![]() | 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. |
I don't really follow the actual DRV closes, but my sense is that it is not often that DRV results in an outcome different from what the closing admin posted. The rare overturn outcome of List of bow tie wearers got me thinking. Are there statistics somewhere that indicate how often DRV's outcome is different from the XfD reviewed? I think such stats would help give those desiring to post a DRV request a better sense of what they are up against. DRV does seem to be a very good educational tool for the nominators since most participants provide suggestions, so the stats should be presented in a way that does not discourage posting DRV requests. -- Suntag ☼ 02:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just, for the first time, used this process.
I can see a pair of problems, technical ones, not process problems:
So, unless it's me, which is always a possibility, it is not entirely working. Happy to be shown how wrong I am :) Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.
When someebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article ( list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).
All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.
Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. S B H arris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get That Guy with the Glasses added to the log. It shows up as a subpage, and you can see the entry if you click today's date in the log, but the discussion is not visible like others in the log, and the link from the article doesn't work either. Never done one of these before, and I can't tell what I'm doing wrong. Help please. Beeblebrox ( talk) 10:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
My extensive work on this Article was intended to assist professors of law evaluate this useful caselaw textbook for their use in the exercise of their profession as academic lawyers. I myself--as it would have become clear to the reader had he or she chose to investigate the available ancillary article information--inserted the "
It remains a travesty of justice that this Article was summarily deleted. Its inclusion would have done honor and justice to the great endeavor that is Wikipedia. I challenge the Wikipedian--if he or she has the courage--to identify himself or herself to me, on this Wikipedia talkpage or otherwise, ex gratia to paul.gill@usa.com--to answer as to why this important Article was destroyed.
I am not interested in the citation of the Wikipedia rules--with which I clearly was in the process of compliance, as each Wikipedian has reasonable latitude--but I am instead interested in being told, in and with preciseness of exactitude--again, if you have the courage--without passion or prejudice, why this was done.
Small-minded and closed-minded obfuscatory attempts to explain yourself are not acceptable and do no justice to the academic freedom that Wikipedia stands for. Although it is a universal and absolute axiom that actions always "speak louder" than words, I require you to explain yourself and the context of this destructive act. The Article was about the application of rules of law; your response should, in turn, cite the application of your destructive, even desecratory, act, without caprice.
I cannot see the redeeming worth of your despicable act. That does not necessarily mean one does not exist; simply, that I assert that unwarrranted caprice was inflicted here, in this precise and specific instance.
Professor Scott's work and academic freedom were compromised given your choice to take this unwarranted and reprehensible action. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School that Prof. Scott represents was similarly harassed in your actions. However, as Wikipedian and author of the work that would have comprised this descriptive and helpful Wikipedia article, I require your response be given to me. I am a graduate and alumnus of Thomas M. Cooley Law School.
John Paul Nelson Gill, D.Jur.
Hahbie 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how anybody was "harassed" by anything that happened here, and Wikipedia is not responsible for anybody's academic freedom. Nobody has the "right" to post anything on Wikipedia. We, as Wikipedia contributors, are responsible to the encyclopedia, and therefore to the consensus of the community of Wikipedia editors on how to run the encyclopedia. Should you wish to contest the deletion, you may file a request at WP:DRV, by following the directions there. Otherwise, letters such as the one above will get you nowhere, and will in fact hurt your cause amongst Wikipedians. Please refrain from repeating such counterproductive actions. Thank you.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
For example, I closed a DRV decision as "no consensus to overturn deletion". The nominator, in good faith, thinks that I evaluated the debate incorrectly. Can a WP:DRV debate be started about whether the previous DRV debate was closed incorrectly? Or do they have to take it to WP:AN?-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a few deletion review decisions "reviewed" at DRV. Most of the time it wasn't worth the effort, since a good deal of the conversation consisted of folks amusing themselves at the irony of it all. If something truly AWFUL happened at DRV, I might consider posting a notice at AN, but for run of the mill decisions where the outcome is somehow unfavorable, the dispute resolution chain might work best. By this I mean content RfCs, noticeboards, etc. Not a conduct RfC on the closer. And the comments above noting that multiple deletion reviews have been made for articles where consensus or evidence changes are correct. Protonk ( talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As usual on the happily rare occasions when I want to nominate one of these, I followed the template instuctions carefully, producing a pile-up on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 18 which any attempt on my part to sort out will only make worse. It doesn't appear on the main page & is generally screwed up, though all the information is there. Can anyone kindly sort it out? Obviously some people manage to use the template successfully, though God knows how. Johnbod ( talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I see the prior-to-December-22,2004 deletion logs were never restored. I believe there was an Alice Crimmins article, but was unable to find one using the deletion log for the period since that date. I would like an admin with access to to indicate if there was an Alice Crimmins article or not in the Wikipedia. If there was an article, could I obtain a deletion review for it? The process seems to presume that the text is available in the article's deletion history. patsw ( talk) 02:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a limit on how long since an article can asked to be reviewed after being deleted? The reason I ask is that the List of ship launches in 1946 was deleted with two delete votes and no support back in 2006. It was commented that the list should be referred to WP:SHIPS but this wasn't done. I have asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and am awaiting his response. I have also informed the nominator that I have done this. What would be the correct procedure here? If the article is restored, then the material that existed then would be restored. If the article has to be recreated from scratch, then the material that was included at deletion would have to be recreated from scratch too. I suspect that a DRV would, on the face of it conclude that the original deletion was correct according to the votes given at the time. However, my opinion is that if the article existed now as it was when listed at AfD, the result of the debate would be to keep it. How do we get round this? One solution would be to restore it and relist at AfD to see what the consensus is now. Mjroots ( talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So I was browsing archives and The Well (Church) was approved to restore at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19; but the article (which subsequently survived an AfD) was copy-and-paste recreated at The Well (church), and its old history never properly restored. What's the right course of action here? Should it be treated like a copy-and-paste move? Dcoetzee 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly, but there is something on this page (JavaScript most likely) and only this page that brings my browser to a crawl. Please remove whatever it is. SharkD ( talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I added an entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_2 - but it doesn't seem to be showing up on the main page. Thought I followed all the procedures properly; can someone take a look and tweak, if need be? Thanks .. Jenolen speak it! 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There is lots of information on this so there should be a page about it but it is being blocked.
I am ironbatman ( talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
NOTICE: Charles Laquidara has, for several months, begged in vain for someone-anyone- of the many Wikipedia editors to make any corrections or changes in my bio which they deem necessary, in order for it not to have that ugly “citation” at the beginning of this page, (a citation which implies negatively that there are some lines in the content there-in that are illegal, immoral or just plain inappropriate and should be dealt with at some point before the (said) ugly “citation” can be made to go away). Charles pleads guilty to having written some passages that were, in retrospect, self-serving and he now regrets having done so and is just hoping to have a simple, no-frills biography posted on these Wikipedia pages.
Charles has already written several e-mails to these editors, who continually ignore him because he is obviously not qualified to even complain if he doesn't speak “Wikipedian” and can't figure out how to properly address this issue on the discussion pages.
Charles- not being a computer expert and, in fact, being pretty much of an ignoramus about these matters (He was a DISC JOCKEY for God's sake!) cannot for the life of him ascertain how to approach this problem in the proper Wikipedian manner using the Wikipedia criteria set forth in hundreds of pages of rules and regulations. Charles has even suggested (as a last resort) that if necessary, perhaps someone on the editorial board-if they weren't able to just change and/or edit out the “offending sentences”- could delete his entire biography ... but, alas! to no avail- his pleas continue to fall upon deaf ears.. and poor Charles has no way of dealing with the problem, except to kvetch here and now on this “edit page” hoping that someone out there will take notice and do something- anything- to make that ominous, ugly “citation” disappear once and for all. To make it more official: I, Charles Laquidara, hereby do swear that I am giving the editors of Wikipedia absolute authority and permission to make any changes which they feel necessary to this biography in order to make the below information appropriate to their standards of Wikipedia excellence. Mahalo. Laquidara ( talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a hard time understanding the how things work here. A discussion takes place regarding deletion, merge and redirect; and the decision is to redirect. So how is a redirect considered proper when the article being redirected to makes no mention of the article being redirect to it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trunnell Elementary School Does one simply assume that since this is a school name and since it is being redirected to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky) that it must be part of that school district? And if that is the case, should there not be a redirect for every elementary school to a parent article? Dbiel ( Talk) 10:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Listing a page on DRV can be a daunting task because the current DRV templates and their syntax are not very flexible or user-friendly. They don't do well with requests to overturn RfDs, requests to overturn a second deletion nomination, or grouped requests to undelete multiple files. To remedy this problem I've created two new templates: Template:drv2 and Template:DRV links. Here are some examples:
{{subst:drv2 |page=Fooo |reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~ }}
Fooo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:drv2 |page=Fooo |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fooo (2nd nomination) |reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~ }}
Fooo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~ }}
File:Foo.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
====Images related to foo==== * {{DRV links|File:Foo.png|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo}} * {{DRV links|File:Foobar.jpeg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foobar.jpeg|article=Foo}} * {{DRV links|File:Fubar.svg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Fubar.svg|article=Foo}} Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
My goal here was to make these templates easy to use, straightforward, and flexible. If there are no objections then I'll add documentation and update the instructions to say to use these templates instead of the old ones. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been pretty inactive for a few months, and I'm just starting to get involved in Wikipedia again. Therefore, I'm reluctant to be very assertive about something that may have changed while I wasn't looking. Hence, I'm asking here.
Is it still true that we require articles to be verifiable in independent reliable sources? I ask because I saw an article kept in AfD when nobody even suggested that there was coverage in independent sources. Most arguments ran along the lines of: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so why not keep this one, too? The closing admin told me he closed as no consensus because there were experienced editors on both sides. Apparently whether they were arguing from policy or not just doesn't matter?
So, what's up? Have we started keeping articles whose contents can't be verified in independent sources, and... if so, why? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
We have not been keeping articles where the contents cannot be verified and I hope we never shall; we have been a little more flexible in keeping articles where the contents have not yet been verified, or where the sources may be somewhat other than the traditional ones. i think thise are positive developments and will rescue good articles. Think carefully, please, before you oppose this trend. DGG ( talk) 09:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review contains a prominent notice that instructs editors to "please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)" before starting a new deletion review. I would like to propose that we begin actually enforcing this notice.
I know that this issue has been discussed on other occasions and there has never been consensus to close DRVs solely because the initiator did not attempt discuss the matter with the closing admin. What I would like to propose is to temporarily place DRVs where there has been no prior attempt to resolve the issue in "pending" status. When a discussion is in pending status, it could look something like this:
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe the closer failed to properly evaluate the consensus in the discussion. –User:Initiator
{{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #ccccff; background-color: #ccccff; background-color: #ccccff;|contentstyle = text-align: center; text-align: center; text-align: center;|Ranting|what the HELL was he thinking?!?!?!?!?!! unbielevible!!!!!! ...... To rant or not to rant, that is the question 36 bottles of RANT on the wall; 36 bottles of RANT ...... You've got to admit that the guy's got stamina...
d&%( & *#(*(#$ !!!!! *&#$(*&# #*(& Ranting what the HELL was he thinking?!?!?!?!?!! unbielevible!!!!!! ...... To rant or not to rant, that is the question 36 bottles of RANT on the wall; 36 bottles of RANT ...... You've got to admit that the guy's got stamina... d&%( & *#(*(#$ !!!!! *&#$(*&# #*(&$&*( goat *#&()_(#&^#
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
If an informal resolution (i.e. on a talk page, between the closing admin and the initiator of the deletion review) is not reached (within 24 hours, for instance), whether due to disagreement, the closer saying "take it to DRV", or the closer not responding, the discussion can be re-opened (by anyone) and allowed to proceed as normal.
It's an idea that's been in my head for a few days and I want to see what everyone else thinks about it. So, any thoughts? Is it a good idea, a terrible idea, a CREEPy idea, a solution in search of a problem, heresy, and/or proof of God or Satan (that last one probably is heresy in some jurisdictions...)? If there is support for the idea, a few tweaks to the instructions on this page and to Template:DRV top are all that would be needed. If there isn't, that's fine too, as long as you don't burn me at the stake—after all, we have to think of global warming. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 08:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Question: Would it be better to rename {{ Deletion review log header}} to {{ Deletion review daily header}}, and create a {{ Deletion review monthly header}} for the monthly log pages? — Remember the dot ( talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I've now had two AfD closes go to DRV and not known about them - one of them closed before I found out it had even opened. Is it a requirement for the closing admin to be notified or not? Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question. Please feel free to move if another place is more appropriate.
It is often stated that this isn't AfD2. However, this raises a question (which has seen some discussion in a recent DrV). Articles can (and are) sent to AfD many times. Sometimes they are deleted after many keep results. Say that there was nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. Can it ever legitimately come to DrV? After all things can change. Thoughts? Hobit ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a guideline be introduced to the WP:DRV process which makes it adds two aspects to DRV. Obviously these would need to be worded differently but here is the jist of it.
1. In cases where the process or closure of an AfD is questioned, it should be mandatory to notify the closing administrator of the DRV before it is in turn closed. The closing administrator should be given 3 days to respond to the DRV. A template can be created to timestamp notification of the closing admin in the DRV.
2. In cases where no snowball or speedy closure of the DRV is realistic and where the content of the deleted material is not potentially copyvio, attack or otherwise unacceptable, it should be recommended for the content of the article being discussed to be temporarily recreated to allow non-admin users to study it. To avoid indexation and search inclusion of deleted material the material should be moved to DRVPAGE/PAGENAME for the duration of the DRV. For example, the recreation of TurnKey Linux (DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29) would be done to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29/TurnKey Linux.
I appreciate the feedback of the community. I would also, longer term, like to see notification of the nominator and maybe all contributors to the previous AfD, but I leave that out of this version of this discussion. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
DRV has to do more with topic than content. Deleted content isn't needed for a check on reliable sources to be had on a topic, towards a take on notability. I think it's wonderful when an admin gets told about a thread having to do with a close they've made but I wouldn't want to see a DRV cut short only because someone forgot (or didn't want) to copy-paste something onto an admin's talk page. Besides, I can't think of any time a DRV on a close I made went for more than a few days without my hearing about it from someone. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Question to Usrnme h8er: Maybe there's something you're seeing that we're not. What do you think the difference will be between having formal regulations in these areas, as opposed to the informal process we have now? What you're proposing is already recommended; what will making it required actually change? What is the problem that formalizing this will fix?-- Aervanath ( talk) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments/proposed modifications/objections/random abuse?-- Aervanath ( talk) 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely 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.
Here's a mini-drama that plays out all too often at AfD and then DRV.
There's a "no consensus" AfD. The admin closes it one of two ways:
1) "No consensus". Result: it's automatically brought back to AfD two or three weeks later, because a practically immediate fresh AfD is seen as acceptable and any !vote based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is disregarded. Therefore, a "no consensus" close is pointless and the admin might as well just re-list it immediately.
2) "Admin fiat", where the closer simply chooses whichever outcome they prefer, safe in the knowledge that any decision that's controversial at AfD is automatically controversial at DRV, which means they can be sure of "no consensus to overturn" at DRV.
What this means is that "no consensus" at AfD is an "admin fiat" outcome that can't effectively be challenged in any venue.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What this does is that it makes the admin mop into a judge's gavel.
What I'd suggest is to make it clearer in the relevant policies that the community has never authorised, and never intended to authorise, admins to overrule a majority of established editors making reasoned arguments grounded in policy or guidelines, irrespective of the admin in question's personal view of how the debate should be closed.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
While I tend to disagree with .— S Marshall on the scope and nature of the problem. I would like to flag the comments by Xoloz (formely the main closer of DRV's) here where he forcefully argues that no consensus at DRV should default to relist. While in one sense we do want an AfD closure to have some finality and not be frivilously reviewed and overturned (DRv is not AfD 2) we also want to ensure that there are real limits on admin discretion. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about ways this idea could be used to game the system, but having post-AfD articles held in an unindexed space would address most of the concerns I can foresee.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Question for Chillum: I can see your point about appeals of XFD closures, but what about speedy deletions, which have never been through an XFD? (see my comments above).-- Aervanath ( talk) 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate for me to make a tentative change to the policy, saying "No consensus closes can lead to 'endorse' or 're-list' at the discretion of the admin who closes the DRV"?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed an article I wrote on the band té was deleted a while ago because apparently they're not notable enough, the only reference linked being their myspace page. They've had a #1 single, top 10 album, played in the USA, toured with 65daysofstatic, have 2 live DVDs and a couple of music videos. They aren't as popular as other bands in the genre outside Japan but still have quite a few fans. They also have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te%27
Some more links:
Ianbeale steeplecoqcue ( talk) 12:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this the appropriate place to do such a thing, or does one just create a second AfD? Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A certain recent DRV has turned into a complete Charlie Foxtrot because of a (not completely unreasonable) allegation of canvassing. The issue is that the DRV has turned from being about the subject into a battleground between the ARS and those who oppose them, and I think the upshot is that the resulting discussion is beyond retrieval.
If there are issues with the ARS, or accusations to make, please take them to the appropriate venue.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have asked User:Schutz, the operator of User:Zorglbot, whether his bot could take over the task of creating the daily log pages for DRV (see here). I did not anticipate that there would be any objections, but I still want to make note of it here. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is every single one of these bloody articles going to end up at DRV?
I think it's in danger of becoming disruptive. We've got the same users !voting the same way on all of them.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"...coordinating accounts (" meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited."—Common ArbCom remedy, in (for example) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology.
Am I alone in believing that editors appear to be banding together in informal alliances, and engaging in factional voting, with respect to these articles?
I move that the identity of participants in these alliances is agreed, and their collective !votes are treated as one !vote for DRV purposes.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
My question was, in view of your earlier remark, do you think the strength of the arguments involved in these specific cases is such that the !votes need not be counted?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet, but it seems to me like it'd be easy and completely obvious: Whenever an article gets listed at DRV, the person should immediately 1) contact the closing admin and 2) leave a notice at the bottom of the AFD in question saying that it's been listed. The first is supposed to be practice, and the second should be done to both keep a paper trail (so the AFD can also note the results of the DRV) and also be an easy way to alert anyone who might have had that AFD watchlisted. It's ridiculous that things listed at DRV are done in a vacuum where the AFD participants have no easy way of knowing anything is going on without watching DRV like a hawk in case something shows up later. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
|result=
?) and a category for sorting. Cheers, guys.
lifebaka
++
18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Two FfDs that have come up for DRV have cited NFCC#8 as grounds for deletion:
...coincidentally both by Peripitus.
In both I argued that NFCC#8 is unlike the other criteria to delete non-free images on the grounds that there is a real issue of judgement involved in deciding the relevance of the image to the article, and that admins may very well differ widely in their application of this criterion. Hence admins should not simply decide whether they think NFCC#8 applies or not, but weigh up the balance of opinion.
Before I go about making this assertion in other DRVs, I think I should ask for feedback on it... — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2009 (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 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. |
I don't really follow the actual DRV closes, but my sense is that it is not often that DRV results in an outcome different from what the closing admin posted. The rare overturn outcome of List of bow tie wearers got me thinking. Are there statistics somewhere that indicate how often DRV's outcome is different from the XfD reviewed? I think such stats would help give those desiring to post a DRV request a better sense of what they are up against. DRV does seem to be a very good educational tool for the nominators since most participants provide suggestions, so the stats should be presented in a way that does not discourage posting DRV requests. -- Suntag ☼ 02:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just, for the first time, used this process.
I can see a pair of problems, technical ones, not process problems:
So, unless it's me, which is always a possibility, it is not entirely working. Happy to be shown how wrong I am :) Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.
When someebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article ( list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).
All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.
Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. S B H arris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get That Guy with the Glasses added to the log. It shows up as a subpage, and you can see the entry if you click today's date in the log, but the discussion is not visible like others in the log, and the link from the article doesn't work either. Never done one of these before, and I can't tell what I'm doing wrong. Help please. Beeblebrox ( talk) 10:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
My extensive work on this Article was intended to assist professors of law evaluate this useful caselaw textbook for their use in the exercise of their profession as academic lawyers. I myself--as it would have become clear to the reader had he or she chose to investigate the available ancillary article information--inserted the "
It remains a travesty of justice that this Article was summarily deleted. Its inclusion would have done honor and justice to the great endeavor that is Wikipedia. I challenge the Wikipedian--if he or she has the courage--to identify himself or herself to me, on this Wikipedia talkpage or otherwise, ex gratia to paul.gill@usa.com--to answer as to why this important Article was destroyed.
I am not interested in the citation of the Wikipedia rules--with which I clearly was in the process of compliance, as each Wikipedian has reasonable latitude--but I am instead interested in being told, in and with preciseness of exactitude--again, if you have the courage--without passion or prejudice, why this was done.
Small-minded and closed-minded obfuscatory attempts to explain yourself are not acceptable and do no justice to the academic freedom that Wikipedia stands for. Although it is a universal and absolute axiom that actions always "speak louder" than words, I require you to explain yourself and the context of this destructive act. The Article was about the application of rules of law; your response should, in turn, cite the application of your destructive, even desecratory, act, without caprice.
I cannot see the redeeming worth of your despicable act. That does not necessarily mean one does not exist; simply, that I assert that unwarrranted caprice was inflicted here, in this precise and specific instance.
Professor Scott's work and academic freedom were compromised given your choice to take this unwarranted and reprehensible action. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School that Prof. Scott represents was similarly harassed in your actions. However, as Wikipedian and author of the work that would have comprised this descriptive and helpful Wikipedia article, I require your response be given to me. I am a graduate and alumnus of Thomas M. Cooley Law School.
John Paul Nelson Gill, D.Jur.
Hahbie 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how anybody was "harassed" by anything that happened here, and Wikipedia is not responsible for anybody's academic freedom. Nobody has the "right" to post anything on Wikipedia. We, as Wikipedia contributors, are responsible to the encyclopedia, and therefore to the consensus of the community of Wikipedia editors on how to run the encyclopedia. Should you wish to contest the deletion, you may file a request at WP:DRV, by following the directions there. Otherwise, letters such as the one above will get you nowhere, and will in fact hurt your cause amongst Wikipedians. Please refrain from repeating such counterproductive actions. Thank you.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
For example, I closed a DRV decision as "no consensus to overturn deletion". The nominator, in good faith, thinks that I evaluated the debate incorrectly. Can a WP:DRV debate be started about whether the previous DRV debate was closed incorrectly? Or do they have to take it to WP:AN?-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a few deletion review decisions "reviewed" at DRV. Most of the time it wasn't worth the effort, since a good deal of the conversation consisted of folks amusing themselves at the irony of it all. If something truly AWFUL happened at DRV, I might consider posting a notice at AN, but for run of the mill decisions where the outcome is somehow unfavorable, the dispute resolution chain might work best. By this I mean content RfCs, noticeboards, etc. Not a conduct RfC on the closer. And the comments above noting that multiple deletion reviews have been made for articles where consensus or evidence changes are correct. Protonk ( talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As usual on the happily rare occasions when I want to nominate one of these, I followed the template instuctions carefully, producing a pile-up on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 18 which any attempt on my part to sort out will only make worse. It doesn't appear on the main page & is generally screwed up, though all the information is there. Can anyone kindly sort it out? Obviously some people manage to use the template successfully, though God knows how. Johnbod ( talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I see the prior-to-December-22,2004 deletion logs were never restored. I believe there was an Alice Crimmins article, but was unable to find one using the deletion log for the period since that date. I would like an admin with access to to indicate if there was an Alice Crimmins article or not in the Wikipedia. If there was an article, could I obtain a deletion review for it? The process seems to presume that the text is available in the article's deletion history. patsw ( talk) 02:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a limit on how long since an article can asked to be reviewed after being deleted? The reason I ask is that the List of ship launches in 1946 was deleted with two delete votes and no support back in 2006. It was commented that the list should be referred to WP:SHIPS but this wasn't done. I have asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and am awaiting his response. I have also informed the nominator that I have done this. What would be the correct procedure here? If the article is restored, then the material that existed then would be restored. If the article has to be recreated from scratch, then the material that was included at deletion would have to be recreated from scratch too. I suspect that a DRV would, on the face of it conclude that the original deletion was correct according to the votes given at the time. However, my opinion is that if the article existed now as it was when listed at AfD, the result of the debate would be to keep it. How do we get round this? One solution would be to restore it and relist at AfD to see what the consensus is now. Mjroots ( talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So I was browsing archives and The Well (Church) was approved to restore at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19; but the article (which subsequently survived an AfD) was copy-and-paste recreated at The Well (church), and its old history never properly restored. What's the right course of action here? Should it be treated like a copy-and-paste move? Dcoetzee 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly, but there is something on this page (JavaScript most likely) and only this page that brings my browser to a crawl. Please remove whatever it is. SharkD ( talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I added an entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_2 - but it doesn't seem to be showing up on the main page. Thought I followed all the procedures properly; can someone take a look and tweak, if need be? Thanks .. Jenolen speak it! 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There is lots of information on this so there should be a page about it but it is being blocked.
I am ironbatman ( talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
NOTICE: Charles Laquidara has, for several months, begged in vain for someone-anyone- of the many Wikipedia editors to make any corrections or changes in my bio which they deem necessary, in order for it not to have that ugly “citation” at the beginning of this page, (a citation which implies negatively that there are some lines in the content there-in that are illegal, immoral or just plain inappropriate and should be dealt with at some point before the (said) ugly “citation” can be made to go away). Charles pleads guilty to having written some passages that were, in retrospect, self-serving and he now regrets having done so and is just hoping to have a simple, no-frills biography posted on these Wikipedia pages.
Charles has already written several e-mails to these editors, who continually ignore him because he is obviously not qualified to even complain if he doesn't speak “Wikipedian” and can't figure out how to properly address this issue on the discussion pages.
Charles- not being a computer expert and, in fact, being pretty much of an ignoramus about these matters (He was a DISC JOCKEY for God's sake!) cannot for the life of him ascertain how to approach this problem in the proper Wikipedian manner using the Wikipedia criteria set forth in hundreds of pages of rules and regulations. Charles has even suggested (as a last resort) that if necessary, perhaps someone on the editorial board-if they weren't able to just change and/or edit out the “offending sentences”- could delete his entire biography ... but, alas! to no avail- his pleas continue to fall upon deaf ears.. and poor Charles has no way of dealing with the problem, except to kvetch here and now on this “edit page” hoping that someone out there will take notice and do something- anything- to make that ominous, ugly “citation” disappear once and for all. To make it more official: I, Charles Laquidara, hereby do swear that I am giving the editors of Wikipedia absolute authority and permission to make any changes which they feel necessary to this biography in order to make the below information appropriate to their standards of Wikipedia excellence. Mahalo. Laquidara ( talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a hard time understanding the how things work here. A discussion takes place regarding deletion, merge and redirect; and the decision is to redirect. So how is a redirect considered proper when the article being redirected to makes no mention of the article being redirect to it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trunnell Elementary School Does one simply assume that since this is a school name and since it is being redirected to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky) that it must be part of that school district? And if that is the case, should there not be a redirect for every elementary school to a parent article? Dbiel ( Talk) 10:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Listing a page on DRV can be a daunting task because the current DRV templates and their syntax are not very flexible or user-friendly. They don't do well with requests to overturn RfDs, requests to overturn a second deletion nomination, or grouped requests to undelete multiple files. To remedy this problem I've created two new templates: Template:drv2 and Template:DRV links. Here are some examples:
{{subst:drv2 |page=Fooo |reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~ }}
Fooo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:drv2 |page=Fooo |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fooo (2nd nomination) |reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~ }}
Fooo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~ }}
File:Foo.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
====Images related to foo==== * {{DRV links|File:Foo.png|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo}} * {{DRV links|File:Foobar.jpeg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foobar.jpeg|article=Foo}} * {{DRV links|File:Fubar.svg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Fubar.svg|article=Foo}} Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
My goal here was to make these templates easy to use, straightforward, and flexible. If there are no objections then I'll add documentation and update the instructions to say to use these templates instead of the old ones. — Remember the dot ( talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been pretty inactive for a few months, and I'm just starting to get involved in Wikipedia again. Therefore, I'm reluctant to be very assertive about something that may have changed while I wasn't looking. Hence, I'm asking here.
Is it still true that we require articles to be verifiable in independent reliable sources? I ask because I saw an article kept in AfD when nobody even suggested that there was coverage in independent sources. Most arguments ran along the lines of: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so why not keep this one, too? The closing admin told me he closed as no consensus because there were experienced editors on both sides. Apparently whether they were arguing from policy or not just doesn't matter?
So, what's up? Have we started keeping articles whose contents can't be verified in independent sources, and... if so, why? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
We have not been keeping articles where the contents cannot be verified and I hope we never shall; we have been a little more flexible in keeping articles where the contents have not yet been verified, or where the sources may be somewhat other than the traditional ones. i think thise are positive developments and will rescue good articles. Think carefully, please, before you oppose this trend. DGG ( talk) 09:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review contains a prominent notice that instructs editors to "please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)" before starting a new deletion review. I would like to propose that we begin actually enforcing this notice.
I know that this issue has been discussed on other occasions and there has never been consensus to close DRVs solely because the initiator did not attempt discuss the matter with the closing admin. What I would like to propose is to temporarily place DRVs where there has been no prior attempt to resolve the issue in "pending" status. When a discussion is in pending status, it could look something like this:
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe the closer failed to properly evaluate the consensus in the discussion. –User:Initiator
{{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #ccccff; background-color: #ccccff; background-color: #ccccff;|contentstyle = text-align: center; text-align: center; text-align: center;|Ranting|what the HELL was he thinking?!?!?!?!?!! unbielevible!!!!!! ...... To rant or not to rant, that is the question 36 bottles of RANT on the wall; 36 bottles of RANT ...... You've got to admit that the guy's got stamina...
d&%( & *#(*(#$ !!!!! *&#$(*&# #*(& Ranting what the HELL was he thinking?!?!?!?!?!! unbielevible!!!!!! ...... To rant or not to rant, that is the question 36 bottles of RANT on the wall; 36 bottles of RANT ...... You've got to admit that the guy's got stamina... d&%( & *#(*(#$ !!!!! *&#$(*&# #*(&$&*( goat *#&()_(#&^#
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
If an informal resolution (i.e. on a talk page, between the closing admin and the initiator of the deletion review) is not reached (within 24 hours, for instance), whether due to disagreement, the closer saying "take it to DRV", or the closer not responding, the discussion can be re-opened (by anyone) and allowed to proceed as normal.
It's an idea that's been in my head for a few days and I want to see what everyone else thinks about it. So, any thoughts? Is it a good idea, a terrible idea, a CREEPy idea, a solution in search of a problem, heresy, and/or proof of God or Satan (that last one probably is heresy in some jurisdictions...)? If there is support for the idea, a few tweaks to the instructions on this page and to Template:DRV top are all that would be needed. If there isn't, that's fine too, as long as you don't burn me at the stake—after all, we have to think of global warming. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 08:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Question: Would it be better to rename {{ Deletion review log header}} to {{ Deletion review daily header}}, and create a {{ Deletion review monthly header}} for the monthly log pages? — Remember the dot ( talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I've now had two AfD closes go to DRV and not known about them - one of them closed before I found out it had even opened. Is it a requirement for the closing admin to be notified or not? Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question. Please feel free to move if another place is more appropriate.
It is often stated that this isn't AfD2. However, this raises a question (which has seen some discussion in a recent DrV). Articles can (and are) sent to AfD many times. Sometimes they are deleted after many keep results. Say that there was nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. Can it ever legitimately come to DrV? After all things can change. Thoughts? Hobit ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a guideline be introduced to the WP:DRV process which makes it adds two aspects to DRV. Obviously these would need to be worded differently but here is the jist of it.
1. In cases where the process or closure of an AfD is questioned, it should be mandatory to notify the closing administrator of the DRV before it is in turn closed. The closing administrator should be given 3 days to respond to the DRV. A template can be created to timestamp notification of the closing admin in the DRV.
2. In cases where no snowball or speedy closure of the DRV is realistic and where the content of the deleted material is not potentially copyvio, attack or otherwise unacceptable, it should be recommended for the content of the article being discussed to be temporarily recreated to allow non-admin users to study it. To avoid indexation and search inclusion of deleted material the material should be moved to DRVPAGE/PAGENAME for the duration of the DRV. For example, the recreation of TurnKey Linux (DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29) would be done to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29/TurnKey Linux.
I appreciate the feedback of the community. I would also, longer term, like to see notification of the nominator and maybe all contributors to the previous AfD, but I leave that out of this version of this discussion. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
DRV has to do more with topic than content. Deleted content isn't needed for a check on reliable sources to be had on a topic, towards a take on notability. I think it's wonderful when an admin gets told about a thread having to do with a close they've made but I wouldn't want to see a DRV cut short only because someone forgot (or didn't want) to copy-paste something onto an admin's talk page. Besides, I can't think of any time a DRV on a close I made went for more than a few days without my hearing about it from someone. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Question to Usrnme h8er: Maybe there's something you're seeing that we're not. What do you think the difference will be between having formal regulations in these areas, as opposed to the informal process we have now? What you're proposing is already recommended; what will making it required actually change? What is the problem that formalizing this will fix?-- Aervanath ( talk) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments/proposed modifications/objections/random abuse?-- Aervanath ( talk) 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely 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.
Here's a mini-drama that plays out all too often at AfD and then DRV.
There's a "no consensus" AfD. The admin closes it one of two ways:
1) "No consensus". Result: it's automatically brought back to AfD two or three weeks later, because a practically immediate fresh AfD is seen as acceptable and any !vote based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is disregarded. Therefore, a "no consensus" close is pointless and the admin might as well just re-list it immediately.
2) "Admin fiat", where the closer simply chooses whichever outcome they prefer, safe in the knowledge that any decision that's controversial at AfD is automatically controversial at DRV, which means they can be sure of "no consensus to overturn" at DRV.
What this means is that "no consensus" at AfD is an "admin fiat" outcome that can't effectively be challenged in any venue.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What this does is that it makes the admin mop into a judge's gavel.
What I'd suggest is to make it clearer in the relevant policies that the community has never authorised, and never intended to authorise, admins to overrule a majority of established editors making reasoned arguments grounded in policy or guidelines, irrespective of the admin in question's personal view of how the debate should be closed.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
While I tend to disagree with .— S Marshall on the scope and nature of the problem. I would like to flag the comments by Xoloz (formely the main closer of DRV's) here where he forcefully argues that no consensus at DRV should default to relist. While in one sense we do want an AfD closure to have some finality and not be frivilously reviewed and overturned (DRv is not AfD 2) we also want to ensure that there are real limits on admin discretion. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about ways this idea could be used to game the system, but having post-AfD articles held in an unindexed space would address most of the concerns I can foresee.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Question for Chillum: I can see your point about appeals of XFD closures, but what about speedy deletions, which have never been through an XFD? (see my comments above).-- Aervanath ( talk) 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate for me to make a tentative change to the policy, saying "No consensus closes can lead to 'endorse' or 're-list' at the discretion of the admin who closes the DRV"?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed an article I wrote on the band té was deleted a while ago because apparently they're not notable enough, the only reference linked being their myspace page. They've had a #1 single, top 10 album, played in the USA, toured with 65daysofstatic, have 2 live DVDs and a couple of music videos. They aren't as popular as other bands in the genre outside Japan but still have quite a few fans. They also have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te%27
Some more links:
Ianbeale steeplecoqcue ( talk) 12:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this the appropriate place to do such a thing, or does one just create a second AfD? Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A certain recent DRV has turned into a complete Charlie Foxtrot because of a (not completely unreasonable) allegation of canvassing. The issue is that the DRV has turned from being about the subject into a battleground between the ARS and those who oppose them, and I think the upshot is that the resulting discussion is beyond retrieval.
If there are issues with the ARS, or accusations to make, please take them to the appropriate venue.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have asked User:Schutz, the operator of User:Zorglbot, whether his bot could take over the task of creating the daily log pages for DRV (see here). I did not anticipate that there would be any objections, but I still want to make note of it here. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is every single one of these bloody articles going to end up at DRV?
I think it's in danger of becoming disruptive. We've got the same users !voting the same way on all of them.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"...coordinating accounts (" meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited."—Common ArbCom remedy, in (for example) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology.
Am I alone in believing that editors appear to be banding together in informal alliances, and engaging in factional voting, with respect to these articles?
I move that the identity of participants in these alliances is agreed, and their collective !votes are treated as one !vote for DRV purposes.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
My question was, in view of your earlier remark, do you think the strength of the arguments involved in these specific cases is such that the !votes need not be counted?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet, but it seems to me like it'd be easy and completely obvious: Whenever an article gets listed at DRV, the person should immediately 1) contact the closing admin and 2) leave a notice at the bottom of the AFD in question saying that it's been listed. The first is supposed to be practice, and the second should be done to both keep a paper trail (so the AFD can also note the results of the DRV) and also be an easy way to alert anyone who might have had that AFD watchlisted. It's ridiculous that things listed at DRV are done in a vacuum where the AFD participants have no easy way of knowing anything is going on without watching DRV like a hawk in case something shows up later. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
|result=
?) and a category for sorting. Cheers, guys.
lifebaka
++
18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Two FfDs that have come up for DRV have cited NFCC#8 as grounds for deletion:
...coincidentally both by Peripitus.
In both I argued that NFCC#8 is unlike the other criteria to delete non-free images on the grounds that there is a real issue of judgement involved in deciding the relevance of the image to the article, and that admins may very well differ widely in their application of this criterion. Hence admins should not simply decide whether they think NFCC#8 applies or not, but weigh up the balance of opinion.
Before I go about making this assertion in other DRVs, I think I should ask for feedback on it... — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2009 (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. |