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 read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews and cannot see a description of what happens when an administrator's decision calls for a re-direct. What happens to the contents of the deleted page? Is it automatically included in the page the deleted article has been re-directed to? If not who takes care of making sure the contents are not lost? Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding your question, but the history of an article replaced with a redirect is still available in the article history of the redirect. While not a deleted article, here's an example of what that looks like: [1] (for the redirect here: [2] ) Did that answer your question? -- j⚛e decker ^talk 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Although some admins (including myself) do, on occasion, delete the article before creating the redirect. In those circumstacnes the page history isn't viewabe.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, many respondents suggest some variation on "merge & redirect", in which content from the redirected article be incorporated into the redirect target. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case I was inquiring about - one where the decision is to merge&redirect. What happens to the contents of such an article? Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell whether my question is too basic and as such does not require an answer, or whether there is simply no one here with the knowledge to reply. Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Any user may follow Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger to merge the nominated article into the target article. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review shouldn't end with such a decision. AFD's tend to end up with one of two "real" outcomes, one involves deleting the article, one involves leaving it in place. A merge outcome means that a deletion won't occur, since (a) the content can't be merged if it's deleted and (b) if a merge occurs, in order to retain the original authors attribution the original page history needs to stay in place. A merge outcome doesn't require the admin who closes it do the work and usually they won't, it's up to those who think the merge is a good idea to do the real work (so perhaps no one will do the work, or may not do it for a long time). As a note merge isn't really a deletion discussion outcome, it's more an editorial decision, so a later editiorial decision can of course undo it, or a merge can happen without going through a deletion discussion. To expand on why deletion review wouldn't end up in such a decision - Assume the article was deleted at AFD, DRV may overturn that outcome which would involve restoring the article, after that any decision to merge is an editorial decision, not something DRV would dicate. On the other hand if the AFD ended up with a keep and some thought it should be a merge, then DRV wouldn't look at that, since it's a purely editorial decision which doesn't require the use of the administrative deletion tools. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 22:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 82.7.40.7 - I don't remember seeing a Merge as a possible outcome. So how come some deletion discussions end with this type of decision? (sorry for the delay - I was away for a couple of months) Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge and sometimes redirects are a form of keep. It's just a keep with a consensus to go a certaibn direction editorially. So with a merge the history is kept and it's up to an interested party to merge in the info. It's not too much different than if there was a talk page discussion where there was consensus to merge the article with another.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 20:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see with Merge decisions is that they do not specify who will carry out the Merge. This can be a problem when all participants in the deletion discussion are of back-seat drivers variety. No one volunteers to do the Merge work, even if they voted for this option, so the end result materializes into a Delete - not a Merge. Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with unexecuted mergers. While talk page discussions may get better participation from the articles' editors, this problem not limited to mergers decided at AfD. A forced redirect is not a delete, since the history is available under it. Flatscan ( talk) 05:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WT:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect shows wide support for merge and redirect as valid AfD outcomes. The RfC hasn't been closed yet, so feel free to weigh in. It's less common, but DRV does distinguish between keep and merge, such as WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 10#Mims–Pianka controversy. Flatscan ( talk) 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I went to WT:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect but right at the top of the page it says the discussion is already closed. What am I missing? Is there still a way to participate? Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. It had been sitting unclosed for over a week despite a request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard, so I assumed that it would remain open a while longer. Flatscan ( talk) 05:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It was closed between when Flatscan posted above and when you looked. Timestamps indicate this fairly clearly. As for a way to participate, I somehow doubt that you could by yourself change the long-held consensus that redirect and merge are valid ways to close an AfD. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me about time stamps. You say it is clear, but since I still have not figured out all the intricacies of Wikipedia even after being around for a few years, I had to drill thru all the (many) recent edits one by one to find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_deletion&action=historysubmit&diff=416053357&oldid=416021031 And yes, I agree, my voice probably does not count for a lot here at Wikipedia, but it does not stop me from trying :-) Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bsherr's move of Template:Delrevafd is against the general naming conventions of the other DRV templates at Template:DRV see also documentation. Bsherr, please stop moving templates without gaining consensus first. I supported the move to Template:Delrevxfd because it is in line with the other templates, but your move to Template:DelRev XfD is contrary to the titles of the rest of the templates at Template:DRV see also documentation. Perhaps a discussion should be held to standardize the DRV templates (there are two types of naming—e.g. {{ Newdelrev}} vs. {{ DRV top}}—and you added a third one—{{ DelRev XfD}}), but you should not move war to force your changes in.

Bsherr, you have made repeated mistakes in regards to DRV. As Uzma Gamal stated above:

In addition to removing DRV templates, Bsherr recently posted in a DRV discussion, "DRV does not review articles for recreation, WP:AFC does." [3]

This is untrue, as explained by Uzma Gamal and S Marshall at the DRV. Yet you refuse to accept the consensus that you are wrong. Several days before that discussion, you non-admin closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15 as "Referred to WP:AFC. Nonadministrator close." This is wrong because DRV does review articles deleted by AfD for recreation. I ask that you refrain from closing DRVs or from moving templates without gaining consensus first. Cunard ( talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nonsense. The closest thing is WP:DRV scope item three, which states: "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Uzma Gamal cited it. But that is a provision for overturning a prior AfD and restoring a previous article, not recreating an article. WP:RECTEATE supports my interpretation: "Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden". But show me policy or procedure stating that a deletion review is required to recreate an article, and I'll relent. But to say that I'm wrong without any evidence is unconvincing.
• I agree the names of deletion review templates need to be standardized, but your move did nothing to do that, and my move did nothing to do that. All I did was correct the capitalization and spacing. Template names should be natural, with natural spacing and capitalization. Of course, there's nothing wrong with keeping a redirect with all lower case and closed spacing. Consider {{ Talk header}} and its redirect {{ talkheader}}. That's all I'm trying to accomplish. Specifically, what is your objection? If you really wish to contest the move, we can go through WP:RM, but if you'd only advise me of your concerns, we could work on a solution. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Lastly, as to MotionX, I did indeed close the deletion review and send the article to AFC. There, a neutral editor reviewed and recreated the article. Then, an editor identified the article for AfD. It was discussed, and a decision to delete the article was reached. That's exactly how the process should work. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• For years, DRV has reviewed the recreation of articles deleted by AfD. Not WP:AfC. As my previous attempts have been unsuccessful, I have asked DRV closer Spartaz to provide input about this.
• The status quo ante should remain in place when there is an editorial disagreement. When I reverted your move, I followed WP:BRD. The burden is on those who want to make a contested change to discuss using venues such as WP:RM. Although I dislike how you have move warred to force your position, I will not be contesting the move. The titles of the DRV templates are inconsequential to bettering the encyclopedia.
• The deletion review, in my opinion, should not have been closed as move to AfC. AfC is for IP editors who cannot create articles. DRV is more suitable to review such deletions. I have asked Spartaz to review your closure of the DRV. Cunard ( talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV no doubt could "give permission" to recreate an article, but what would be the purpose? There is no speedy deletion criterion for an article recreated without the "permission" of DRV.

Where does documentation say that AfC is limited to unregistered editors?

While I would welcome the opinion of anyone you solicit, unless you can show me documentation for your position, I'm inclined to believe the contradictory documentation I identified.

I didn't edit war. I moved a page to location "A", you moved it to location "B", I moved it to location "A" and created a redirect at location "B" while explaining that a redirect was preferable to a move to that location. Each edit was progressive. Indeed, the burden would be on me to use RM if the move were contested, which is why I asked you to inform me if the move is contested. You say it is not, so then there is nothing further I need do, correct? -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If Debrahlee Lorenzana, Gay Nigger Association of America, Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie, or David Shankbone were created without explicit endorsement from DRV, they would be speedy deleted per G4. If an editor requests that editors at DRV review the request to ensure the article meets the criteria and to provide a safety net against speedy deletion, their wishes should be granted. A community review is much better than an individual review at AfC (which can also, I have just learned, be used by inexperienced editors).

Your move-warring occurred here.

The Bold revert, and discuss process, which is endorsed by the policy Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is, was not followed. You boldly moved the page to a new title. I reverted the move. Discussion should have followed, not a reversion of a revert. Discussing page moves through page move reverts is edit warring and would have resulted in us both being blocked or the page move protected.

The move was contested when I reverted your move. Yet you chose to revert back instead of discussing. That is edit warring. During discussion, the status quo ante should be held (i.e. the long-standing title). This is endorsed by policy:

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. (mine emphasized)

I reverted your move to prevent there from being a third style of DRV names. I do not have a strong preference for any of the three styles (my preference for Template:Delrevxfd over Template:DelRev XfD is because it is easier to type; since the transclusions work through the redirect, the current title is of no import). If you do decide to standardize the DRV templates, I ask that you initiate a WP:RM here at WT:DRV to give the community the opportunity to decide upon a standard naming convention. Cunard ( talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're plainly wrong about G4. G4 only applies to "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". (Are you arguing that any recreation is such? That would be curious.) If one were to write an entirely new and improved article about any of the topics you identify, it would not be eligible for G4 speedy deletion. You pick some of the most controversial deletions on Wikipedia, many if not all of which happen also to be creation protected, and would likely be IAR deleted out of exhaustion.

On the other matter, your excerpt is from the protection policy, which is irrelevant because none of the templates are protected. If you believe me to be "edit warring" (and I take it you're not applying a three revert rule), please make a report on the noticeboard. Then you'll have your conclusion. -- Bsherr ( talk) 06:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen many cases where G4 was misused by a tagger. I have removed many of these tags, but in some cases, a careless or fatigued admin might delete the article despite G4 not applying. A link to the DRV discussion on the AfD will enlighten both the tagger and the reviewing admin that recreation has been endorsed. The Delrevafd tag is a safeguard against mistaken taggings and deletions.

Your move warring was not block worthy, though if we had continued discussing through reversions, we would have both been blocked. Making a report on the noticeboard would be punitive and unnecessary. I am not the type of person who would want to exact abusive vengeance against those with whom I disagree.

My excerpt from the protection policy is relevant because it underscores that the status quo ante should remain in place during the discussion process. Cunard ( talk) 06:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic idea is that a DRV would "G4-proof" a recreation; many editors may desire to get a definitive answer before recreation rather than recreate and then hope that a passing admin would decline to G4 the new version. T. Canens ( talk) 06:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

T. Canens, thank you for your succinct explanation. You have explained in one sentence what I have tried to do in several paragraphs. Cunard ( talk) 07:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• There is too much noise here for me to work out where to place this comment but I want to respond to the referral of the article to AFC. DRV is a consensus based process that allows users to discuss the merits of a particlar deletion. If an article is permitted to be created then the decision will be made with a consensus that is valid and overrides any other discussion. DRV will refer borderline cases to AFD for further discussion as that is another consensus based process whose outcomes are binding. AFC is based around the opinions of single editors and therefore is not the appropriate place to review disputed deletions. Further DRV closes are not subject to appeal. They are an appeal. It is for this reason that non-admins are not supposed to close DRVs. Especially when their decision is frankly perverse and outwith accepted practise. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of DRV any changes to process or procedures must be discussed first and only changed where there is consensus as it is imperative for retaining credibilility with users - both new and old - that we have robust and sensible procedures that have a broad consensus. Any further disruption to the DRV processes - for example edit warring to force through undiscussed changes to templated will not be accepted because of the need for DRV to remain stable and understanable. Please desist until there is a consensus or I may decide to start handing out blocks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• DRV closes are subject to appeal at DRV, if there is something new to be introduced that changes the situation. Apart from this nitpick, I support Spartaz's position. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• ~cough~ when I was talking about DRV I meant you can't really appeal that a DRV has been closed incorrectly. Obviously, you can raise another DRV at any time against a deletion close even if its been reviewed before but worthless repeat requests tend to get closed as disruptive very quickly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, you correctly distinguish between a later DRV discussion that reviews a previous DRV close versus a later DRV discussion that reviews afresh the deletion of the article. We do like to think that only very experienced wikipedian administrators acting cautiously and conservatively close such important discussions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fortunately the former are very few and very far between and are usually very carefully approached. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one characterize Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 13#Slovio, for example? -- Bsherr ( talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

unhelpful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful bescause it's irrelevant? If so, why? -- Bsherr ( talk) 01:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say it was irrelevant? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was asking whether you mean it was unhelpful because it was irrelevant. You didn't say it was irrelevant, but you didn't explain why you thought that example wasn't helpful. So why isnt it helpful? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, I agree that AfC is not for deletion reviews. That much is obvious. But when I user comes to DRV asking to recreate an article about a topic, and the article to be recreated would not be eligible for G4 deletion because it is not a copy, why should the article not simply be recreated, and if there is an issue, sent to AfD? The user is not asking for the old article to be restored. How does that fit into the scope of the page: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion."? What exactly is deletion review reviewing?

I restrict my nonadministrator closures to situations when the DRV is moot. I hope it's usually helpful. But if it's not, please just revert it. That's the same process used at XfD. Does that remedy address your concern? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't remedy my concern. Non-admins should not close deletion reviews - period. If someone raises a DRV - even incorrectly - then let process take its time. If its clearly a mistake, an admin will be along to deal with it. I have explained why this is important and I'm disappointed by how resistant you appear to be to accepting concerns raised by other editors. Your first reaction seems to be to argue that you are right and everyone else is wrong. A little reflectance when you get feedback and a willingness to accept your view may not have consensus would make your and other users' editing environment much nicer. I have been a regular participant at DRV since 2006 and have a fairly long term view of events here. What we have works and there is relatively little strife around the process - this is astonishing given how emotive deletion is as a subject for so many users both new and old. Please don't upset the balance by trying to shoe-horn in your own conception of how you want it to run without first getting a consensus. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, could you share with me how you arrived at the conclusion I'm wrong? If I can understand that, I might agree. -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(I refer to using DRV for recreation, not nonadministrator closures, which I'll refrain from and revert others I see.) -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Archive <------ You will find plenty of precedents here. Please leave any DRV close alone and let the admins deal with it thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but you have no comment on the issue of recreation at DRV? -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We did that already. DRV can permit recreation if the consensus is that the previous discussion close is no longer binding. How many times do we need to say this before you accept it. Your trolling is becoming tiresome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking whether recreation is an acceptable outcome. I'm asking whether recreation is an acceptable request. (In other words, can someone come to DRV not to review a prior deletion discussion, but to seek permission to create a page using a particular user draft? T. Canens suggests that this is a permissible way of G4-proofing a page.) If it is, why isn't it documented in the directions on the page? Do you understand the distinction? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And do you really think it's disruptive for me to ask? I could just as easily say it's disruptive for you to insist you've addressed a question you haven't, but that's not very productive either. Can't we just discuss? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not "revert others I see". If you see a DRV closure by a non-admin that you disagree with, please ask an admin to revert it. Cunard ( talk) 10:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's not just ones that I disagree with. According to Spartaz, all nonadministrator closes are wrong, no? -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

At DRV yes. Elsewhere its OK but here its an admin only zone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Strictly, it's only necessary for DRVs that require any sort of judgment call. If the nominator and closing/deleting admin come to an agreement, rendering the DRV pointless, I doubt anyone will complain about a non-admin closure. Still, it doesn't hurt to be overly careful. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 19:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, those two positions are contradictory. So which is it? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you revert a non-admin DRV closure, you might spark an edit war. If I reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15#MotionX (as I did with your move of Template:Delrevxfd), you would have likely reverted me. Neither of us has the remit to close or unclose DRVs. An admin does have this authority and will prevent an edit war. Cunard ( talk) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had reverted that close, and cited a policy or guideline that said nonadministrators cannot close DRV discussions, I would not revert you. I think most people respond well to a reversion that is justified by documentation. Do you disagree? -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If non-admins should not close DRVs, non-admins should not unclose DRVs. It is a given that most people respond well to justified reversions, but some may not be that reasonable or may have a different reading of the policy. To avoid an edit war, it is best to leave any unclosings to admins. Cunard ( talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one characterize Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 13#Slovio, for example? -- Bsherr ( talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair question.

I see a bit of confusion due to a misleading opening statement by the nominator of DRV#2. DRV#2 was explicitly stated to be a review of DRV#1, but then clarified otherwise. The nominator quickly went on to say "[The DRV#1 closer] closed the deletion review on the grounds that [some reason]. This is understandable and I don't dispute that part of it at all." That is, the actual close of the DRV is not being challenged. The closer goes on to write "However. ... unearth sources and it ought to be possible to create a fresh article based on the sources" In other words, there are now sources that have never been previously considered. DRV#2 was therefore a fresh review of whether the subject is suitable for a standalone article. Five "endorse" !voters failed to decipher the confused nomination statement, but regardless, an uninvolved experience admin found that there was a consensus to allow recreation of the article.

I would characterise the whole brief affair as inefficient. A comment might be that it was unfortunate that the DRV#1-closer conducted a less-than-ideal discussion with the DRV#2-nominator. The talk page discussion might have gone differently, but there was the problem of there not being clear authority to unsalt the title. DRV#2 accepted that sources have been identified, identified that there was a motivated editor in good standing, and clearly established a consensus to allow recreation (i.e. unsalt). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Five "endorse" !voters failed to decipher the confused nomination statement, but regardless, an uninvolved experience admin found that there was a consensus to allow recreation of the article. – I find this statement inaccurate.

1. Stifle ( talk · contribs) – "Endorse ... but "unprotect to allow recreation by a good-faith user"

2. Uzma Gamal ( talk · contribs) – "Endorse (but allow recreation by a good-faith user)"

3. Martinp ( talk · contribs) – "Endorse DRV close, encourage attempt to build an article compliant with Wikipedia's mission and policies."

The other two endorse votes were accorded less weight because one failed to address the sources found in the previous DRV and the other referenced non-policy-based reasons to deny recreation such as Slovio being a hate site.

It is therefore unsurprising that King of Hearts ( talk · contribs) found the consensus to be allow recreation. Cunard ( talk) 10:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cunard, are you saying their !votes were not !votes to endorse the DRV (putting aside the effectiveness of that as a position)? -- Bsherr ( talk) 01:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No. My point is that they not only endorsed the DRV closure by JzG, they also opined to permit recreation. They did decipher the nomination statement. Cunard ( talk) 01:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. I think SmokeyJoe's point (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) is that DRV cannot be used to appeal previous DRVs, so votes to endorse the previous DRV failed to recognize that the nominator was actually looking for a rereview of the underlying deletion decision, not the previous DRV. -- Bsherr ( talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My point was that the cited DRV (=DRV#2) was not a review of DRV#1, because neither the nominator nor anyone else made any criticism of the close of DRV#1. DRV#2 was an "allow recreation" proposal for a previously salted title. I do not say that DRV cannot be used to appeal previous DRVs. A few times, once or twice successfully, I have suggested the discussion resolve to slap a closer, but generally, if the nominator is not here to discuss the reversing of a deletion decision, then they are at the wrong forum. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I might need clarification. When can DRV be used to appeal a previous DRV? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose that if a DRV overturns an AfD keep and deletes an article, a subsequent DRV would be reviewing the earlier DRV. However, a DRV should not overturn an AfD keep and authorise deletion, it should only lead to a vacated close, a relist, or point out a previously unnoted CSD reason.

• If you don't like a DRV overturn to keep, you should go to XfD.

• DRV is about reviewing deletion decisions. (Some overlap with Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for unsalting happens.) DRV dicussions themselves should not be deletion decisions. Therefore, there should be nothing in a DRV discussion for DRV to review.

• If you think a DRV was conducted or closed improperly, start a fresh DRV, but be sure to focus on the actual deletion decision and your desired outcome. But don't do this lightly. If you don't gain traction, find something elsewhere where you can be more productive.

• And DRV shouldn't be used for pre-emptive G4-proofing. Better to (1) address the original deletion discussion in the article creation edit summary and on the talk page; (2) discuss with the deleting admin if it is then G4-ed; and (3) come to DRV only when #2 is fruitless. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That all seems right to me. (Thanks for the "bonus" opinion on the recreate issue.) Except in your first point, it seems to me that, from a keep XfD outcome, overturn to delete is more frequent than reclose or relist. I think the justification is that, rather than deferring to reclosing the discussion, it's more efficient to instead determine the correct outcome at DRV. Is your sense of current practice different? -- Bsherr ( talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

On overturning a keep to a delete, my feeling without checking, is that it doesn't happen all that often, and when it does, it is because the outcome is obvious. Usually, we properly resolve to "relist" for a dubious deletion decision, or advise returning to XfD after a delay for a dubious keep decision. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe and Bsherr, I've compiled an incomplete list of deletion reviews of deletion reviews if you're interested. See:
1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#Darvon cocktail
2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 28#Slovio
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 6#Phillip Greaves. Cunard ( talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note that this previous discussion established that the place to appeal against a DRV closure is DRV.— S Marshall T/ C 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've followed all the instructions, but the DRV is not showing against today's date, although it shows when the edit button is clicked. Anyone know the reason for this or how to fix it? Mjroots ( talk) 06:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

At first, the page did not appear to me when I accessed Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, when I clicked the "(purge cache)" link at the top of the page ( here), the page appeared. Cunard ( talk) 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)