This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Deletion review page. |
|
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. |
The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the {{ Delrevxfd}}, {{ Delrev}}, and {{ DRV notice}} templates? Jarble ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @ Anomie and Timotheus Canens: Can this bot be programmed to do the tasks that I listed here? Jarble ( talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Salman Farhan Sudi was deleted due to several points which should be corrected instead of deletion the whole article, Please I am requeating to undelete that article and return it to discussion.
Thankz. Hawali Nur ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Team,
It is a humble request to help retrieve the content of the draft of YogiGuru Saugaato that was deleted. I require the latest version of the draft and have been unable to retrieve it from anywhere else. There is no copy, and was a dictation version. Kindly share the latest edited draft of the content. I assure it will not be used to published anything on any Wikipedia pages. Debottama23 ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Several months ago, I found the following note on my talk page:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:The sun1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
As you can see, the link is useless now. Just now I was curious to see what was involved, so I had to go to the image and check WhatLinksHere to find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23. Why must this be the case? Active DRV discussions are transcluded in log pages, so it's not like we have some technical barrier; the latest active discussion, for Elizabeth Shown Mills, can be linked either Wikipedia:Deletion review#Elizabeth Shown Mills or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 21#Elizabeth Shown Mills. As far as I can see, the template could easily link to the log page, which won't change, instead of to the main DRV page, which will always be changing. Nyttend ( talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
|days=
parameter being specified - it assumes that the DRV has been filed on the current day? To my understanding, this is what currently happens with (e.g.) {{
Rfd notice}} & {{
Tfd notice}}. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 20:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER. Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER. The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER. I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests. Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. — a smart kitten[ meow 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps ( talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I proposed at Village pump (policy) that DRV should have, and state that it has, closures of Speedy Endorse for a Deletion Review when the appellant has failed to state a case. On further thinking, I think that what is needed is Speedy Close, similar to the administrative closes sometimes used at XFD, and that the instructions for DRV should list the reasons for Speedy Close. The reason for changing the phrase is that some of the Deletion Reviews to which this should apply are not really appeals of deletion decisions.
I suggest, in particular, that the instruction should say, below "Deletion review may be used" and "Deletion review may not be used", there should be a paragraph beginning "A Deletion Review request may be Speedily Closed if:" followed by:
We see such requests for Deletion Review from time to time, and they are often administratively closed, but it would be useful to list them as bases for speedy closes, similar to Speedy Keeps at XFD.
I would like to send this provision for Speedy Closes at DRV forward to an RFC to add it to the DRV instructions, after discussion and any changes to the rationales. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.— Cryptic 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Deletion review page. |
|
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. |
The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the {{ Delrevxfd}}, {{ Delrev}}, and {{ DRV notice}} templates? Jarble ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @ Anomie and Timotheus Canens: Can this bot be programmed to do the tasks that I listed here? Jarble ( talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Salman Farhan Sudi was deleted due to several points which should be corrected instead of deletion the whole article, Please I am requeating to undelete that article and return it to discussion.
Thankz. Hawali Nur ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Team,
It is a humble request to help retrieve the content of the draft of YogiGuru Saugaato that was deleted. I require the latest version of the draft and have been unable to retrieve it from anywhere else. There is no copy, and was a dictation version. Kindly share the latest edited draft of the content. I assure it will not be used to published anything on any Wikipedia pages. Debottama23 ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Several months ago, I found the following note on my talk page:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:The sun1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
As you can see, the link is useless now. Just now I was curious to see what was involved, so I had to go to the image and check WhatLinksHere to find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23. Why must this be the case? Active DRV discussions are transcluded in log pages, so it's not like we have some technical barrier; the latest active discussion, for Elizabeth Shown Mills, can be linked either Wikipedia:Deletion review#Elizabeth Shown Mills or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 21#Elizabeth Shown Mills. As far as I can see, the template could easily link to the log page, which won't change, instead of to the main DRV page, which will always be changing. Nyttend ( talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
|days=
parameter being specified - it assumes that the DRV has been filed on the current day? To my understanding, this is what currently happens with (e.g.) {{
Rfd notice}} & {{
Tfd notice}}. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 20:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER. Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER. The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER. I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests. Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. — a smart kitten[ meow 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps ( talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I proposed at Village pump (policy) that DRV should have, and state that it has, closures of Speedy Endorse for a Deletion Review when the appellant has failed to state a case. On further thinking, I think that what is needed is Speedy Close, similar to the administrative closes sometimes used at XFD, and that the instructions for DRV should list the reasons for Speedy Close. The reason for changing the phrase is that some of the Deletion Reviews to which this should apply are not really appeals of deletion decisions.
I suggest, in particular, that the instruction should say, below "Deletion review may be used" and "Deletion review may not be used", there should be a paragraph beginning "A Deletion Review request may be Speedily Closed if:" followed by:
We see such requests for Deletion Review from time to time, and they are often administratively closed, but it would be useful to list them as bases for speedy closes, similar to Speedy Keeps at XFD.
I would like to send this provision for Speedy Closes at DRV forward to an RFC to add it to the DRV instructions, after discussion and any changes to the rationales. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.— Cryptic 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)