![]() | 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. |
The speedy deletion policy currently says that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Consequently, less than obvious cases should be handled at XfD instead. If an admin's speedy deletion is appealed using DRV and there is no consensus to endorse the deletion, this means the deletion was not in an obvious case. In my experience, most admins closing such a DRV will treat this outcome as "list at XFD" in almost all cases which is the only correct interpretation of the speedy policy's "only obvious" rule imho. Since I saw an admin write that they think "no consensus" means the speedy is endorsed though, I propose we amend the DRV page to clarify this. I had made that change already, believing it to reflect consensus but I was reverted by Timotheus Canens (pinging) which is why I am raising it here now. Regards So Why 17:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Even "should" is stronger than I'd support. This should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a multitude of factors like the state of the discussion, the CSD at issue, the content deleted, the chance that the page would survive an XFD, and so forth. If a closer mistakenly believes that they had no discretion to close a no-consensus DRV on a speedy as "list as XFD", they can be easily pointed to the existing policy and asked to reconsider. I simply don't see the point of introducing the extra constraint on closer's discretion.
T. Canens ( talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)I'm guessing the impetus for this was the discussion concerning "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids", which does seem to be to be an unusual case requiring some discretion rather than a straight up-and-down restore. For certain classifications (attack page, copyvio, etc) I don't think that a split decision should result in an overturn, but for other more subjective types like A7 I can see an argument for that. Are there any other recent examples of discussions of those sorts of speedies being closed as "no consensus default to status quo"? Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC).
No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether this text was spammy enough to warrant the G11 deletion. For lack of consensus to overturn, the speedy deletion is maintained by default.. Speedy deletions should be for clear-cut cases. If there is not a consensus to endorse not just the deletion but the CSD reason in the log (or some other specific CSD reason, as when A G11 is contented as not too promotional, but found to be a copyvio during the DRV discussion) , the deletion should be undone by default. "If in doubt, don't delete." applies particualrly strongly to speedy deletions. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The CSD give consensus in advance, but only for pages strictly within their written terms. If a page doesn't fit, and there isn't some other consensus to delete (at an XfD or by PROD) no deletion is justified. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the following language should be inserted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Closing reviews:
I think this is much clearer and simpler to administer, with no significant downside. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
As the proposal has been implemented should the discussion be closed? As the proposer, I don't think I should close this. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I added an entry for July 7th today about Afd KSL Capital Partners, to the review board. But I dont know how to do the header tag, so it isn't listing on the main DR page. Can someone please help me with it? Click here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_7 and you will see the sea of red errors, thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone help me please! The group were talking about the 7 colours of the rainbow. As a child I was told that music was carried around on music sticks. From dark colours were for the low notes to light colours for the higher notes. The colour lengths were painted for the length of the note to be played. Musicians when they met could transfer music by painting their own sticks. Have I been told correctly many years ago?
Yours Truly John Nichol Callum
<email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.250.141 ( talk) 08:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The instructions state to consult with the closing admin on his talkpage, but don't even suggest contacting the original AFD's nominator. Why this oversight? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 5 May 2017 (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. |
The speedy deletion policy currently says that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Consequently, less than obvious cases should be handled at XfD instead. If an admin's speedy deletion is appealed using DRV and there is no consensus to endorse the deletion, this means the deletion was not in an obvious case. In my experience, most admins closing such a DRV will treat this outcome as "list at XFD" in almost all cases which is the only correct interpretation of the speedy policy's "only obvious" rule imho. Since I saw an admin write that they think "no consensus" means the speedy is endorsed though, I propose we amend the DRV page to clarify this. I had made that change already, believing it to reflect consensus but I was reverted by Timotheus Canens (pinging) which is why I am raising it here now. Regards So Why 17:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Even "should" is stronger than I'd support. This should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a multitude of factors like the state of the discussion, the CSD at issue, the content deleted, the chance that the page would survive an XFD, and so forth. If a closer mistakenly believes that they had no discretion to close a no-consensus DRV on a speedy as "list as XFD", they can be easily pointed to the existing policy and asked to reconsider. I simply don't see the point of introducing the extra constraint on closer's discretion.
T. Canens ( talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)I'm guessing the impetus for this was the discussion concerning "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids", which does seem to be to be an unusual case requiring some discretion rather than a straight up-and-down restore. For certain classifications (attack page, copyvio, etc) I don't think that a split decision should result in an overturn, but for other more subjective types like A7 I can see an argument for that. Are there any other recent examples of discussions of those sorts of speedies being closed as "no consensus default to status quo"? Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC).
No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether this text was spammy enough to warrant the G11 deletion. For lack of consensus to overturn, the speedy deletion is maintained by default.. Speedy deletions should be for clear-cut cases. If there is not a consensus to endorse not just the deletion but the CSD reason in the log (or some other specific CSD reason, as when A G11 is contented as not too promotional, but found to be a copyvio during the DRV discussion) , the deletion should be undone by default. "If in doubt, don't delete." applies particualrly strongly to speedy deletions. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The CSD give consensus in advance, but only for pages strictly within their written terms. If a page doesn't fit, and there isn't some other consensus to delete (at an XfD or by PROD) no deletion is justified. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the following language should be inserted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Closing reviews:
I think this is much clearer and simpler to administer, with no significant downside. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
As the proposal has been implemented should the discussion be closed? As the proposer, I don't think I should close this. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I added an entry for July 7th today about Afd KSL Capital Partners, to the review board. But I dont know how to do the header tag, so it isn't listing on the main DR page. Can someone please help me with it? Click here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_7 and you will see the sea of red errors, thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone help me please! The group were talking about the 7 colours of the rainbow. As a child I was told that music was carried around on music sticks. From dark colours were for the low notes to light colours for the higher notes. The colour lengths were painted for the length of the note to be played. Musicians when they met could transfer music by painting their own sticks. Have I been told correctly many years ago?
Yours Truly John Nichol Callum
<email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.250.141 ( talk) 08:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The instructions state to consult with the closing admin on his talkpage, but don't even suggest contacting the original AFD's nominator. Why this oversight? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)