Wikipedia talk:Non-deleting deletion discussions
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
About why DRV doesn't hear these
[edit]I changed the first paragraph of the second section around a little bit. I think my version more correctly explains the reasons why DRV turns down these reviews. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
See also
[edit]Is WP:AfD and mergers an appropriate See also link? Since I'm its primary author, I thought I should ask first. Flatscan (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. its more political then this but I dont see why not. Its not like anyone owns this essay Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The following essays are sort of related:
- Wikipedia:Closing Administrator is not an Edit on Demand Service
- User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves
Both are concerned with deletion debates where consensus leads to a non-deletion outcome. In such cases, it may very well happen that in attempting the mandated outcome, it is realised that some other action should be taken. In such cases, it certainly should not be assumed that the discussion needs a DRV, or even a relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant section User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Deletion discussion closed as merge is brief, but the overall page is very useful. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a policy
[edit]I reverted the promotion to policy by Barbario as this clearly is a helpful how to essay not an official policy of the english wikipedia. Please feel free to discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Why then did you cite this essay as the way DRV works.
- If this is how DRV works, and you intend to use it as the rules to follow, it should be policy explicitly linked in from the deletion and deletion review policies. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there should be no obscure rules hidden away in essays. --Barberio (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Its not hidden away in an essay, the esaay was written to give us a clear explanation for confused users why DRV doesn't touch merges. Merge is not a traditional AFD close and as merges are editorial decisions it does not require an admin to exact a merge. The close of an AFD as a merge means that the material has been determined as being noteworthy so merge is effectively keep followed by an editorial decision to merge. Obviously this can be backed up by a consensus from the discussion but DRV won't and can't look beyond the effective keep so we can't undo a merge outcome. That requires a new comsensus which is what this essay is designed to promote. Maybe policy does need to catch up but DRV is pretty consistent on this so perhaps the forum for discussing this is AFD rather then DRV or ND3. Spartaz Humbug! 11:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)