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 have redirected Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Purpose to here.

I have archived its old content to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 16. No chronology fix was required.

It is good Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose was separated, to facilitate reviewing the edit history of that important section.

I have edited Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose [1] to add "#to seek reversal of an AfD consensus to redirect without deletion. Instead, seek consensus, on the talk page of the redirect target, to re-create the spinout." I did this because DRV seems to attracting a few nominations that do none of the following: (1) challenge the use of an XfD process; (2) challenge or question a close of an XfD, (3) involve any deletion. Where a consensus has found that a topic should be redirected to another, the proper place to seek to reverse this is on the talk page of the target. The discussion will involve detailed discussion on content, and probably WP:UNDUE. Suitable editors to be involved in the discussion are the editors watching the target page. DRV is not a good forum for this sort of discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 20#Zach Collier, "In December 2009, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge generally was in favor of allowing DRV to review 'merge' or 'redirect' decisions. I agree with the position that DRV should review 'merge' and 'redirect' decisions because an AfD close as "merge" or "redirect" should not be immune to community review at DRV if an editor believes the consensus was assessed incorrectly." Cunard ( talk) 05:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that merge and redirect discussions at AfD are scope creep, and review of these decisions at DRV is further scope creep, and the danger of scope creep is of overburdening the processes. So, I think that merge and redirect things should not be encouraged at AfD/DRV, but neither should they be prohibited. To the extent that Zach Collier represents a pseudo deletion, and the AfD process was used to achieve an administrator-endorsed rough consensus or greater to pseudo-delete, a nomination at DRV should certainly not be procedurally shut down. However, the nominator should be encouraged to consider raising the issue at the talk page of the redirect target. This is especially the case where the redirected topic may have become more notable due to new sources, and less so where the AfD process is alleged to be at fault. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that review of merge/redirect decisions is scope creep that will overburden DRV.

DRV is better equipped than talk pages to handle both reviews where new sources surfaced and reviews where the AfD process is alleged to be at fault because:

1. Most "merge" and "redirect" decisions are pseudo-deletions in which the topics receive brief or no mention in the target articles.

   Closing an AfD as "merge" or "redirect" should not shield it from community review when an editor believes consensus is assessed incorrectly.

2. The talk page of a redirect usually will be watched by very few editors. Perhaps one or two. Far more editors will be watching DRV.

   There is more legitimacy in reversing an AfD's result by presenting new sources to a venue watched by a large number of editors.

3. The editors watching the talk page primarily will consist of involved editors, whereas DRV contributors mostly will be uninvolved editors.

   It is better to reinstate an article with the input of uninvolved editors rather than primarily involved editors.

4. All deletion reviews will be closed by an uninvolved admin. Nearly all talk page discussions remain unclosed.

   Closure brings finality to the result and lessens the chances of further disputes occurring.

Cunard ( talk) 04:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

(1). I'm not sure that's right. I recall a run of DRV nominations that sought permission to recreate a spinout, overturning an historic AfD merge decision, and these were without criticism of the AfD, but involved new sources. If the redirected topic is not covered at the target, the redirect was not appropriate. I assumed a proper redirect, meaning not a pseudo deletion, and coverage at the target.

(2) There was no suggestion to use the talk page of the redirect, it was to use the talk page of the target to re-propose a spinout. The target article is much better watched by editors interested in the topic, if it is a proper article on a topic with subtopics. I suppose that here, I'd have to say that a List article is not a proper article. I agree that the text you reverted would need at least revision.

(3) A proposal to spin out a sub topic from a larger topic belongs on the talk page of the larger topic's article.

I don't think DRV should be used in cases where: (a) it was not a pseudo deletion; and (b) the nomination makes no criticism of an old AfD process, discussion or close.

I agree that the case in question is welcome at DRV. It was a pseudo deletion. The target is not an article providing coverage of its subtropics, there is criticism of the AfD close. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Two recent "merge" or "redirect" cases at DRV were Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 1#Hudson Street Hooligans and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hudson Street Hooligans was closed as "redirect to Columbus Crew SC#Club culture (with a selective merge permitted)".

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) was closed as "merge to Celibacy".

Your addition to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose would have banned both nominations. Would you have preferred both discussions be discussed at Talk:Columbus Crew SC and Talk:Celibacy, respectively?

I think editors should be given the choice of starting a "restore article" discussion at DRV or on the talk page. If an editor wants independent input, the editor could list it at DRV and inform interested editors through notifications on the relevant talk pages.

I don't think DRV should be used in cases where: (a) it was not a pseudo deletion; and (b) the nomination makes no criticism of an old AfD process, discussion or close. – I agree, but many merge closes are pseudo-deletions in that very little content from the redirected article can be merged to the target article to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Adding wording like this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose would cover a small subset of "merge" or "redirect"–related DRV nominations.

Cunard ( talk) 04:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Cunard, I very largely take your points. Before attempting to answer your questions on my preferences, I suggest clarifying and defining terms. Please see my initial attempt at Wikipedia:Article redirection as pseudo-deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Wikipedia:Article redirection as pseudo-deletion looks good. Cunard ( talk) 05:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

An editor blanked out The Weight of Chains 2 page, citing a decision made for a redirect to The Weight of Chains article. Since the vote in late September 2014, the film sequel has been released worldwide, with premieres at the Montecasino Film Festial in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Swedish Film Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and the National Museum of Culture in Mexico City (also shown in Vancouver, Toronto, Innsbruck, Stuttgart, Berlin, etc.). I added notable references for the article and would like to check if blanking out this page constitutes vandalism, or are votes on whether a page should be deleted/redirected indefinite decisions? The user who blanked out the page invited me to open a deletion review, but the page was never deleted, only redirected redirected and the text in the article that was moved to The Weight of Chains article has now been greatly expanded with very reliable sources. How to open a deletion review if the article was never deleted and the new article contains majority information that didn't exist in the previous version? -- UrbanVillager ( talk) 13:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the sources are closely connected announcements about the film (probably from press releases) and trivial mentions. Do you know of any sources that cover the subject in depth, for example independent reviews in newspapers or magazines?- Mr X 23:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place to bring this up--please let me know. I suggested Mary Helen Clark, the headmistress of a small, religious secondary school in Brazil, for speedy deletion, which was reverted. It then went to AFD, but the discussion was closed without consensus. One concern is that this was created by an editor who was paid by a private university to advertise their special collection; but the main concern, frankly, is that she does not appear notable at all. Most secondary schools don't have a page (even high schools often aren't deemed significantly notable on Wikipedia; this school is not comparable to Eton College at all), and she was only a headmistress. In any case, that is my impression. I think we should have a new AFD so that we can reach a real decision. If I am wrong about notability (for example, as was suggested on the AFD page, if Wikipedia has a guideline saying that all subjects in US academic special collections are notable), then that would be fine, but right now the page looks terrible and the subject still seems extremely weak. It would be a totally different matter if the subject had taught at that private university, published significant research, or achieved anything substantial I think. Now, I don't know how to do the three-step AFD process, and I don't want to mess it up. (I also have very limited internet connectivity in my hotel room.) Where would I find a knowledgable editor to either unclose the AFD or suggest a new one please? Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• High schools are almost always kept; Common outcomes suggests they're essentially only ever deleted if we're not confident they exist. There's not much wrong with re-nominating a no consensus close with low participation fairly soon after the last one (though looking at it, I'm sceptical the same outcome wouldn't be achieved). Wily D 10:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• No one will unclose the deletion discussion. There was no consensus on that 3 week discussion and it was properly closed. If you think it should be renominated you will need to come up with a rationale as to why it should be deleted. If you post the rationale on the article's talk page, I will create the page and list it for you. --  GB  fan 13:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The rationale would be, because she is not notable, only the headmistress of a small religious secondary school in provincial Brazil who has achieved nothing significant? I don't think having her papers in a library makes her notable. Her life was not notable. Or, prove why you think she was notable. It seems to me that there are millions of headmasters/headmistresses of small, non-notable secondary schools globally--are we really going to create a page about each of them? Zigzig20s ( talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not, but realistically we aren't going to delete this particular one either. It's lucky we're under no duty to be consistent.— S Marshall T/ C 20:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we delete it? What makes her notable in your opinion? Zigzig20s ( talk) 21:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Because of the consensus. Personally I have no opinion about her notability.— S Marshall T/ C 21:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This was renominated by Zigzig20s at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Helen Clark (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 22:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A while ago, it was established that requests for history undeletions, in general, should go to WP:REFUND. However, it is not clear whether this applies only to cases in which the article is recreated with improved content, or also if the deleted article is eventually turned into a redirect. I'm opening a discussion here to get clarification on this issue: Should history undeletion be allowed upon request if the article was deleted at AfD and later turned into a redirect? (Assuming that there is no copyvio, libel, etc.)

This is my take on it. Pros:

• Since the page is being redirected somewhere, the former content of the page is probably relevant to the target article. History undeletion allows editors to augment the target article with the deleted content.

Cons:

• Users might be tempted to revert the redirect.
• The content of the deleted article might be problematic.

Overall, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. There is a lot of benefit in preserving the content, which can be used in the target article or elsewhere. As for reverting the redirect, it should be made clear that doing so is not permitted. (Chronic problems can be enforced by protection.) And as for problematic content, other than the things I mentioned above like copyvio, libel, etc., generally speaking there is no harm in having this content visible. Of course, use common sense - if people at the AfD complained about the content (as opposed to the topic simply being not notable), then don't restore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My take is that it's situationally dependent. I have seen the following situations:

• Article deleted by prod or noncontroversial speedy rationale like G6, then turned into a redirect. No problem restoring the older deleted revisions under the redirect.
• Article deleted by MFD in one name space (like Drafts), and there's a redirect with the same name and no history in main space. Should the Drafts history be merged with the existing redirect? Possibly. I made that decision recently. I was uncertain about it but in the end felt that doing so would generate no controversy.
• Article deleted by AFD, then turned into a redirect. The redirect doesn't point to an improved or expanded version of the article, it points to a broader subject (like an article about a product redirecting to an article about a conglomerate of companies) in which the unnecessary detail in the deleted history can't be used to augment the broader article. In this case I am hesitant to override the deleting admin's decision without consultation or DRV.

Restoring history from a hotly-contested long-running AFD would be controversial and deserving of a DRV. If the AFD had minimal discussion, maybe not so controversial. I am not sure where to draw the line. But overall I agree with King of Hearts that the pros would generally outweigh the cons. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is threefold:

• If there is any evident reason not to restore history of an AfD'ed article which is currently a live redirect (such as BLP, copyvios, etc.) then I would decline to restore the history.
• If the deletion was controversial (such as a long-discussed AfD or an exceptionally strong consensus for deletion or redirect-with-deletion), I would decline to restore history but offer to e-mail or copy to userspace the contents of the latest viable article revision to any editor who feels they might want to salvage the contents elsewhere.
• If the deletion was uncontroversial (such as a PROD, soft deletion, small AfD, G6/G7 CSD), I'd restore the history under the redirect.

Now, all that is just how I'd currently deal with these requests using my own point of view and common sense; I'm not sure I would as far as to recommend that this is how it should be done as a general rule. I don't feel strongly about it either way and if consensus shows that history undeletions under redirects should be a thing, then I'll be more than happy to do it like that (except in the obvious case of copyvios/BLP vios). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you mentioned emailing or copying to user space, I will remind everyone that copies, particularly when the history is not restored, must be attributed to their authors. See WP:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content, WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Userfication, and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As to the question of where to draw the line, I would ask myself the question: Would it be reasonable to expect that the "delete" !voters, if given the option to redirect, would be OK with doing so? This question is actually not as arbitrary as you'd think, and in fact shows up in the current AfD closing process. For example, if I see 5 "delete" !votes and then one or two "redirect" !votes at the end of an AfD (with no votes to keep), I have to decide whether to delete, delete and redirect, or simply redirect. I usually pick the third option in this scenario, even though there are many more !votes for "delete" than "redirect," if I believe that the "delete" !voters would be willing to go with the redirect, because to me "redirect" is a form of "delete" with the difference that there just happens to be a convenient target. I'll go for the first option if the proposed target is unsuitable and the second if the content of the article needs to be removed. The way I close these AfDs translates to how I feel about the current issue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to link examples? One persuasive and policy-based redirect (bonus points for a credible merge argument) may outweigh five poor deletes, but you didn't mention a marked difference in quality. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I support the principle of undeleting edits under a redirect unless those edits are the kind that would be deleted in the history of any live article (BLP, copyvio). Even if the information to be found in those edits is nonsense, at least curious visitors will be able to see what was there and better understand the context of the deletion discussion. Furthermore, sometimes those edits hide snippets of good information about the subject, and other times they provide useful evidence of misconduct on the part of editors. bd2412 T 01:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  Even in the case of a hotly contested AFD debate, or an AFD with overwhelming consensus to delete? You don't believe that it's appropriate to notify the deleting administrator or open a discussion at DRV? I support the concept in principle but I disagree that it makes sense in all situations. I don't want to see WP:REFUND turn into a backdoor way to getting content restored without community review, just because a redirect was created over a deleted article. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  DRV applies to the restoration of content, not edit history. I grant that steps should be taken to monitor redirects over previously deleted content to insure that this deleted content does not get improperly restored into an article. bd2412 T 02:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  I disagree and think that you have the scope of Deletion review backwards. Only admins may undelete the edit history, while an unprotected redirect can be reverted by any user. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, even with overwhelming consensus to delete, unless there is reason to believe the !voters would not support a redirect. As I mentioned above, the test for me is: If a "redirect" !vote came in at the very end of the AfD, after all the "delete" !votes, would I close as "redirect"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  A redirect can be completely unrelated to the subject matter of the article that was deleted. The test really should be, does this title have a plausible, possibly helpful redirect target. bd2412 T 18:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes. I took your statement here as implied when I said that, as in the vast majority of cases the subject matter of the redirected article is related to the target. But in the case that it's not, there might not be a point in keeping the content around. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• A few thoughts:
  • One must convince the closing admin or DRV to overturn an AfD deletion. Delete, delete then redirect, and redirect are distinct, and restoring the history requires admin tools. I think that it is much closer to overturning than to undeleting a PROD.
  • The page that triggered this discussion was Hold 'Em (Windows), deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Hold 'Em (Windows) in February 2014. User:Dogmaticeclectic requested that Salvidrim!, the closer, restore its history at User talk:Salvidrim!#History restore request on April 17. Salvidrim! declined. Dogmaticeclectic then filed WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 129#Hold 'Em (Windows) on April 23. Amatulic declined the request, but King of Hearts fulfilled it. Neither comment mentioned Salvidrim!'s refusal.
  • As Amatulic wrote at REFUND, a redirect should not be considered "a new, improved version" covered by the September 2013 edit to WP:Deletion review/Purpose.
  • I think that this trend of moving DRV requests to REFUND needs a WP:Requests for comment/ WP:Centralized discussion review. WT:Deletion review/Archives/2013/May#History-only undeletion had only five participants and little discussion. Its predecessor that directed "previously deleted content [to] be used on other pages" to REFUND, WT:Deletion review/Archives/2012/December#Shortening/simplifying the "What is this page for?" section (July–August 2012) had more text but a similar number of users.

Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think it should be rare that we delete material then redirect--it serves nearly no helpful purpose. I'd say it's a reasonable default for redirected articles not to have their history deleted. Less sure if it should default to history undeletion when a redirect happens long after a delete. I don't see it as a problem, but it seems like it could be subject to gaming. Hobit ( talk) 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  The closing statement of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) includes, "There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)". Either is usually within the closer's discretion. Flatscan ( talk) 04:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Part of the problem here is the ambiguity in redirect.  A "redirect" is either delete and redirect, or redirect without deletion.  There is also redirect and merge.  Each case shows clear expectations regarding the history.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment  A relevant DRV is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre.  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment  A deletion for lack of wp:notability should only occur when there is no suitable target for redirection.  Thus the creation of a redirect overturns an AfD that deleted a topic for insufficient wp:notability, and it is then logical that a restoration of the edit history be routine.  A corollary is that closes need to identify whether the deletion was for notability, for content, or for both.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad was closed as "no consensus to overturn". The AfD closer and the DRV nominator agree to a relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard ( talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Another relevant DRV is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro. Cunard ( talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Another relevant DRV is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 13#American Airlines Flight 633. Cunard ( talk) 23:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Another relevant DRV is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 21#Johnny Prill. Cunard ( talk) 00:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please will somebody enact the decision reached at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A little back story: last year an AfD for List of awards and nominations received by 5 Seconds of Summer was non-admin closed as a merge to the main article for the band, a move that I personally agree with for the most part since the list wasn't that big and the band's article wasn't that big either. Recently someone re-created the article under a new name to get around the protection on the article. It looks like the band has had a few more nominations and awards, but not that many. I was going to redirect the editor here, but I'm somewhat leaning towards this having a new AfD as opposed to just DRV because there is slightly more to the article. It also has sources now, although the big issue with the article was pretty much just whether or not it should be separate from the main article. What are you guys' take on this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The big stickler here is that it was also closed by a non-admin. I agree with their decision ultimately, but I know that this can throw a wrench into things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • AfD is preferable to DRV when relevant facts have changed. Where the original decision was correct, but it doesn't apply to the new draft, DRVs are often a mess, as you get people trying to DRV, trying to AfD, etc. Wily D 12:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the outcome had been delete, would you g4 this new article or start a new afd? If the former, then send him to DRV. While unmerge attempts brought to DRV often get closed as out of scope, I don't think that would be appropriate here, what with A) multiple people reverting back to the merge citing the AFD, and B) at least two different admins using their superpowers to enforce that. That the closer himself didn't have an admin bit isn't relevant. — Cryptic 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'd have G4'd or its equivalent, so I think I'm going to tell him to just go to DRV. However at teh same time I'm hoping to find a happy medium, as I'm piecing together an awards chart that could go in the main article. Hopefully I should be done soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)