![]() | This 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. |
"Some of the people who want an article on Episode VII may be disappointed that the AFD and DRV have ended with this result, but I will remind them that this setback is only of a temporary nature." - which is why the AfD (and DRV) was a complete waste of the community's time. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4_for_an_article_about_an_AFD.27ed_topic_which_has_new_sources Do I need to do a DRV for this, or should I just re-create the article? WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Since DRV restored the article Jill Kelley, can someone restore the talk page? (and histmerge the current talk page onto it, with the DRV noticebox) -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 04:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As said a couple of threads ago, I tried a rewrite of the "What is this page for?" section of the DRV instructions, replacing that entire section with two numbered lists so that the main instructions more concise and hopefully can be followed with more certainty:
Extended content
|
---|
== Purpose == Deletion Review may be used:
Deletion Review should not be used:
Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored. |
Thoughts? -- MuZemike 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored" is hyperbolic, and sometimes the copyright, libel, or other aspect of prhibition is challenged directly. There can be circumstances. Suggest:
Shortening of the header sections is a good idea. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is an updated version. Upon SmokeyJoe's suggestion, I moved the part for requests that previously deleted content down to the "not" list, pointing to WP:REFUND, as well as removing the "under no circumstances" in the bold at the end. I also removed the first item in the first list, as it is redundant to the two below it.
== Purpose == Deletion Review may be used:
Deletion Review should not be used:
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Any other comments or addditional suggestions are welcome. -- MuZemike 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In an ongoing DRV ( Wikipedia:Deletion review#Category:Islamophobia) DGG, makes some assertions which appear to hinge partly on the same perception of the DRV process as in his post above. However, I don't see the present "charter" neither nominally nor ostensibly covering DGG's understanding of how the DRV instrument should be perceived and applied. Furthermore I don't see any comments so far to the above post which would either support or unveil the positions of others vis-à-vis these views. I am troubled by them from the position of having met them in the ongoing DRV which I have linked to above. My concern is exacerbated by another veteran, S Marshall, interjecting his supportive "explanation" for why DRVs should be conducted and judged from a purview significantly exceeding what is currently presented in the "What is this page for?" section, i.e. what we could term the scope of the DRV process. S Marshall's "explanation" deeply troubles me as long as this pragmatism does not appear to be based on any written statutes, as he writes:
On the one hand, there's a convention that DRV is not AfD round 2. But on the other hand, that convention is sometimes suspended (tacitly or explicitly) because in order to perform its function properly, DRV needs to be more than just a venue to oversee procedure.
Has there been the evolution of a practice, not founded on any focused consensus-building discussion, but instead having simply evolved organically? If so, shouldn't such a practice either be curbed in or codified retroactively?
S Marshall continues to present some assertions that intrigue me, which I also find troublesome, and to which I would request others comment:
S Marshall even goes as far as defending DGG's lack of even addressing any procedural mistakes made by the closer of the CfD in question (Mike Selinker). Then in a follow-up DGG claims closer did make procedural mistakes, however, based on DGG's normative understanding of how the DRV process should be, and perhaps even descriptive if things really are as S Marshall have described.
I find the facts that I have uncovered and detailed here untenable and would like to see a discussion and some lacking consistency and order brought back into these matters. __ meco ( talk) 09:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Can I please draw a distinction between the deletion process and the deletion review process? This is where we talk about the deletion review process. The deletion process, in general, is supervised and scrutinised at DRV and not anywhere else.— S Marshall T/ C 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI - I just created Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose and transcluded into Wikipedia:Deletion review and edited separately from the Wikipedia:Deletion review page. On a different note, I'm wondering about some of the new purpose language and posted a thread at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Purpose to discuss it. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Recent deletion reviews involving MMA articles have been quite spirited and have involved more than an acceptable level of personal abuse and labelling. This DRV has been inappropriately canvassed at WikiProject MMA [1] so I have left clear guidance on the DRV about expected standards. I had already removed one IP vote that was abusive and offensive. I feel that I am acting in an administrative capacity and that this action does not make me involved but I thought it would be worthwhile to formally record my actions in case anyone disagrees with my view on my level of involvedness. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
"Some of the people who want an article on Episode VII may be disappointed that the AFD and DRV have ended with this result, but I will remind them that this setback is only of a temporary nature." - which is why the AfD (and DRV) was a complete waste of the community's time. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4_for_an_article_about_an_AFD.27ed_topic_which_has_new_sources Do I need to do a DRV for this, or should I just re-create the article? WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Since DRV restored the article Jill Kelley, can someone restore the talk page? (and histmerge the current talk page onto it, with the DRV noticebox) -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 04:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As said a couple of threads ago, I tried a rewrite of the "What is this page for?" section of the DRV instructions, replacing that entire section with two numbered lists so that the main instructions more concise and hopefully can be followed with more certainty:
Extended content
|
---|
== Purpose == Deletion Review may be used:
Deletion Review should not be used:
Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored. |
Thoughts? -- MuZemike 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored" is hyperbolic, and sometimes the copyright, libel, or other aspect of prhibition is challenged directly. There can be circumstances. Suggest:
Shortening of the header sections is a good idea. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is an updated version. Upon SmokeyJoe's suggestion, I moved the part for requests that previously deleted content down to the "not" list, pointing to WP:REFUND, as well as removing the "under no circumstances" in the bold at the end. I also removed the first item in the first list, as it is redundant to the two below it.
== Purpose == Deletion Review may be used:
Deletion Review should not be used:
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Any other comments or addditional suggestions are welcome. -- MuZemike 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In an ongoing DRV ( Wikipedia:Deletion review#Category:Islamophobia) DGG, makes some assertions which appear to hinge partly on the same perception of the DRV process as in his post above. However, I don't see the present "charter" neither nominally nor ostensibly covering DGG's understanding of how the DRV instrument should be perceived and applied. Furthermore I don't see any comments so far to the above post which would either support or unveil the positions of others vis-à-vis these views. I am troubled by them from the position of having met them in the ongoing DRV which I have linked to above. My concern is exacerbated by another veteran, S Marshall, interjecting his supportive "explanation" for why DRVs should be conducted and judged from a purview significantly exceeding what is currently presented in the "What is this page for?" section, i.e. what we could term the scope of the DRV process. S Marshall's "explanation" deeply troubles me as long as this pragmatism does not appear to be based on any written statutes, as he writes:
On the one hand, there's a convention that DRV is not AfD round 2. But on the other hand, that convention is sometimes suspended (tacitly or explicitly) because in order to perform its function properly, DRV needs to be more than just a venue to oversee procedure.
Has there been the evolution of a practice, not founded on any focused consensus-building discussion, but instead having simply evolved organically? If so, shouldn't such a practice either be curbed in or codified retroactively?
S Marshall continues to present some assertions that intrigue me, which I also find troublesome, and to which I would request others comment:
S Marshall even goes as far as defending DGG's lack of even addressing any procedural mistakes made by the closer of the CfD in question (Mike Selinker). Then in a follow-up DGG claims closer did make procedural mistakes, however, based on DGG's normative understanding of how the DRV process should be, and perhaps even descriptive if things really are as S Marshall have described.
I find the facts that I have uncovered and detailed here untenable and would like to see a discussion and some lacking consistency and order brought back into these matters. __ meco ( talk) 09:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Can I please draw a distinction between the deletion process and the deletion review process? This is where we talk about the deletion review process. The deletion process, in general, is supervised and scrutinised at DRV and not anywhere else.— S Marshall T/ C 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI - I just created Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose and transcluded into Wikipedia:Deletion review and edited separately from the Wikipedia:Deletion review page. On a different note, I'm wondering about some of the new purpose language and posted a thread at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Purpose to discuss it. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Recent deletion reviews involving MMA articles have been quite spirited and have involved more than an acceptable level of personal abuse and labelling. This DRV has been inappropriately canvassed at WikiProject MMA [1] so I have left clear guidance on the DRV about expected standards. I had already removed one IP vote that was abusive and offensive. I feel that I am acting in an administrative capacity and that this action does not make me involved but I thought it would be worthwhile to formally record my actions in case anyone disagrees with my view on my level of involvedness. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)