentally when using screaming hyperbole to cover a lack of logic? There is fundamentally and absolutely no requirement to be correct when logging deletions, least of all to respect the old policy WP:CSD, now that ANI, once a mere kangaroo court, has appointed itself sufficient to bypass deletion policy through the mechanism of “general sanctions”. Crypto spam must be countered, wikilawyering be damned, Wikipedia:Etiquette is for punces. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is anyone other than the nom advocating to keep this article on its merits? Unless other people are, I'd suggest a "The consensus is to delete the article" close and having everyone trundle on over to WP:AN to address the GS deletion question. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not the point. There is no speedy deletion criterion for "stuff I don't think should be here". Administrators are only allowed to delete pages in certain circumstances. Chuck out that principle and all sorts of pages could be deleted just because someone doesn't like them. Overturning the deletion would establish that these types of deletion are not appropriate. If you want to discuss the merits of the article then the best place for that is AfD. This discussion is about the merits of the deletion. Hut 8.5 21:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Even me, being the nom, do not request to return the article and keep it as it is. If the article looks non-encyclopaedically - let’s polish it (and the independent eyes who examine what parts are bad and what parts are worthy to keep, are highly appreciated). If the topic looks insufficiently notable for Wikipedia – let’s put it to AfD, but I am almost sure it will be rather easy to find the news sources proving it is notable enough. The nom’s opinion: Wikipedia will be better with the de-spammed version of this article, than without this article at all. Honeyman (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list at AfD. The article is bad, but not G11 bad. A redirect to Alexander Borodich may be the result of the AfD so it's worth having a discussion, as opposed to deleting due to a consensus here (and/or IAR). I don't see anything on WP:GS allowing for deletion per General Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noting my recent suggestion for moving forward at AN here: [1]. I think this was a valid deletion, and that the correct closure of this DRV is likely no consensus based on both the numbers and the arguments, but also think a way to move forward would be for MER-C to mark these deletions as G11 and also subject to the appeal provisions of GS/Crypto. That would both root it in policy while also respecting the wishes of the community for administrators to have more discretion in this area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: Are we to understand that, in your opinion, this qualifies for a g11 deletion? 78.28.45.127 (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In principle, this G11 deletion should be listed at AfD for discussion, because some editors in good standing disagree with it meeting G11. I am sympathetic to it meeting G11. It is all non-independent fact-based promotion of a commercial thing, no independent qualitative commentary whatsoever, and the first three sources are 1 & 2 non-secondary source and non-independent and source 3 is a single mere mention, and I think articles on commercial things thing carry the onus of present the best 2-3 sources attesting notability upfront. It is a common trick to WP:Reference bomb WP:CORP-failing promotion, and it is not reasonable to expect Wikipedians to evaluate the lot. I would personally hesitate because the page was unusually polished looking, and because there are mentions of the topic in other articles, but at NPP I would definitely PROD or AfD it. At AfD I would !vote “delete”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
If one is only sympathetic to it meeting G11, it does not meet G11. For a valid speedy it has to unquestionably meet G11 (though we normally interpret "unquestionably" to mean something more like "very clearly" or "clearly". Looking again, I don't think it meets G11. AfD exists for a purpose, which is to decide whether an article should to stay in WP, rather than make it a matter of opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • overturn Speedy deletion isn't something we do outside of the rules given at CSD because it's so ripe for abuse. It's not a clear G11, so send it to AfD if you want it gone. IAR is a fine thing, but if you want a new criteria, start an RfC. Also a non-trivial trout to any criticism of starting a discussion on the issue at the place that all speedy deletion issues are discussed. That's just silly. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

8 July 2018[edit]

Type 003 aircraft carrier (closed)[edit]

The Live Love Laugh Foundation[edit]

The Live Love Laugh Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

CSD'd sans notification of author, current revisions may not reflect past articles Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I was going through some lists of mine and noticed that an article I created (some time last year, I'm pretty sure), The Live Love Laugh Foundation, was deleted multiple times by three admins Deb, DGG, and RHaworth, for various reasons, such as A7 G11 and G3. However, I did not receive any notices of this, and am fairly sure that the article I wrote was neither promotional, advertising, unsourced, or so poorly written as to be an A7. As best as I can tell from the logs, the article I wrote was deleted by DGG for G11, than someone else came in and wrote 3 more articles which were then deleted, and the current revision of the article doesn't reflect what I wrote. Will someone please email me a copy or restore my revision (or put it in my sandbox) (Not OWNing anything, but making a distinction from what the current and past revisions are,) and if anyone feels they should be deleted could I be sent to AFD instead of deleted speedily. Not accusing anyone of trying to subvert me, but 5 months is a pretty long delay to find out that there were issues with an article that I didn't get a chance to resolve or address. I agree that the current version is not so bueno, and so wish to compare what I wrote last year to the current copy. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking over the history, I think at least some of the WP:G11's were reasonable. It looks like this has gone back and forth between some reasonable versions and some spammy ones. The current one doesn't look too bad. In any case, I've undeleted L3X1's most recent edit for comparison. I've also semi-protected the page. I would have no objection to restoring the full history; spam needs to be reverted, but doesn't have to be deleted. For now, however, I've done the more conservative thing that addresses the specific request here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't think I can help with this. I just checked and it was a blank page when I deleted it. Deb (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As is usual for discussion here, I restored the entire history, and replaced the latest version with a notice. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think the version DGG deleted as spam was all that spamy [2]. No opinion on later deletions (I didn't look). But yeah, the topic may not be notable, but the text was A) short B) mostly factual C) had potentially reasonable sources. I'm fine if we restore back to that version. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I doubt it will satisfy our current requirements for notability of organizations, which require sources not based on PR--but that can be discussed in the AfD thatwil linwevitably follow any restoration. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't look closely, but the sources looked credible. But yeah, it may well get deleted at AfD. I just don't think the article was much more than factual statements and it didn't seem hugely promotional. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

6 July 2018[edit]

3 July 2018[edit]

Archive[edit]

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec