![]() | 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've posted the following question at Wikipedia talk:Edit war#Robot wars:
Maybe some folk here will be interested in that question. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why closing an AfD within the first few hours violates the deletion policy, but closing a DRV within the first few hours does not? Sceptre ( talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal:
If there is no consensus in a DRV as to what the appropriate outcome should be, then an admin can close it as such after 7 days and proceed to relist it in the appropriate venue.
How does this sound? The benefits are: 1) There is no way to appeal a DRV, so this gives a more acceptable outcome to all. 2) The closing admin of the DRV won't have to rule a very hard case between two extremes. 3) Neither the nominator of the DRV nor the closing admin of the AfD will get offended. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a big problem, actually. Perhaps we could have an elected deletion committee (like Arbcom) who reviews the merits of everything about a page (the page itself, the XfD, the DRV) and then votes on it. Since the committee is obviously presumed to have a good understanding of policy, the result will be determined by a votecount. This might seem like too much bureaucracy, but remember that deletion discussion can really get inflamed (just like user conflicts, which are resolved by Arbcom at the end), so we can have a committee as a last resort. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the language I inserted after the discussion at #Lacuna in the process, above, although I would certainly be comfortable in making it mandatory that "no consensus = relist", no exceptions.>If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
There are two DRVs for July 10, for Republic of Mountainous Armenia and Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala, which do not appear on the list. Clicking the edit tab for the accused spies category brings up the Armenia discussion for editing and clicking the Hermy edit tab brings up Zavala. Clicking Diana Vickers' edit tab brings up Hermy. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The question is: How do you appeal a DRV? Although most of the time, DRV ends a debate over deletion, sometimes even DRV ends up with a lack of consensus. Per Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Lacuna in the process, an admin can use discretion when closing a DRV. But what if the article is relisted on AfD, and then someone brings it to DRV again? Clearly, we need a definitive way to solve this ongoing problem. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Where do you appeal a DRV decision? and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Proposal: DRV no consensus --> relist for previous discussions on this matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, there are (really) two: Arbcom, for conduct disputes, and DRV, for content disputes. In my opinion, Arbcom is capable of overruling DRV but not the other way around.
I think a bad close at DRV could be taken to AN for discussion, but I don't accept that AN can overrule DRV. It could merely attempt to persuade the DRV closer. I think any situation in which DRV needed to be overruled by a "higher court" would need to involve an abusive close at DRV, and I think that such a thing would automatically be a matter for Arbcom because (a) an abusive DRV close is an extremely serious matter and (b) there's nowhere else on Wikipedia that could overrule DRV.
Of course, there's also the option of direct appeal to the monarch (i.e. Jimbo Wales' talk page)... — S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I also feel that if Aervanath will confirm this, we may have reached sufficient consensus to make some tentative changes to the DRV page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed recently that we have had a spate of new users trying to appeal against xFD closes that have resulted in redirects and merges and that isn't something that we usually look at at DRV. To save everyone time and effort I have written an essay with a less then catchy title that I would appreciate being looked over by others. In particular the essay needs some snappy shortcuts and a catchy title but I'm all out of inspiration. I'd also appreciate some feedback on whether we have the right suggested process and improvements to my stilted text. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Point 1 of the explanation of the principle purpose of DRV says: "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."
I've had a number of CfD closes I performed brought to DRV in the past month or two—I think it's 5 now. (Please, let's not make this discussion about that issue. That's a whole other ball of wax. If you want to complain about how much I suck, do so on my talk page.) Anyway, for none of the DRVs did the nominating editor communicate anything to me prior to the start of the DRV. In several cases, I think there was a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the close that could have quite easily been resolved with a short discussion prior to any DRV being started. In at least 2 cases, the CfD close had explicitly stated that the category could be re-created in a slightly different form, which apparently the nominator's missed.
Can anything more be done to try to encourage nominators to discuss things first? I was going to suggest bolding these parts of the instructions, but I see that it already is. The extreme solution would be to speedily close any discussion where the closer had not been approached, but I don't necessarily think that is a good idea to take things that far. Suggestions? Or is it just a crap shoot depending on how well someone follows instructions? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I've now seen some of the (extremely rare) occasions on which the closer has changed their mind, but I still think it's unnecessary. Nominating an article for DRV is not disruptive behaviour, the closer has seven days to stick their oar in, and if there really was a closer error, then the closer can simply reverse themself and close the DRV.
Also, we don't have a rule that you have to contact an article's creator before listing at AfD. Why should DRV be different?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Format All XfDs as “one nomination per page", to assist watchlisting discussion, and to enable followup discussions on dedicated talks pages.
It is often brought up that DRV listers have not initially contacted the XfD closer. I think that people don’t want to talk to the admin on their talk page for psychological reasons. (I began to type them, but no, they are not the point)
I suggest that we change the advice. Don’t ask that editors contact the closer, but ask that editors with queries ask their questions, or make their comments, on the talk page of the XfD. (examples Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Free and open source software, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians (2nd nomination)). The vast majority of these pages are never created. I see some distinct advantages:
Note: this is not about closers being unfriendly or hostile on their talk pages, they are not, it is about the timid perceptions, or shyness, of editors new to XfD.
To do this would require that XfDs use the “one nomination per page" format, as per AfD & MfD, and not use the daily log page format of CfD, RfD & TfD.
I think that making this change might especially help CfD. Some people assert that CfD has a problem (see WT:CfD). A contributing factor to the problem seems to be a lack of discussion about closes that are less than clear to participants.
Apart from talkpage followup issues, having so many discussions grouped on a daily page makes it very hard to watch the discussion of there is just one or two discussions that interest you. The format of all discussions on one page discourages casual but extended participation in particular discussions, and I think we need to get away from that. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Another idea... The message in the Xfd bottom is not so helpful, and if anything, sends people directly to DRV. The AfD closed discussion bottom template says:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article talk page was likely deleted, so that is funny advice. Note that the only useful link is to DRV, making it not so surprising that people do go straight to DRV. “Please do not modify it” is a tad abrupt, and without better direction to where to continue, I think it intimidates unsatisfied participants into giving up. I think that DRV listers who don’t discuss with the closer are the minority compared to those who give up unsatisfied.
I also think that it would be desirable to sometimes modify the archived discussion, such as with notes pointing to subsequent XfD or DRV discussions on the same subject.
I think that the following changes would be a good idea:
If people agree, where is this template to be found? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Rossami, I agree with much of what you say.
At WP:DRV#Instructions, the very first step isDeletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review 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.
This already reads like it's mandatory, even though it won't be enforced by automatic closure. I'm not sure how much more clearly it could be worded.-- Aervanath ( talk) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Before listing a review request:
1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review.
Hi, just wanted to confirm that this was the correct location to request a mass review (over 100) of a number of deletions made as a result of CSD tagging of images?
I won't go into the specifc details unless this is correct forum? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that as long as he leaves a note on the talk pages of a representative sample of the admins, that should be sufficient.
I also agree that starting with an individual "trial case" would be a good idea.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
users being asked not to 'enforce' for 6 months in late 2008, which was agreed to.
got nuked at Commons for various issues, or because they didn't quite meet Commons requirements. As part of this a systematic approach of looking for 'free' images from before Commons was created was undertaken, and it's a number of these pre Commons issues that would form part of a any deletion review.
backlog cleared, which resulted in the advice to apply CSD to some images in the backlog concerned.
the alleged claims of certain of those intermediate sources. (Some images may have been proposed for no source, even though they were sourced as for example : "19th Century Photo")
harsh messages to uploaders requesting information.
commons sense.
to Commons (an issue already mentioned to the Administrator's Noticeboard), this means that some images may have 'lost' information, resulting in their deletion at Commons despite all the information on the enwp side indicating their compatibality with commons
There is a concern some images may have been deleted merely because they were tagged. In respect of DFU deletions, some of these could be rescued with resources now available on the wiki. (The availability of features not available at the time like Tineye might also help clarify border-line cases.)
So the request to review deletions if actually made would be as follows :
(I've suggested informally to Commons, the idea of a 'bounce' feature, which would automate resseruction of Images found to be Commons incompatible)
(In some cases though all that needs to be recovered is the INFORMATION not the image though.)
standards were being applied to uploads of that period, and it would be reasonable to reconsider the 'retroactive' effect of CSD.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to propose an RFC to review a large number of CSD/DFU most of which would be valid ones.
The Commons Helper malfunction is something I've already mentioned to the Administrators Noticeboard.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think input from users interested in, and knowledgeable about, crown copyright would be of value in that DRV, though. It's a pity Moonriddengirl is unavailable at the moment or I'd have dropped a note on her talk page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 09:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 9 GRBerry 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The page is being considered for deletion but shouldn't be, as the company is a "notable" company and several individuals have commented to keep the article. It's being attacked by one admin, for no apparent reason. If you review similar pages, United Van Lines and U-Haul, they share similar content and structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalters82 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:Wikipedian_singer-songwriters ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 8) Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC) alleged that the DRV system is broken. He is, it looks to me, annoyed by repetition of general criticism of CfD in DRVs that he thinks should not have been listed.
I believe it *is* appropriate to make reference to general criticism of an XfD process in an individual DRV to the extent that the general criticism impacts the deletion in question. I also believe that it is in the scope of DRV to, to a limited extent, digress into discussion of any deletion process.
I also believe that it is not a problem, and is not a sign of brokenness, when trivial DRVs are listed. When editors choose to list their deletion concern directly at DRV, and are then satisfactorily answered, then there is no problem. A problem would be if good faith protests were suppressed due to bureaucratic rules of process.
Am I right, or how am I wrong? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a notice to a closed AfD and/or the article talk page (if it still exists/while the DRV exists) when it is under discussion here? In particular an edit summary would draw the attention of those who put the AfD on their watchlist but do not watch DRV. Miami33139 ( talk) 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread on whether closing rationales should stay optional here. Please contribute! Fences& Windows 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
User Bearian has complained that I called someone a "Financial Terrorist" in my new article "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America". I contest this, since I was quoting the man himself. He called himself a "Financial Terrorist". Bearian could have verified that I was quoting him about himself by reading my article more carefully or by reading the three references.
Please inform me when I may repair the article. David spector ( talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not know how to nominate the Merlin Mann article for deletion. He is non-notable, just a journalist. 78.147.28.172 ( talk) 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I havent done too many of these so had a legit question: What is stop the same users who voted for an article's deletion from filling up the deletion review page with endorse votes for the deletion? Doesnt that defeat the purpose of a deletion review? Is there a rule stating the same people who voted in the original deletion cant vote in the review? If there is not, that seems to be a very big flaw in the system. I'm asking just for my knowledge. I have no complaints against anyone in particular nor am I saying anyone is doing this right now. - OberRanks ( talk) 01:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The log of recently closed discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent is not properly displaying. I can't find any recent edits that would have done this and messed with the transclusion, and purging the cache doesn't seem to work either. Does anybody know what's wrong, or how to fix it? IronGargoyle ( talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 19.
In that place, Chick Bowen states (paraphrased) that DRV is a place to consider individual closures, but not to consider overall issues of admin conduct; and I reply that DRV has never considered admin conduct, and would not normally need to do so. I then went on to say that I think it possible that circumstances could arise in which we might.
For the avoidance of doubt, I want to say that DRV is not ArbCom, and I've repeatedly said (and my position remains) that DRV is a place to consider content rather than conduct. I've also repeatedly said that allegations of bad faith do not belong here. DRV is a drama-free zone.
Nevertheless, my position is that a deletion could be so egregiously bad that DRV would want to open a RFC/U on its own motion. Such a deletion has never happened yet, but I do think the situation could arise. And I also think it's possible that an even more extreme deletion could lead DRV to refer the matter directly to ArbCom, or in the most far-fetched possibilities, even petition a steward for a summary desysopping.
Basically, my position is that DRV is entitled to do whatever DRV thinks is in the encyclopaedia's best interests at the time.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously asking: is this the place to complain about the deletion of redirects? I have exhausted all conversational options. Ling.Nut ( talk) 10:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am informed that no-consensus is allowed as an option for closing a DRV but historically we did not have this available. Closes had either to be endorsed or overturned. Can anyone remember when this change came in and is there any support for my view that we really need to come down one way or the other when closing DRVs? Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please would all those of you who're taking it upon yourselves to cut short discussion at DRV with early closures kindly stop. A snow closure is appropriate only when the outcome is absolutely obvious.
MZMcBride's early closure on 30 November is particularly objectionable, and I wonder whether anyone else agrees with me that it should be reverted.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with using this logic to close them early is that it isn't only the nominator who should be considered. If the nominator misbehaves, then sanction the nominator. But this does not amount to a reason to disregard the views of the others who contribute to the DRV. I get the feeling that reactions to misbehaving nominators are going beyond early close -- perhaps the results include a presumption that whatever the nominator is proposing must be wrong. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The current text of the policies, guidelines, and templates all direct disputes over any result of an XfD to DRV. But according to many Administrators, this is not so, and Merge results will be closed without action.
This is exceptionally confusing for users, and is very bureaucratic behaviour since the apparent rules on this are contained in an essay Wikipedia:Non-deleting_deletion_discussions. I attempted to promote this to policy on being told it was used as the rule for how DRV works, but it was reverted by the administrator who had cited it in closing a request.
Frankly, it's not on for Administrators to use an essay to redefine policy. Particularly one that only seems to have been edited by DRV administrators, and has had no community input, and contradicts the current wording of the DRV policy.
Please submit this as changes to the DRV policy, instead of keeping it hidden away in an essay, and not keeping general editors informed about how DRV really works. -- Barberio ( talk) 10:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
From this is seems pretty clear there was never accepted behaviour to speedy close "Merge" reviews in the first place. It's obvious on the face of the above discussion that there was and is no consensus that "Merge" reviews can or should be rejected from DRV, and to do so seems to require building new consensus on that. Reopening the review that sparked this on those grounds.
Those who want "Merge" reviews to be speedy rejected should gather consensus to alter the policy, not dictate it by fiat. -- Barberio ( talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been mulling this over all evening. I stand by my guns about closing these DRVs as that's long standing practise but the more I think about this the more I feel Barberio and those arguing with him have a more then valid point. Essentially AFD used to delete content that didn't meet the inclusion criteria and keep stuff that did. Merge is a kind of halfway house because the closing admin is saying that the consensus is that the article doesn't deserve a standalone article while the content may fit elsewhere and should be retained. I personally think there may be a very narrow scope for DRV to rule on whether or not a discussion did come to the conclusion that an article didn't not meet the inclusion criteria. If it comes to the conclusion that consensus was misjudged then the merge proposal would be suspended subject to a new consensus forming on the talk page and the article would be unmerged if that has already taken place. If, on the other hand, DRV found there was a clear consensus that the article did not meet standards for a standalone article then the merge could proceed with the consensus having been validated. This would be a substantial change to a long standing practise and altering the understanding of how deletion and merges work so, if there is support for this idea, I would suggest we had a joint DRV/AFD RFC on the subject to garner wider input from the community. This is an anomaly and DRV is the appropriate place to consider these issues within the very narrow scope I have suggested.
Spartaz
Humbug! 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Bollocks to it.
Spartaz
Humbug!
20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
← Barberio, I would suggest that you put down the stick and back away from the equine corpse. Bring up your concerns at Talk:Newshounds and see if you can get a consensus to change the results. Trying to browbeat this through DRV to get the results you want isn't exactly the best technique. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The closing Administrator has become intractable over this issue, and has proceed to enact the Merge and Redirect himself, spurning discussion on the talk page. He claims that the AfD has provided him sufficient consensus to do so. It is very clear now that he intends to see to it that his closing result is enacted directly, and is rebuking the possibility that there is actually no consensus to support the merge.
I request that I be allowed to refile the DRV, so that the AfD can be investigated to see if it was closed correctly. -- Barberio ( talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that the DRV about List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex was almost entirely in favour of overturning the AfD, why is it still deleted?
And more importantly, can an admin close a WP:DRV, and ignore the consensus view completely, userfying the page instead of doing what the consensus was to do, which was to overturn the AfD?
Newman Luke ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days.
This is what it says now. Administrator Bigtimepeace seems to think this is too long, "Because DRV takes a week and", at least in a specific case that I proposed should be submitted. Essentially, some editors want an AFD decision changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
How about the following changes: A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days.
It looks like a lot of revisions have been oversighted, but if it's that many, shouldn't the oversighter have put up a clean version of the latest version of the page? I'm sure there were several discussions which only needed courtesy blanking here yesterday
82.33.114.167 (
talk)
20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Previous above comment added by me without logging in
NullofWest
Fill the Void
21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
And yet, now I'm logged in I can see them, can someone clarify why DRVs are no longer visible to anons?
NullofWest
Fill the Void
21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Since Merge is now becoming an increasingly significant outcome for AFD I think it really is time for DRV to find some way to accommodate it. Traditionally, we have viewed merge as a technical keep out come and have have therefore refused to consider undoing an AFD closed as merge unless the nominator was seeking a delete instead - see WP:ND3 for more on this. My belief is that we should take a more nuanced view then this to allow these closes to be reviewed and I see a very simple way forward. Instead of viewing merge and keep as the same outcome we should consider keep to mean "Keep (retain standalone article)" and Merge as "Keep (not retain standalone article)". This would then allow us to adjudicate whether the closing admin correctly assessed the consensus on whether the subject should be standalone or not. Since merges are purely editorial actions not administrative ones we also need to take no action beyond noting whether or not the assessed consensus was for a standalone article. The matter can then be deferred to the article talk page for editorial resolution. This is simple, elegant and does not require us to involve ourselves in editorial or content issues but does provide a venue for dissatisfied editors to seek a review of an admin's close.
If there is support for this proposal I suggest a short form of words to explain this be agreed and then a policy RFC advertised on CENT to garner a wider consensus before implementing it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Proposed change to the list of choices, since it is a proposal to change part of that page. — Sebastian 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the Jabbin close swallowed up everything below it on the page. Bad things usually happen when I try to fix things without knowing what i'm doing, so hoping someone with better wiki skills then me sees this.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Where can a merge review or discussion take place? If an article was supposedly "merged" into a page but no info at all was saved (it was technically deleted) or the target page is not appropiate/enough, how can I dispute the merger if the result of discussion (3 months ago) was "Merge"? -- LoЯd ۞pεth 19:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot guys! I think that I will take this matter to a WikiProject. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some sort of a technical glitch with the Valhalla Vineyards DRV listing (probably the template was filled incorrectly when the item was listed for DRV). The link to the AfD was not showing correctly in the listing. I tried to fix it by manually adding it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6 and the link shows correctly there now. But on the main WP:DRV page the AfD link still does not show. I have no idea how to correct this. Could someone knowledgeable please take a look? Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 02:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is unfair that wikipedia retains deleted pages and thus perpetuating, let's say, an embarrassing situation for people who are the subject of the pages. It is also insulting that wikipedia's editors are allowed the liberty of deciding if someone is "notable" or not. Many wikipedia editors have no experience or ability to determine what makes someone notable or not. In allowing this wikipedia becomes a tool in the hands of possibly petulant know-it-alls. If wikipedia is to use editors that are inexperienced in and ignorant of the subjects they revise and/or choose to delete, then it should not be considered an encyclopedic work. Raising 10 million doesn't necessarily gives you a blank check... conniving politicians are just as successful in their fundraising attempts. 24.55.65.153 ( talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Am I right that DRV is also for overturning creation protection (salting) or protected redirects if one thinks an article should be (re-)created? Should this be mentioned here? For uncontroversial cases one should just ask an admin of course. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
For novices like myself, it would be helpful if the Instructions prominently explained how to find the archived debate that led to an article being deleted. While the method is probably so obvious to experienced editors that it seems unnecessary, it would be very helpful for newcomers.
I eventually found the route of using the Search function at Wikipedia:Deletion_debates#Search_all_deletion_discussions, but it took hunting around to find that solution.
Anyone considering requesting an article be reinstated should be strongly encouraged to read the record of earlier debate. Plus, the Instructions tell you to contact "the administrator (or other editor) in question", and finding the archived discussion is a key step in that process. GCL ( talk) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
(talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Spjayswal67 ( talk) 08:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I have provided all possible references including newspaper cuttings, Pics of all awards and certificates related to article Ambarish Srivastava still it was deleted while Ambarish Srivastava is a prominent and notable person who is a best architectural engineer of sitapur who is at topmost position as well as a prominent Hindi Auther and poet, he is the first person who got the Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award at Sitapur, although first of all this award was awarded to mother teresa so What should be the criteria of notability? and how it should be prove as per your rules? because in our country coverage in news papers are to much important than coverage in website. now i am feeling insulting myself and it appears i am wasting my valuable time with wikipedia so i can not work with wikipedia! so bye.... for ever and it is suggested that you should review your policies in future. Sad: S. P. Jaiswal. Please delete my account!
I have visited above link related to article ambarish srivastava, i have seen all references also after two times enlarging, i found there that all sources are reliable which i read in newspapers previously, it appears this article was deleted unfortunately. so it is requested here that it should be restored after reviewing above link. Seemavibhaji ( talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(though it seems like a long time now) I created Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again. It was nominated for deletion. There has been a fair amount of discussion here [3]. I think (read for yourself) where we ended up was to rename the category Category:Records Hal Blaine played on. But I am not sure how to do that and in particular, how to keep the connection to the discussion about deleting the page as there might be others interested in voicing an opinion on the subject. Hopefully someone suitably skilled, reading this, can consider it. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I am anxious to continue working on this category but not if it is going to be deleted. Carptrash ( talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw an article where the AFD was keep. I thought that DRV was the proper channel for review. I have found how DRV can be bypassed. If one wants the AFD to be a delete, just go back to the article for a merge discussion. There is often less traffic in the talk pages compared to AFD. If a merge is approved, the article can be redirected, no information merged, and the page protected to prevent recreation. Furthermore, an administrator who opens the merge discussion can close it AND page protect it.
To me, even if no bad intent exists, this is a bad series of events. It is less open than AFD. It can be abused to go around an AFD.
Should this remain or should there be changes to prevent this from re-occuring.
Note: I do not have too much opinion on the article but was only seeking the article for information on a biography. I am not providing diffs because I do not want to get the admin involved in trouble or to make him mad. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a misplaced (and malformed) DRV request appearing the bottom of the active discussions section (after 9 February), but I can't find where it has been placed to sort it. It doesn't appear to be on the main DRV page, the 9 February page, or the Active discussions container, and I couldn't spot it in a list of related changes to the DRV page. The contributor didn't sign their edit so I can't find it by looking through their contributions. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Relevant discussion relating to three current MfD cases is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK ( talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in seeing the new DRVs, but watchlisting this page isn't the way to do it. What page should I watchlist? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 06:10, 27 February 2010 (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. |
I've posted the following question at Wikipedia talk:Edit war#Robot wars:
Maybe some folk here will be interested in that question. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why closing an AfD within the first few hours violates the deletion policy, but closing a DRV within the first few hours does not? Sceptre ( talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal:
If there is no consensus in a DRV as to what the appropriate outcome should be, then an admin can close it as such after 7 days and proceed to relist it in the appropriate venue.
How does this sound? The benefits are: 1) There is no way to appeal a DRV, so this gives a more acceptable outcome to all. 2) The closing admin of the DRV won't have to rule a very hard case between two extremes. 3) Neither the nominator of the DRV nor the closing admin of the AfD will get offended. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a big problem, actually. Perhaps we could have an elected deletion committee (like Arbcom) who reviews the merits of everything about a page (the page itself, the XfD, the DRV) and then votes on it. Since the committee is obviously presumed to have a good understanding of policy, the result will be determined by a votecount. This might seem like too much bureaucracy, but remember that deletion discussion can really get inflamed (just like user conflicts, which are resolved by Arbcom at the end), so we can have a committee as a last resort. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the language I inserted after the discussion at #Lacuna in the process, above, although I would certainly be comfortable in making it mandatory that "no consensus = relist", no exceptions.>If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
There are two DRVs for July 10, for Republic of Mountainous Armenia and Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala, which do not appear on the list. Clicking the edit tab for the accused spies category brings up the Armenia discussion for editing and clicking the Hermy edit tab brings up Zavala. Clicking Diana Vickers' edit tab brings up Hermy. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The question is: How do you appeal a DRV? Although most of the time, DRV ends a debate over deletion, sometimes even DRV ends up with a lack of consensus. Per Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Lacuna in the process, an admin can use discretion when closing a DRV. But what if the article is relisted on AfD, and then someone brings it to DRV again? Clearly, we need a definitive way to solve this ongoing problem. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Where do you appeal a DRV decision? and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Proposal: DRV no consensus --> relist for previous discussions on this matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, there are (really) two: Arbcom, for conduct disputes, and DRV, for content disputes. In my opinion, Arbcom is capable of overruling DRV but not the other way around.
I think a bad close at DRV could be taken to AN for discussion, but I don't accept that AN can overrule DRV. It could merely attempt to persuade the DRV closer. I think any situation in which DRV needed to be overruled by a "higher court" would need to involve an abusive close at DRV, and I think that such a thing would automatically be a matter for Arbcom because (a) an abusive DRV close is an extremely serious matter and (b) there's nowhere else on Wikipedia that could overrule DRV.
Of course, there's also the option of direct appeal to the monarch (i.e. Jimbo Wales' talk page)... — S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I also feel that if Aervanath will confirm this, we may have reached sufficient consensus to make some tentative changes to the DRV page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed recently that we have had a spate of new users trying to appeal against xFD closes that have resulted in redirects and merges and that isn't something that we usually look at at DRV. To save everyone time and effort I have written an essay with a less then catchy title that I would appreciate being looked over by others. In particular the essay needs some snappy shortcuts and a catchy title but I'm all out of inspiration. I'd also appreciate some feedback on whether we have the right suggested process and improvements to my stilted text. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Point 1 of the explanation of the principle purpose of DRV says: "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."
I've had a number of CfD closes I performed brought to DRV in the past month or two—I think it's 5 now. (Please, let's not make this discussion about that issue. That's a whole other ball of wax. If you want to complain about how much I suck, do so on my talk page.) Anyway, for none of the DRVs did the nominating editor communicate anything to me prior to the start of the DRV. In several cases, I think there was a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the close that could have quite easily been resolved with a short discussion prior to any DRV being started. In at least 2 cases, the CfD close had explicitly stated that the category could be re-created in a slightly different form, which apparently the nominator's missed.
Can anything more be done to try to encourage nominators to discuss things first? I was going to suggest bolding these parts of the instructions, but I see that it already is. The extreme solution would be to speedily close any discussion where the closer had not been approached, but I don't necessarily think that is a good idea to take things that far. Suggestions? Or is it just a crap shoot depending on how well someone follows instructions? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I've now seen some of the (extremely rare) occasions on which the closer has changed their mind, but I still think it's unnecessary. Nominating an article for DRV is not disruptive behaviour, the closer has seven days to stick their oar in, and if there really was a closer error, then the closer can simply reverse themself and close the DRV.
Also, we don't have a rule that you have to contact an article's creator before listing at AfD. Why should DRV be different?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Format All XfDs as “one nomination per page", to assist watchlisting discussion, and to enable followup discussions on dedicated talks pages.
It is often brought up that DRV listers have not initially contacted the XfD closer. I think that people don’t want to talk to the admin on their talk page for psychological reasons. (I began to type them, but no, they are not the point)
I suggest that we change the advice. Don’t ask that editors contact the closer, but ask that editors with queries ask their questions, or make their comments, on the talk page of the XfD. (examples Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Free and open source software, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians (2nd nomination)). The vast majority of these pages are never created. I see some distinct advantages:
Note: this is not about closers being unfriendly or hostile on their talk pages, they are not, it is about the timid perceptions, or shyness, of editors new to XfD.
To do this would require that XfDs use the “one nomination per page" format, as per AfD & MfD, and not use the daily log page format of CfD, RfD & TfD.
I think that making this change might especially help CfD. Some people assert that CfD has a problem (see WT:CfD). A contributing factor to the problem seems to be a lack of discussion about closes that are less than clear to participants.
Apart from talkpage followup issues, having so many discussions grouped on a daily page makes it very hard to watch the discussion of there is just one or two discussions that interest you. The format of all discussions on one page discourages casual but extended participation in particular discussions, and I think we need to get away from that. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Another idea... The message in the Xfd bottom is not so helpful, and if anything, sends people directly to DRV. The AfD closed discussion bottom template says:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article talk page was likely deleted, so that is funny advice. Note that the only useful link is to DRV, making it not so surprising that people do go straight to DRV. “Please do not modify it” is a tad abrupt, and without better direction to where to continue, I think it intimidates unsatisfied participants into giving up. I think that DRV listers who don’t discuss with the closer are the minority compared to those who give up unsatisfied.
I also think that it would be desirable to sometimes modify the archived discussion, such as with notes pointing to subsequent XfD or DRV discussions on the same subject.
I think that the following changes would be a good idea:
If people agree, where is this template to be found? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Rossami, I agree with much of what you say.
At WP:DRV#Instructions, the very first step isDeletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review 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.
This already reads like it's mandatory, even though it won't be enforced by automatic closure. I'm not sure how much more clearly it could be worded.-- Aervanath ( talk) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Before listing a review request:
1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review.
Hi, just wanted to confirm that this was the correct location to request a mass review (over 100) of a number of deletions made as a result of CSD tagging of images?
I won't go into the specifc details unless this is correct forum? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that as long as he leaves a note on the talk pages of a representative sample of the admins, that should be sufficient.
I also agree that starting with an individual "trial case" would be a good idea.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
users being asked not to 'enforce' for 6 months in late 2008, which was agreed to.
got nuked at Commons for various issues, or because they didn't quite meet Commons requirements. As part of this a systematic approach of looking for 'free' images from before Commons was created was undertaken, and it's a number of these pre Commons issues that would form part of a any deletion review.
backlog cleared, which resulted in the advice to apply CSD to some images in the backlog concerned.
the alleged claims of certain of those intermediate sources. (Some images may have been proposed for no source, even though they were sourced as for example : "19th Century Photo")
harsh messages to uploaders requesting information.
commons sense.
to Commons (an issue already mentioned to the Administrator's Noticeboard), this means that some images may have 'lost' information, resulting in their deletion at Commons despite all the information on the enwp side indicating their compatibality with commons
There is a concern some images may have been deleted merely because they were tagged. In respect of DFU deletions, some of these could be rescued with resources now available on the wiki. (The availability of features not available at the time like Tineye might also help clarify border-line cases.)
So the request to review deletions if actually made would be as follows :
(I've suggested informally to Commons, the idea of a 'bounce' feature, which would automate resseruction of Images found to be Commons incompatible)
(In some cases though all that needs to be recovered is the INFORMATION not the image though.)
standards were being applied to uploads of that period, and it would be reasonable to reconsider the 'retroactive' effect of CSD.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to propose an RFC to review a large number of CSD/DFU most of which would be valid ones.
The Commons Helper malfunction is something I've already mentioned to the Administrators Noticeboard.
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think input from users interested in, and knowledgeable about, crown copyright would be of value in that DRV, though. It's a pity Moonriddengirl is unavailable at the moment or I'd have dropped a note on her talk page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 09:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 9 GRBerry 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The page is being considered for deletion but shouldn't be, as the company is a "notable" company and several individuals have commented to keep the article. It's being attacked by one admin, for no apparent reason. If you review similar pages, United Van Lines and U-Haul, they share similar content and structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalters82 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:Wikipedian_singer-songwriters ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 8) Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC) alleged that the DRV system is broken. He is, it looks to me, annoyed by repetition of general criticism of CfD in DRVs that he thinks should not have been listed.
I believe it *is* appropriate to make reference to general criticism of an XfD process in an individual DRV to the extent that the general criticism impacts the deletion in question. I also believe that it is in the scope of DRV to, to a limited extent, digress into discussion of any deletion process.
I also believe that it is not a problem, and is not a sign of brokenness, when trivial DRVs are listed. When editors choose to list their deletion concern directly at DRV, and are then satisfactorily answered, then there is no problem. A problem would be if good faith protests were suppressed due to bureaucratic rules of process.
Am I right, or how am I wrong? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a notice to a closed AfD and/or the article talk page (if it still exists/while the DRV exists) when it is under discussion here? In particular an edit summary would draw the attention of those who put the AfD on their watchlist but do not watch DRV. Miami33139 ( talk) 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started a thread on whether closing rationales should stay optional here. Please contribute! Fences& Windows 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
User Bearian has complained that I called someone a "Financial Terrorist" in my new article "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America". I contest this, since I was quoting the man himself. He called himself a "Financial Terrorist". Bearian could have verified that I was quoting him about himself by reading my article more carefully or by reading the three references.
Please inform me when I may repair the article. David spector ( talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not know how to nominate the Merlin Mann article for deletion. He is non-notable, just a journalist. 78.147.28.172 ( talk) 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I havent done too many of these so had a legit question: What is stop the same users who voted for an article's deletion from filling up the deletion review page with endorse votes for the deletion? Doesnt that defeat the purpose of a deletion review? Is there a rule stating the same people who voted in the original deletion cant vote in the review? If there is not, that seems to be a very big flaw in the system. I'm asking just for my knowledge. I have no complaints against anyone in particular nor am I saying anyone is doing this right now. - OberRanks ( talk) 01:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The log of recently closed discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent is not properly displaying. I can't find any recent edits that would have done this and messed with the transclusion, and purging the cache doesn't seem to work either. Does anybody know what's wrong, or how to fix it? IronGargoyle ( talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 19.
In that place, Chick Bowen states (paraphrased) that DRV is a place to consider individual closures, but not to consider overall issues of admin conduct; and I reply that DRV has never considered admin conduct, and would not normally need to do so. I then went on to say that I think it possible that circumstances could arise in which we might.
For the avoidance of doubt, I want to say that DRV is not ArbCom, and I've repeatedly said (and my position remains) that DRV is a place to consider content rather than conduct. I've also repeatedly said that allegations of bad faith do not belong here. DRV is a drama-free zone.
Nevertheless, my position is that a deletion could be so egregiously bad that DRV would want to open a RFC/U on its own motion. Such a deletion has never happened yet, but I do think the situation could arise. And I also think it's possible that an even more extreme deletion could lead DRV to refer the matter directly to ArbCom, or in the most far-fetched possibilities, even petition a steward for a summary desysopping.
Basically, my position is that DRV is entitled to do whatever DRV thinks is in the encyclopaedia's best interests at the time.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously asking: is this the place to complain about the deletion of redirects? I have exhausted all conversational options. Ling.Nut ( talk) 10:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am informed that no-consensus is allowed as an option for closing a DRV but historically we did not have this available. Closes had either to be endorsed or overturned. Can anyone remember when this change came in and is there any support for my view that we really need to come down one way or the other when closing DRVs? Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please would all those of you who're taking it upon yourselves to cut short discussion at DRV with early closures kindly stop. A snow closure is appropriate only when the outcome is absolutely obvious.
MZMcBride's early closure on 30 November is particularly objectionable, and I wonder whether anyone else agrees with me that it should be reverted.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with using this logic to close them early is that it isn't only the nominator who should be considered. If the nominator misbehaves, then sanction the nominator. But this does not amount to a reason to disregard the views of the others who contribute to the DRV. I get the feeling that reactions to misbehaving nominators are going beyond early close -- perhaps the results include a presumption that whatever the nominator is proposing must be wrong. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The current text of the policies, guidelines, and templates all direct disputes over any result of an XfD to DRV. But according to many Administrators, this is not so, and Merge results will be closed without action.
This is exceptionally confusing for users, and is very bureaucratic behaviour since the apparent rules on this are contained in an essay Wikipedia:Non-deleting_deletion_discussions. I attempted to promote this to policy on being told it was used as the rule for how DRV works, but it was reverted by the administrator who had cited it in closing a request.
Frankly, it's not on for Administrators to use an essay to redefine policy. Particularly one that only seems to have been edited by DRV administrators, and has had no community input, and contradicts the current wording of the DRV policy.
Please submit this as changes to the DRV policy, instead of keeping it hidden away in an essay, and not keeping general editors informed about how DRV really works. -- Barberio ( talk) 10:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
From this is seems pretty clear there was never accepted behaviour to speedy close "Merge" reviews in the first place. It's obvious on the face of the above discussion that there was and is no consensus that "Merge" reviews can or should be rejected from DRV, and to do so seems to require building new consensus on that. Reopening the review that sparked this on those grounds.
Those who want "Merge" reviews to be speedy rejected should gather consensus to alter the policy, not dictate it by fiat. -- Barberio ( talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been mulling this over all evening. I stand by my guns about closing these DRVs as that's long standing practise but the more I think about this the more I feel Barberio and those arguing with him have a more then valid point. Essentially AFD used to delete content that didn't meet the inclusion criteria and keep stuff that did. Merge is a kind of halfway house because the closing admin is saying that the consensus is that the article doesn't deserve a standalone article while the content may fit elsewhere and should be retained. I personally think there may be a very narrow scope for DRV to rule on whether or not a discussion did come to the conclusion that an article didn't not meet the inclusion criteria. If it comes to the conclusion that consensus was misjudged then the merge proposal would be suspended subject to a new consensus forming on the talk page and the article would be unmerged if that has already taken place. If, on the other hand, DRV found there was a clear consensus that the article did not meet standards for a standalone article then the merge could proceed with the consensus having been validated. This would be a substantial change to a long standing practise and altering the understanding of how deletion and merges work so, if there is support for this idea, I would suggest we had a joint DRV/AFD RFC on the subject to garner wider input from the community. This is an anomaly and DRV is the appropriate place to consider these issues within the very narrow scope I have suggested.
Spartaz
Humbug! 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Bollocks to it.
Spartaz
Humbug!
20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
← Barberio, I would suggest that you put down the stick and back away from the equine corpse. Bring up your concerns at Talk:Newshounds and see if you can get a consensus to change the results. Trying to browbeat this through DRV to get the results you want isn't exactly the best technique. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The closing Administrator has become intractable over this issue, and has proceed to enact the Merge and Redirect himself, spurning discussion on the talk page. He claims that the AfD has provided him sufficient consensus to do so. It is very clear now that he intends to see to it that his closing result is enacted directly, and is rebuking the possibility that there is actually no consensus to support the merge.
I request that I be allowed to refile the DRV, so that the AfD can be investigated to see if it was closed correctly. -- Barberio ( talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that the DRV about List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex was almost entirely in favour of overturning the AfD, why is it still deleted?
And more importantly, can an admin close a WP:DRV, and ignore the consensus view completely, userfying the page instead of doing what the consensus was to do, which was to overturn the AfD?
Newman Luke ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days.
This is what it says now. Administrator Bigtimepeace seems to think this is too long, "Because DRV takes a week and", at least in a specific case that I proposed should be submitted. Essentially, some editors want an AFD decision changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
How about the following changes: A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days.
It looks like a lot of revisions have been oversighted, but if it's that many, shouldn't the oversighter have put up a clean version of the latest version of the page? I'm sure there were several discussions which only needed courtesy blanking here yesterday
82.33.114.167 (
talk)
20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Previous above comment added by me without logging in
NullofWest
Fill the Void
21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
And yet, now I'm logged in I can see them, can someone clarify why DRVs are no longer visible to anons?
NullofWest
Fill the Void
21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Since Merge is now becoming an increasingly significant outcome for AFD I think it really is time for DRV to find some way to accommodate it. Traditionally, we have viewed merge as a technical keep out come and have have therefore refused to consider undoing an AFD closed as merge unless the nominator was seeking a delete instead - see WP:ND3 for more on this. My belief is that we should take a more nuanced view then this to allow these closes to be reviewed and I see a very simple way forward. Instead of viewing merge and keep as the same outcome we should consider keep to mean "Keep (retain standalone article)" and Merge as "Keep (not retain standalone article)". This would then allow us to adjudicate whether the closing admin correctly assessed the consensus on whether the subject should be standalone or not. Since merges are purely editorial actions not administrative ones we also need to take no action beyond noting whether or not the assessed consensus was for a standalone article. The matter can then be deferred to the article talk page for editorial resolution. This is simple, elegant and does not require us to involve ourselves in editorial or content issues but does provide a venue for dissatisfied editors to seek a review of an admin's close.
If there is support for this proposal I suggest a short form of words to explain this be agreed and then a policy RFC advertised on CENT to garner a wider consensus before implementing it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Proposed change to the list of choices, since it is a proposal to change part of that page. — Sebastian 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the Jabbin close swallowed up everything below it on the page. Bad things usually happen when I try to fix things without knowing what i'm doing, so hoping someone with better wiki skills then me sees this.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Where can a merge review or discussion take place? If an article was supposedly "merged" into a page but no info at all was saved (it was technically deleted) or the target page is not appropiate/enough, how can I dispute the merger if the result of discussion (3 months ago) was "Merge"? -- LoЯd ۞pεth 19:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot guys! I think that I will take this matter to a WikiProject. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some sort of a technical glitch with the Valhalla Vineyards DRV listing (probably the template was filled incorrectly when the item was listed for DRV). The link to the AfD was not showing correctly in the listing. I tried to fix it by manually adding it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6 and the link shows correctly there now. But on the main WP:DRV page the AfD link still does not show. I have no idea how to correct this. Could someone knowledgeable please take a look? Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 02:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is unfair that wikipedia retains deleted pages and thus perpetuating, let's say, an embarrassing situation for people who are the subject of the pages. It is also insulting that wikipedia's editors are allowed the liberty of deciding if someone is "notable" or not. Many wikipedia editors have no experience or ability to determine what makes someone notable or not. In allowing this wikipedia becomes a tool in the hands of possibly petulant know-it-alls. If wikipedia is to use editors that are inexperienced in and ignorant of the subjects they revise and/or choose to delete, then it should not be considered an encyclopedic work. Raising 10 million doesn't necessarily gives you a blank check... conniving politicians are just as successful in their fundraising attempts. 24.55.65.153 ( talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Am I right that DRV is also for overturning creation protection (salting) or protected redirects if one thinks an article should be (re-)created? Should this be mentioned here? For uncontroversial cases one should just ask an admin of course. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
For novices like myself, it would be helpful if the Instructions prominently explained how to find the archived debate that led to an article being deleted. While the method is probably so obvious to experienced editors that it seems unnecessary, it would be very helpful for newcomers.
I eventually found the route of using the Search function at Wikipedia:Deletion_debates#Search_all_deletion_discussions, but it took hunting around to find that solution.
Anyone considering requesting an article be reinstated should be strongly encouraged to read the record of earlier debate. Plus, the Instructions tell you to contact "the administrator (or other editor) in question", and finding the archived discussion is a key step in that process. GCL ( talk) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
(talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Spjayswal67 ( talk) 08:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I have provided all possible references including newspaper cuttings, Pics of all awards and certificates related to article Ambarish Srivastava still it was deleted while Ambarish Srivastava is a prominent and notable person who is a best architectural engineer of sitapur who is at topmost position as well as a prominent Hindi Auther and poet, he is the first person who got the Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award at Sitapur, although first of all this award was awarded to mother teresa so What should be the criteria of notability? and how it should be prove as per your rules? because in our country coverage in news papers are to much important than coverage in website. now i am feeling insulting myself and it appears i am wasting my valuable time with wikipedia so i can not work with wikipedia! so bye.... for ever and it is suggested that you should review your policies in future. Sad: S. P. Jaiswal. Please delete my account!
I have visited above link related to article ambarish srivastava, i have seen all references also after two times enlarging, i found there that all sources are reliable which i read in newspapers previously, it appears this article was deleted unfortunately. so it is requested here that it should be restored after reviewing above link. Seemavibhaji ( talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(though it seems like a long time now) I created Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again. It was nominated for deletion. There has been a fair amount of discussion here [3]. I think (read for yourself) where we ended up was to rename the category Category:Records Hal Blaine played on. But I am not sure how to do that and in particular, how to keep the connection to the discussion about deleting the page as there might be others interested in voicing an opinion on the subject. Hopefully someone suitably skilled, reading this, can consider it. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I am anxious to continue working on this category but not if it is going to be deleted. Carptrash ( talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw an article where the AFD was keep. I thought that DRV was the proper channel for review. I have found how DRV can be bypassed. If one wants the AFD to be a delete, just go back to the article for a merge discussion. There is often less traffic in the talk pages compared to AFD. If a merge is approved, the article can be redirected, no information merged, and the page protected to prevent recreation. Furthermore, an administrator who opens the merge discussion can close it AND page protect it.
To me, even if no bad intent exists, this is a bad series of events. It is less open than AFD. It can be abused to go around an AFD.
Should this remain or should there be changes to prevent this from re-occuring.
Note: I do not have too much opinion on the article but was only seeking the article for information on a biography. I am not providing diffs because I do not want to get the admin involved in trouble or to make him mad. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a misplaced (and malformed) DRV request appearing the bottom of the active discussions section (after 9 February), but I can't find where it has been placed to sort it. It doesn't appear to be on the main DRV page, the 9 February page, or the Active discussions container, and I couldn't spot it in a list of related changes to the DRV page. The contributor didn't sign their edit so I can't find it by looking through their contributions. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Relevant discussion relating to three current MfD cases is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK ( talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in seeing the new DRVs, but watchlisting this page isn't the way to do it. What page should I watchlist? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 06:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)