![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is both a reminder that we currently still have to manually archive finished days into Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February (soon Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March) and a plea for anyone with bot/script knowledge to get in touch with me if you're willing to help in automatizing the process. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way I can find out why a prodded article was deleted? Specifically the Fazal Mohammed article. - Jwillbur 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I restored it and sent it to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In the wake of a number of absolutely puzzling decisions combined with the recent Daniel Brandt ArbCom case where even the arbitrators couldn't come up with a conclusion regarding what the role of Deletion Review is...what is the role of deletion review?
No, really.
Is it about deletion process? Is it about overturning bad decisions? If so, how are we actually weighting arguments? Should we be doing a head count, as GRBerry has implied is happening, or should we be doing strength of argument, an assumption that may have been premature.
My perception of what DRV is supposed to be is that it was an appeals process to the community to fix the incorrect decisions. If an article was speedy deleted that shouldn't have been, we could overturn it. If an article was kept at AfD, but didn't meet our standards, we could overturn it. In reality, it seems like none of those things matter - it's more the whim of who shows up, and rarely does an argument make a difference. Consistency is nonexistent.
Do we need to revamp the whole thing, or is it really, truly, working? Are we handling more controversial situations properly? Are we really matching our results up with actual policy on a consistent basis? If not, why is DRV even here? If it's not working, what do we do to make it work? What should we do? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a list of admins by number of overturns in DRV. I have my guesses as to who is in the top five. I can say that unilateral admin speedy deletion of articles coupled with a DRV heavily weighted in favor of deletion has been the source of considerable frustration. Jokestress 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've not been here for a while, but I find it curious that there's so much disagreement on ArbCom about the role of process in DRV. It was my impression that there was general agreement that DRV is not a place to correct procedural mistakes; that is, if an article is supposed to be deleted, it will not be undeleted at DRV. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind an opposition to that statement? Xiner ( talk, email) 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
One point of order before I begin: I've seen some newbies wonder "What happens if DRV ends in a no consensus"? Lack of consensus is impossible at DRV. An absolute tie is a consensus to relist. Why?
DRV is a forum for cloture, as I've said elsewhere before. Its role as a forum of appeal is primarily to determine whether a matter has been firmly decided, or should be referred to another forum for further discussion. Process is its primary concern, mainly because process in often overlooked in other XfD fora, and especially by speedy deletions. Since DRV is the place of last practical appeal, a process-weighted argument should ideally be favored: denial of process suggests that all points in a discussion have not been heard. If there is much more to said, cloture is inappropriate. Reviewers should ask themselves, "Was debate thorough?", "Were all relevant questions of fact and policy addressed?", and, lastly, "Was justice served?"
The last of these questions is fairly broad, obviously. As the final step in deletion process before a matter is pushed aside, DRV is specially positioned to consider fundamental fairness. This means that, while process is often the first place reviewers look for mistakes, other matters are relevant. Is new information available, relevant to the topic, that was unknown or unconsidered in the XfD? Has a new party come forward to present a perspective or argument unmentioned in the XfD? Is there some mitigating factor, beyond the strict letter of policy, that demands to be addressed in new debate?
Wikipedia trusts its admins, and its XfD fora. In general, they get things right -- or at least, we presume they do. That said, because DRV is just a forum for cloture, "consensus" has its weakest meaning anywhere in Wikipedia -- and that's a good thing. In order for a deletion to be endorsed, a majority must support it. Any other outcome results in referral back to an XfD, except in very limited cases. If a debate ends in a tie, we relist; a "keep closure" may be brought for DRV to review, but -- absent a very strong consensus of 80% -- any overturn simply sends the matter back to XfD. The (positive) biases of DRV are in favor of more discussion (call it, "if in doubt, relist") as well as the traditional Wikipedia content retention bias ("If in doubt, don't delete.")
My esteemed colleague, badlydrawnjeff, is one of the most dedicated content-saviors we have at Wikipedia. I do not always agree with Jeff, and others like him -- is the noble Kappa still with us? -- but I respect that folks like Jeff are really the key to DRV. Advocates for content bring disputed cases of deletion to DRV: ultimately, the job of the closer is to decide if the advocate has made enough headway to indicate that more discussion is in order. DRV is also a meta-analytic forum: "strength of argument" is often very hard to weigh, and any closer is apt to be swayed by any personal inclusionist/deletionist tendencies. To avoid killing each in arguments over whether we have even a "consensus" to stop discussing a thing, DRV is best left to head-counting. The range of closer's discretion is limited.
Having said that, DRV's positive biases insist that a closer scrutinize arguments for irrelevancies. As always, newer users, hopeless POV-warriors, anons, and the truly "out-of-touch" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) can be discounted. In my day, closers didn't sign their closes; the reasoning on DRV close is rarely given, unless the case is monumental or very long -- this is to avoid rule-creep, but also to keep us from (again) the great sin of arguing over whether we should argue over whether people want to keep discussing a thing. The process of meta-analysis has to stop before we go mad. In general, if a case is close enough that it is giving you a headache, relist it to the appropriate XfD. Those cases are really the only time "strength of argument" can outweigh a head-count.
It is absolutely essential that the DRV closer be humble about this. A sophist could devise any number of reasons to weigh "strength of argument" and relist virtually every case. That would lead to process-insanity, and incredible acrimony. In almost every case, the headcount is right. Only cite "strength of argument" to overturn and relist in very limited cases.
Citing "strength of argument" to support deletion is -- except in the case of a newbie flood, where numbers can be grossly distorted -- really an awful idea. If at least half of the Wikipedians present want to continue discussing something, a relist is in order. The closer should never let personal opinion obscure the fact that DRV is just about cloture -- the merits of the article are relevant, but the central question is "Are we, or are we not, done talking about topic X?" Even if you, Mr. Closer, think article X is putrid, you must respect your fellows if a large number of them believe the discussion is not yet finished, and relist.
Thanks to GR for dragging me over here. :) Xoloz 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading all of this and nodding my head all the way through...Xoloz's explanation makes perfect sense to me. So why do so many people not get it? And the further you get up Wikipedia's hierarchy - from peon editor to admin to senior admin to Arbcom - the worse it gets in terms of people calling us process wonks for trying to make DRV work. I have a feeling that merging the Deletion, Deletion Review, and Undeletion policies might help. It helps to see them all together to understand why DRV needs to be different from AfD. Kla'quot 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of an aside but I think that some of recent relistings are unnecessary. Let's drill into just the Rites of Ash discussion. The page itself was speedy-deleted after an abbreviated AFD discussion. The nominator (a user with the same name) requested undeletion and provided a few claims to notability. Coredesat politely requested sources - a policy-based request. Maybe the new user can provide the sources so Coredesat chose not to antagonize the user with a bold and preemptive "vote". From the wording of the comment, however, it is clear to me that without such sources he/she is endorsing the deletion. The nominator returned with some claims for sources. I replied that those do not meet Wikipedia's standards for sources and will not sway the argument. I also chose to word my comment carefully because I don't want to bite the user unnecessarily. Maybe if they turn their attention to other subjects, they can grow into reliable editors. I'm not sure why I felt that this user had potential when others didn't but it seemed like the best way to word the rejection. Nevertheless, I had assumed that it would be clear from my comment that in the absence of sources which do comply with policy, I also endorsed the deletion of the page.
We've fallen into the habit of summarizing our "votes" up front and in bold. The practice is supposed to be for the convenience of the closer. I'm not sure that it actually works, though. That format takes away a degree of flexibility and tact that are often quite useful in discussions. Writing the answer before you write the reasoning also inevitably creates a slight bias toward a polarized answer and nudges us away from the compromise that is sometimes the best solution. These are discussions, not votes, for a reason. And a good closer still has to carefully read and interpret every comment regardless of the opinion expressed at the front.
At the end of the day, the closer does need to make a decision. And in the Rites of Ash example, no one contributed with any other comments or sources that met policy or that could be interpreted as justifying the overturn of the speedy-deletion. It would have been nice if Coredesat had returned to the discussion to affirm his/her position about the quality of the provided sources but that's still a "delete" opinion. So was mine. Two endorsements of a speedy against the page creator's request for reconsideration seems like a closable discussion to me. I expect someone experienced enough to be closing DRV discussions to be experienced enough to read the comments and to interpret them appropriately. Depending on uniform "endorse" or "overturn" votes at the front of every comment is a crutch - useful but you can't depend on it alone. Xoloz is dead-on with the comments about humility and respecting the will of the participants. At the same time, it's a wiki. We trust you to be bold, even in the act of interpreting comments when closing DRV discussions. Rossami (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Jeff has a legitimate concern, that has been lost above in other discussion, about what should we overturn and what should we endorse. And whether we are doing what we should be doing. Let's talk about that more.
I view DRV as the second line of defense against bad deletion decisions. (Or the backup safety valve on the pressure cooker.) Discussion with the deleting admin should be the first line of defense.
We are looking for mistaken deletions, trying to find material that is either useful as is, just needs minor patching, or is at least recyclable - or that might be and should be sent to XfD for an evaluation. If I think it should have been thrown out in the garbage can instead of being sent through the garbage disposal, but agree that it is garbage either way, then I really don't care a lot about the jots and tittles of the deletion documentation. (A recent example was an article deleted for lacking context, that could easily have had context filled in from the incoming links, but I'd then have speedy deleted as being spam.)
So if a speedy deletion is brought here for review, I'm more concerned about whether there is any reason to believe that it has a snowball's chance at AFD than whether it perfectly fit the speedy deletion criteria. (PROD deletions are never an issue - they get overturned, although they may be speedy deleted right away.) So I used to ask questions designed to elicit the information needed to believe it would have a chance at AFD. If the requisite information isn't forthcoming, I think that we should look for an outcome that avoids an AFD. An example would be redirecting a band member to their band and restoring history underneath (or a single to an album).
But we also serve, and here is where the safety valve metaphor works a lot better, as a forum for people to get a chance to make a case, hopefully lowering their stress levels. Civility is crucial for this purpose. GRBerry 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't count the loads of times I've seen something that got speedy deleted on soft grounds, didn't look like it had a snowball's chance, be redeemed in a five day AfD when wider input was solicited. I admire Jeff and Kappa because I've seen them save things. They need a fair opportunity to do that. Don't worry about taking too long to discuss things. The pleasant surprises of redeemed good content make up for the wee inconvenience of a five day window on AfD. Xoloz 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing that I've noticed that has been a concern is community involvement. With the closings of several Wiki-orgs such as esperanza and concordia, and from what I've seen many WikiProjects that have become fairly inactive, it should be no surprise that the XfD system (of which DRV is a part) has issues of lack of community involvement.
Perhaps we should start a new discussion about how to "advertise" the processes in some way. It just seems that those involved are typically only those who are directly involved with the article/template/category/etc in question, and a few of those then leave a few other votes on other discussions on the page. The Cent template is nice, but I think if we don't have an XfD template, we should. Awhile back we were discussing some changes to the sidebar. Perhaps a link to a page like: "Content for discussion" - which would act as a page with some links to the various XfD discussions. One thing is fairly certain, Something needs to happen, and soon. - jc37 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As part of turning the archiving over to a bot I'm also trying to strip the discussions fom the transclusions of the daily logs. This has become necessary because the monthly logs (which serve as archives beyond the eleven days we have on the WP:DRV frontpage) are becoming monstrously large with the increased number of nominations, and shed the first couple of days towards the end of the month (I believe this is because the amount of text that can be transcluded is limited by the software). This is mostly for Xoloz and GRBerry, since they're the ones most likely to delve into the archives, but all community input is welcome:
Happy to indulge any proposals as long as a bot can perform them... ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Several related articles have been deleted and, although most were poor quality, it's important that we cover the topic in some form or other. One or two of the article titles should be undeleted, but I'm not sure which. How would I put this up for review? — Omegatron 08:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is no concensus after 5 days, can deletion review be reopened at a later date despite no new information having come to light? -- Oldak Quill 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, The article is similar to other articles which my friends made . I tried to add references and some sources. everyday I studied the wiki and beforehand I tried on sandbox. Now when I was getting successful to put some photos with correct copyright way , you've just deleted my page. there are several websites about Pooya Mirzaee Rad . and I was trying to make a integrated link referenced to each claim on the page. anyway I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Even I don't have the content to make it better... what you are doing is not HELP! it's destroying and I'm so unhappy about it. in the article pooya mirzaee rad there was no advertisement. a user introducing web page or something like that. it was all about kharizmi festival which is an important event and winners are most important topics to follow. please advice... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pooyarad ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
I was wondering if an administrator can let me see the text that was deleted from Lengths of fantasy film and television series. I would like to merge its material into Lengths of science fiction film and television series, which survived the AFD nomination. Thanks. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
one quick question. I forgot to save the content on the article called "RadioGreen" that has been removed today. I wanted to place it on the "about" page on the RadioGreen site. I was wondering if i can get the content of the article. Thank You.
-- Josh Hubi 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As close to a perennial proposal as DRV gets, but seeing how we're kind of up in the air regarding what DRV is, I think it's time to trot the idea out again.
We should be undeleting the history of DRVs in most cases.
I recognize that copyvios have no need, want, or desire to have their histories exposed, and I grudgingly understand the desire for allegedly defamatory material unavailable for review, but for the rest, what's the logic behind holding it back? It's very difficult to accurately judge many deletions, including A7s/G11s/A1s/A3s in particular, without that necessary context, so why shouldn't this be automatic? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
For the about a month and a half that I was an admin but not a closer, I was quite busy with gnoming other aspects of deletion review (fix malformed nominations, link all AFDs, link all prior DRVs, etc...), plus opining myself. I'd like to see a wikignome doing all those links again, which mostly can be done via reading the "What links here" page for each nominated article, and doesn't need an admin.
I did restore history on a bunch of articles. Because it takes admin time and effort (some, not a lot) to restore the history, I usually did it when I thought both the article deserved a restoration and that the history was needed to show it. I still do some, but I also skip over many requests.
If an admin or two wanted to adopt restoring (appropriate) histories (or citing relevant evidence) as their personal project, I'd have no problem with the idea. But I don't have time for it myself. In the meantime, if someone could find a way to put the google cache search into the nomination template, that might help. At least the cache, if it exists, would always be linked. GRBerry 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This page claims it "considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". It makes no sense to have the page handle deletions where someone wants to overturn the deletion, Keep decisions where someone wants the article to have been deleted, but then NOT to handle redirect decisions, especially as redirection is essentially a form of deletion. If this page is supposed to handle potential improper deletion discussion results, then all of them should be handled, including redirects. If anyone attempts to remove a redirect which was following the conclusion of an AfD debate, someone who notices will put it back and claim that the will of the AfD partipants/closing admin should be followed.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of this page is merely to allow non-admins to get deleted pages back, if such a thing is appropriate, then there is no purpose behind having this page be used to get Keep decisions overturned. Anyone who wants to overturn a Keep decision can simply AfD the article a second time.
So, what is the purpose of this page? -- Xyzzyplugh 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{ DRV top}} (or {{ drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:
====[[ Title]]====
is changed to
{{subst:drt|[[ Title]]|Decision}}
which turns into
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hope that makes closures a bit easier. ~ trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On this passage in section 5.1: "Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion."
Just wondering what actions at the WP:Guide to Deletion page this is referring to? I see no section called 'actions', and no list of obvious actions at that page. I see examples of shorthand, discussion guidelines and the like. Any assistance in directing to a list of common actions is appreciated. Thanks. --
Keefer4 |
Talk 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked for a subpage of mine to be deleted, but now I want it back. I'm guessing that this is the incorrect place to do so.. Where would I bring my request? Zachary talk 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that if an AfD closure is overturned at DRV and sent back to DRVAfD, the ("nth nomination") number does not increment. Is that correct? I ask because if it is,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) should be considered a second nomination.
Kla'quot 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And, once again, DRV shows how it's generally becoming useless. Darvon cocktail was an obviously improper speedy deletion. There's no denying this. Unfortunately, since I didn't think to canvass anyone or draw attention to the problem, a simple majority vote upheld an abusive deletion.
How the hell do we fix DRV? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is this thread about? If you want the article, why not concentrate on the content issues rather then perceived process issues? Write it up in userspace with reliable sources and I'll unsalt it myself. If you can't find reliable sources, then there is no case to answer here.-- Docg 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Side comment: I think the general idea of allowing a deletion review of a deletion review is a good one. While I support the obvious concensus of established users in the instant case ( WP:IAR is still policy, even if it's widely abused), I think we need a simple, reasonably-non-bureaucratic mechanism for reviewing closures, even review closures. Admins can and do make mistakes—overlooking socks, misinterpreting comments, blindly nose-counting, etc. I think the threshold for speedy-closing of deletion review reviews should be very low, but I don't think they should be dismissed out-of-hand. Heck, if nothing else, asking for a deletion review review can be considered a valid application of IAR! :) Xtifr tälk 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I, for one, am willing to stand up for the idea that overly specific details of a suicide method do not belong on a top-ten website, even if sourced to the hilt. Newyorkbrad 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are other cases. So long as wikipedia editors are human, mistakes will be made and no process will be perfect. The interesting question is the rate of errors, and whether some other process would be likely to have a better error rate. GRBerry 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a sensible outcome to me. I don't understand what the fuss is about. This does not in any way suggest that DRV is "broken". It looks to me as if the system is working well. Metamagician3000 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, if the process for listing a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review is followed the only person who is notified that this has occurred is the closing administrator. This seems rather unfair, as those who participated in the discussion and do not agree with the closing opinion are at a disadvantage. They may not realize that the listing has occurred or have difficulty finding the discussion, deciding to just accept a decision with which they disagree.
I realize that maintaining an unedited archive of a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion is crucial. I propose the creation of a template that goes at the very top of the page, before the archived material, stating that the discussion has been listed at Deletion Review and providing a link to the relevant discussion. This would in no way alter the discussion that has been closed, and provide a more friendly link to the discussion that is then current.
Thoughts?— Chidom talk 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:Delrev}}
tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
I've just noticed the language under the Purpose that explains that this process is to be used only after discussions with the closing editor/administrator to try and overturn their decision have failed. I completely missed it; I looked at the Contents and immediately clicked on Steps to list a new deletion review. Mea culpa.
So, I'd suggest that the first line of that section be something along the lines of:
"Please do not list a new deletion review without first discussing the outcome with the closing administrator or editor. (See Purpose, above.)"
Have good days.— Chidom talk 00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
i would like Tiffany Adler reviewed and possibly undeleted but i dont understand how, i have a learning disability and in previous tryings to do things like this i have gotten yelled at and others have removed my attempts can someone do this for me or halp me? T ALK• QRC2006• ¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So following the discussions in this section of AfD's talk page, I came by here, but still see nothing in regards to repetitive AfDs. Is there any process by which to challenge an AfD ( Allegations of Israeli apartheid) that was created a mere 2 weeks since the previous one ? Tarc 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Purpose from the project page:
Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion. 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look. 2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. 3. Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. 4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
I find that a number of deleting admins, DRV opinion-givers and DRV-closing admins seem to be interpreting point 3. in reverse as well, and using DRV as a de facto court from which to determine in hindsight (i.e. after the speedy) whether a speedy delete would have been validated by AfD as a valid delete and going ahead and endorsing the speedy delete on AfD grounds, sometimes when there never was any AfD to begin with.
Is this OK or is this not OK? Certainly it is not OK as the purpose of DRV is written. Does DRV need to change or do the admins need to change their ways? -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion in WT:LIVING about speedily deleting AfD and DRV pages. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Blanked_or_deleted. Kla'quot 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is both a reminder that we currently still have to manually archive finished days into Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February (soon Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March) and a plea for anyone with bot/script knowledge to get in touch with me if you're willing to help in automatizing the process. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way I can find out why a prodded article was deleted? Specifically the Fazal Mohammed article. - Jwillbur 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I restored it and sent it to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In the wake of a number of absolutely puzzling decisions combined with the recent Daniel Brandt ArbCom case where even the arbitrators couldn't come up with a conclusion regarding what the role of Deletion Review is...what is the role of deletion review?
No, really.
Is it about deletion process? Is it about overturning bad decisions? If so, how are we actually weighting arguments? Should we be doing a head count, as GRBerry has implied is happening, or should we be doing strength of argument, an assumption that may have been premature.
My perception of what DRV is supposed to be is that it was an appeals process to the community to fix the incorrect decisions. If an article was speedy deleted that shouldn't have been, we could overturn it. If an article was kept at AfD, but didn't meet our standards, we could overturn it. In reality, it seems like none of those things matter - it's more the whim of who shows up, and rarely does an argument make a difference. Consistency is nonexistent.
Do we need to revamp the whole thing, or is it really, truly, working? Are we handling more controversial situations properly? Are we really matching our results up with actual policy on a consistent basis? If not, why is DRV even here? If it's not working, what do we do to make it work? What should we do? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a list of admins by number of overturns in DRV. I have my guesses as to who is in the top five. I can say that unilateral admin speedy deletion of articles coupled with a DRV heavily weighted in favor of deletion has been the source of considerable frustration. Jokestress 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've not been here for a while, but I find it curious that there's so much disagreement on ArbCom about the role of process in DRV. It was my impression that there was general agreement that DRV is not a place to correct procedural mistakes; that is, if an article is supposed to be deleted, it will not be undeleted at DRV. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind an opposition to that statement? Xiner ( talk, email) 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
One point of order before I begin: I've seen some newbies wonder "What happens if DRV ends in a no consensus"? Lack of consensus is impossible at DRV. An absolute tie is a consensus to relist. Why?
DRV is a forum for cloture, as I've said elsewhere before. Its role as a forum of appeal is primarily to determine whether a matter has been firmly decided, or should be referred to another forum for further discussion. Process is its primary concern, mainly because process in often overlooked in other XfD fora, and especially by speedy deletions. Since DRV is the place of last practical appeal, a process-weighted argument should ideally be favored: denial of process suggests that all points in a discussion have not been heard. If there is much more to said, cloture is inappropriate. Reviewers should ask themselves, "Was debate thorough?", "Were all relevant questions of fact and policy addressed?", and, lastly, "Was justice served?"
The last of these questions is fairly broad, obviously. As the final step in deletion process before a matter is pushed aside, DRV is specially positioned to consider fundamental fairness. This means that, while process is often the first place reviewers look for mistakes, other matters are relevant. Is new information available, relevant to the topic, that was unknown or unconsidered in the XfD? Has a new party come forward to present a perspective or argument unmentioned in the XfD? Is there some mitigating factor, beyond the strict letter of policy, that demands to be addressed in new debate?
Wikipedia trusts its admins, and its XfD fora. In general, they get things right -- or at least, we presume they do. That said, because DRV is just a forum for cloture, "consensus" has its weakest meaning anywhere in Wikipedia -- and that's a good thing. In order for a deletion to be endorsed, a majority must support it. Any other outcome results in referral back to an XfD, except in very limited cases. If a debate ends in a tie, we relist; a "keep closure" may be brought for DRV to review, but -- absent a very strong consensus of 80% -- any overturn simply sends the matter back to XfD. The (positive) biases of DRV are in favor of more discussion (call it, "if in doubt, relist") as well as the traditional Wikipedia content retention bias ("If in doubt, don't delete.")
My esteemed colleague, badlydrawnjeff, is one of the most dedicated content-saviors we have at Wikipedia. I do not always agree with Jeff, and others like him -- is the noble Kappa still with us? -- but I respect that folks like Jeff are really the key to DRV. Advocates for content bring disputed cases of deletion to DRV: ultimately, the job of the closer is to decide if the advocate has made enough headway to indicate that more discussion is in order. DRV is also a meta-analytic forum: "strength of argument" is often very hard to weigh, and any closer is apt to be swayed by any personal inclusionist/deletionist tendencies. To avoid killing each in arguments over whether we have even a "consensus" to stop discussing a thing, DRV is best left to head-counting. The range of closer's discretion is limited.
Having said that, DRV's positive biases insist that a closer scrutinize arguments for irrelevancies. As always, newer users, hopeless POV-warriors, anons, and the truly "out-of-touch" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) can be discounted. In my day, closers didn't sign their closes; the reasoning on DRV close is rarely given, unless the case is monumental or very long -- this is to avoid rule-creep, but also to keep us from (again) the great sin of arguing over whether we should argue over whether people want to keep discussing a thing. The process of meta-analysis has to stop before we go mad. In general, if a case is close enough that it is giving you a headache, relist it to the appropriate XfD. Those cases are really the only time "strength of argument" can outweigh a head-count.
It is absolutely essential that the DRV closer be humble about this. A sophist could devise any number of reasons to weigh "strength of argument" and relist virtually every case. That would lead to process-insanity, and incredible acrimony. In almost every case, the headcount is right. Only cite "strength of argument" to overturn and relist in very limited cases.
Citing "strength of argument" to support deletion is -- except in the case of a newbie flood, where numbers can be grossly distorted -- really an awful idea. If at least half of the Wikipedians present want to continue discussing something, a relist is in order. The closer should never let personal opinion obscure the fact that DRV is just about cloture -- the merits of the article are relevant, but the central question is "Are we, or are we not, done talking about topic X?" Even if you, Mr. Closer, think article X is putrid, you must respect your fellows if a large number of them believe the discussion is not yet finished, and relist.
Thanks to GR for dragging me over here. :) Xoloz 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading all of this and nodding my head all the way through...Xoloz's explanation makes perfect sense to me. So why do so many people not get it? And the further you get up Wikipedia's hierarchy - from peon editor to admin to senior admin to Arbcom - the worse it gets in terms of people calling us process wonks for trying to make DRV work. I have a feeling that merging the Deletion, Deletion Review, and Undeletion policies might help. It helps to see them all together to understand why DRV needs to be different from AfD. Kla'quot 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of an aside but I think that some of recent relistings are unnecessary. Let's drill into just the Rites of Ash discussion. The page itself was speedy-deleted after an abbreviated AFD discussion. The nominator (a user with the same name) requested undeletion and provided a few claims to notability. Coredesat politely requested sources - a policy-based request. Maybe the new user can provide the sources so Coredesat chose not to antagonize the user with a bold and preemptive "vote". From the wording of the comment, however, it is clear to me that without such sources he/she is endorsing the deletion. The nominator returned with some claims for sources. I replied that those do not meet Wikipedia's standards for sources and will not sway the argument. I also chose to word my comment carefully because I don't want to bite the user unnecessarily. Maybe if they turn their attention to other subjects, they can grow into reliable editors. I'm not sure why I felt that this user had potential when others didn't but it seemed like the best way to word the rejection. Nevertheless, I had assumed that it would be clear from my comment that in the absence of sources which do comply with policy, I also endorsed the deletion of the page.
We've fallen into the habit of summarizing our "votes" up front and in bold. The practice is supposed to be for the convenience of the closer. I'm not sure that it actually works, though. That format takes away a degree of flexibility and tact that are often quite useful in discussions. Writing the answer before you write the reasoning also inevitably creates a slight bias toward a polarized answer and nudges us away from the compromise that is sometimes the best solution. These are discussions, not votes, for a reason. And a good closer still has to carefully read and interpret every comment regardless of the opinion expressed at the front.
At the end of the day, the closer does need to make a decision. And in the Rites of Ash example, no one contributed with any other comments or sources that met policy or that could be interpreted as justifying the overturn of the speedy-deletion. It would have been nice if Coredesat had returned to the discussion to affirm his/her position about the quality of the provided sources but that's still a "delete" opinion. So was mine. Two endorsements of a speedy against the page creator's request for reconsideration seems like a closable discussion to me. I expect someone experienced enough to be closing DRV discussions to be experienced enough to read the comments and to interpret them appropriately. Depending on uniform "endorse" or "overturn" votes at the front of every comment is a crutch - useful but you can't depend on it alone. Xoloz is dead-on with the comments about humility and respecting the will of the participants. At the same time, it's a wiki. We trust you to be bold, even in the act of interpreting comments when closing DRV discussions. Rossami (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Jeff has a legitimate concern, that has been lost above in other discussion, about what should we overturn and what should we endorse. And whether we are doing what we should be doing. Let's talk about that more.
I view DRV as the second line of defense against bad deletion decisions. (Or the backup safety valve on the pressure cooker.) Discussion with the deleting admin should be the first line of defense.
We are looking for mistaken deletions, trying to find material that is either useful as is, just needs minor patching, or is at least recyclable - or that might be and should be sent to XfD for an evaluation. If I think it should have been thrown out in the garbage can instead of being sent through the garbage disposal, but agree that it is garbage either way, then I really don't care a lot about the jots and tittles of the deletion documentation. (A recent example was an article deleted for lacking context, that could easily have had context filled in from the incoming links, but I'd then have speedy deleted as being spam.)
So if a speedy deletion is brought here for review, I'm more concerned about whether there is any reason to believe that it has a snowball's chance at AFD than whether it perfectly fit the speedy deletion criteria. (PROD deletions are never an issue - they get overturned, although they may be speedy deleted right away.) So I used to ask questions designed to elicit the information needed to believe it would have a chance at AFD. If the requisite information isn't forthcoming, I think that we should look for an outcome that avoids an AFD. An example would be redirecting a band member to their band and restoring history underneath (or a single to an album).
But we also serve, and here is where the safety valve metaphor works a lot better, as a forum for people to get a chance to make a case, hopefully lowering their stress levels. Civility is crucial for this purpose. GRBerry 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't count the loads of times I've seen something that got speedy deleted on soft grounds, didn't look like it had a snowball's chance, be redeemed in a five day AfD when wider input was solicited. I admire Jeff and Kappa because I've seen them save things. They need a fair opportunity to do that. Don't worry about taking too long to discuss things. The pleasant surprises of redeemed good content make up for the wee inconvenience of a five day window on AfD. Xoloz 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing that I've noticed that has been a concern is community involvement. With the closings of several Wiki-orgs such as esperanza and concordia, and from what I've seen many WikiProjects that have become fairly inactive, it should be no surprise that the XfD system (of which DRV is a part) has issues of lack of community involvement.
Perhaps we should start a new discussion about how to "advertise" the processes in some way. It just seems that those involved are typically only those who are directly involved with the article/template/category/etc in question, and a few of those then leave a few other votes on other discussions on the page. The Cent template is nice, but I think if we don't have an XfD template, we should. Awhile back we were discussing some changes to the sidebar. Perhaps a link to a page like: "Content for discussion" - which would act as a page with some links to the various XfD discussions. One thing is fairly certain, Something needs to happen, and soon. - jc37 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As part of turning the archiving over to a bot I'm also trying to strip the discussions fom the transclusions of the daily logs. This has become necessary because the monthly logs (which serve as archives beyond the eleven days we have on the WP:DRV frontpage) are becoming monstrously large with the increased number of nominations, and shed the first couple of days towards the end of the month (I believe this is because the amount of text that can be transcluded is limited by the software). This is mostly for Xoloz and GRBerry, since they're the ones most likely to delve into the archives, but all community input is welcome:
Happy to indulge any proposals as long as a bot can perform them... ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Several related articles have been deleted and, although most were poor quality, it's important that we cover the topic in some form or other. One or two of the article titles should be undeleted, but I'm not sure which. How would I put this up for review? — Omegatron 08:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is no concensus after 5 days, can deletion review be reopened at a later date despite no new information having come to light? -- Oldak Quill 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, The article is similar to other articles which my friends made . I tried to add references and some sources. everyday I studied the wiki and beforehand I tried on sandbox. Now when I was getting successful to put some photos with correct copyright way , you've just deleted my page. there are several websites about Pooya Mirzaee Rad . and I was trying to make a integrated link referenced to each claim on the page. anyway I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Even I don't have the content to make it better... what you are doing is not HELP! it's destroying and I'm so unhappy about it. in the article pooya mirzaee rad there was no advertisement. a user introducing web page or something like that. it was all about kharizmi festival which is an important event and winners are most important topics to follow. please advice... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pooyarad ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
I was wondering if an administrator can let me see the text that was deleted from Lengths of fantasy film and television series. I would like to merge its material into Lengths of science fiction film and television series, which survived the AFD nomination. Thanks. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
one quick question. I forgot to save the content on the article called "RadioGreen" that has been removed today. I wanted to place it on the "about" page on the RadioGreen site. I was wondering if i can get the content of the article. Thank You.
-- Josh Hubi 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As close to a perennial proposal as DRV gets, but seeing how we're kind of up in the air regarding what DRV is, I think it's time to trot the idea out again.
We should be undeleting the history of DRVs in most cases.
I recognize that copyvios have no need, want, or desire to have their histories exposed, and I grudgingly understand the desire for allegedly defamatory material unavailable for review, but for the rest, what's the logic behind holding it back? It's very difficult to accurately judge many deletions, including A7s/G11s/A1s/A3s in particular, without that necessary context, so why shouldn't this be automatic? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
For the about a month and a half that I was an admin but not a closer, I was quite busy with gnoming other aspects of deletion review (fix malformed nominations, link all AFDs, link all prior DRVs, etc...), plus opining myself. I'd like to see a wikignome doing all those links again, which mostly can be done via reading the "What links here" page for each nominated article, and doesn't need an admin.
I did restore history on a bunch of articles. Because it takes admin time and effort (some, not a lot) to restore the history, I usually did it when I thought both the article deserved a restoration and that the history was needed to show it. I still do some, but I also skip over many requests.
If an admin or two wanted to adopt restoring (appropriate) histories (or citing relevant evidence) as their personal project, I'd have no problem with the idea. But I don't have time for it myself. In the meantime, if someone could find a way to put the google cache search into the nomination template, that might help. At least the cache, if it exists, would always be linked. GRBerry 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This page claims it "considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". It makes no sense to have the page handle deletions where someone wants to overturn the deletion, Keep decisions where someone wants the article to have been deleted, but then NOT to handle redirect decisions, especially as redirection is essentially a form of deletion. If this page is supposed to handle potential improper deletion discussion results, then all of them should be handled, including redirects. If anyone attempts to remove a redirect which was following the conclusion of an AfD debate, someone who notices will put it back and claim that the will of the AfD partipants/closing admin should be followed.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of this page is merely to allow non-admins to get deleted pages back, if such a thing is appropriate, then there is no purpose behind having this page be used to get Keep decisions overturned. Anyone who wants to overturn a Keep decision can simply AfD the article a second time.
So, what is the purpose of this page? -- Xyzzyplugh 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{ DRV top}} (or {{ drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:
====[[ Title]]====
is changed to
{{subst:drt|[[ Title]]|Decision}}
which turns into
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hope that makes closures a bit easier. ~ trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On this passage in section 5.1: "Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion."
Just wondering what actions at the WP:Guide to Deletion page this is referring to? I see no section called 'actions', and no list of obvious actions at that page. I see examples of shorthand, discussion guidelines and the like. Any assistance in directing to a list of common actions is appreciated. Thanks. --
Keefer4 |
Talk 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked for a subpage of mine to be deleted, but now I want it back. I'm guessing that this is the incorrect place to do so.. Where would I bring my request? Zachary talk 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that if an AfD closure is overturned at DRV and sent back to DRVAfD, the ("nth nomination") number does not increment. Is that correct? I ask because if it is,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) should be considered a second nomination.
Kla'quot 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And, once again, DRV shows how it's generally becoming useless. Darvon cocktail was an obviously improper speedy deletion. There's no denying this. Unfortunately, since I didn't think to canvass anyone or draw attention to the problem, a simple majority vote upheld an abusive deletion.
How the hell do we fix DRV? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is this thread about? If you want the article, why not concentrate on the content issues rather then perceived process issues? Write it up in userspace with reliable sources and I'll unsalt it myself. If you can't find reliable sources, then there is no case to answer here.-- Docg 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Side comment: I think the general idea of allowing a deletion review of a deletion review is a good one. While I support the obvious concensus of established users in the instant case ( WP:IAR is still policy, even if it's widely abused), I think we need a simple, reasonably-non-bureaucratic mechanism for reviewing closures, even review closures. Admins can and do make mistakes—overlooking socks, misinterpreting comments, blindly nose-counting, etc. I think the threshold for speedy-closing of deletion review reviews should be very low, but I don't think they should be dismissed out-of-hand. Heck, if nothing else, asking for a deletion review review can be considered a valid application of IAR! :) Xtifr tälk 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I, for one, am willing to stand up for the idea that overly specific details of a suicide method do not belong on a top-ten website, even if sourced to the hilt. Newyorkbrad 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are other cases. So long as wikipedia editors are human, mistakes will be made and no process will be perfect. The interesting question is the rate of errors, and whether some other process would be likely to have a better error rate. GRBerry 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a sensible outcome to me. I don't understand what the fuss is about. This does not in any way suggest that DRV is "broken". It looks to me as if the system is working well. Metamagician3000 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, if the process for listing a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review is followed the only person who is notified that this has occurred is the closing administrator. This seems rather unfair, as those who participated in the discussion and do not agree with the closing opinion are at a disadvantage. They may not realize that the listing has occurred or have difficulty finding the discussion, deciding to just accept a decision with which they disagree.
I realize that maintaining an unedited archive of a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion is crucial. I propose the creation of a template that goes at the very top of the page, before the archived material, stating that the discussion has been listed at Deletion Review and providing a link to the relevant discussion. This would in no way alter the discussion that has been closed, and provide a more friendly link to the discussion that is then current.
Thoughts?— Chidom talk 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:Delrev}}
tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
I've just noticed the language under the Purpose that explains that this process is to be used only after discussions with the closing editor/administrator to try and overturn their decision have failed. I completely missed it; I looked at the Contents and immediately clicked on Steps to list a new deletion review. Mea culpa.
So, I'd suggest that the first line of that section be something along the lines of:
"Please do not list a new deletion review without first discussing the outcome with the closing administrator or editor. (See Purpose, above.)"
Have good days.— Chidom talk 00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
i would like Tiffany Adler reviewed and possibly undeleted but i dont understand how, i have a learning disability and in previous tryings to do things like this i have gotten yelled at and others have removed my attempts can someone do this for me or halp me? T ALK• QRC2006• ¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So following the discussions in this section of AfD's talk page, I came by here, but still see nothing in regards to repetitive AfDs. Is there any process by which to challenge an AfD ( Allegations of Israeli apartheid) that was created a mere 2 weeks since the previous one ? Tarc 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Purpose from the project page:
Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion. 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look. 2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. 3. Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. 4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
I find that a number of deleting admins, DRV opinion-givers and DRV-closing admins seem to be interpreting point 3. in reverse as well, and using DRV as a de facto court from which to determine in hindsight (i.e. after the speedy) whether a speedy delete would have been validated by AfD as a valid delete and going ahead and endorsing the speedy delete on AfD grounds, sometimes when there never was any AfD to begin with.
Is this OK or is this not OK? Certainly it is not OK as the purpose of DRV is written. Does DRV need to change or do the admins need to change their ways? -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion in WT:LIVING about speedily deleting AfD and DRV pages. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Blanked_or_deleted. Kla'quot 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)