This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Deletion review page. |
|
This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc. |
Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard ( talk) 23:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Every single time there's a deletion review, I see people trying to relitigate the AfD rather than analyzing the discussion and strength of arguments. The distinction between those two is nuanced enough that this is pretty much inevitable, but I do think that an editnotice explaining how deletion review works and how discussion is supposed to be focused might help on the margins. (For a very rough parallel, think of the editnotice we use for RfAs.) Would folks be in support of adding something? And if so, anyone want to contribute some language we'd want to use/help draft it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and
should not be used because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. We should therefore be encouraging participants to focus in their comments on assessing consensus rather than relitigating the AfD. It's a similar distinction to the difference between a good close and a supervote. Granted, as I said at the top, it's a fine distinction, and as you note there can be gray areas. The difference between
Overturn because the subject clearly passes GNGand
Overturn because the arguments made that the subject passes GNG were clearly stronger and should have been given more weightoften reflects just that the latter editor is more experienced and knows how to frame their view. Still, weighing the strength of arguments without injecting one's personal opinion is what we expect closers to do, and it's what we should aspire for deletion review participants to do as well. If an editnotice helps on the margins to get a few more editors to put aside their personal views and focus on assessing consensus, I think it's worthwhile to have. Does that help explain? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 ( talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the {{ Delrevxfd}}, {{ Delrev}}, and {{ DRV notice}} templates? Jarble ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @ Anomie and Timotheus Canens: Can this bot be programmed to do the tasks that I listed here? Jarble ( talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Salman Farhan Sudi was deleted due to several points which should be corrected instead of deletion the whole article, Please I am requeating to undelete that article and return it to discussion.
Thankz. Hawali Nur ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Team,
It is a humble request to help retrieve the content of the draft of YogiGuru Saugaato that was deleted. I require the latest version of the draft and have been unable to retrieve it from anywhere else. There is no copy, and was a dictation version. Kindly share the latest edited draft of the content. I assure it will not be used to published anything on any Wikipedia pages. Debottama23 ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Several months ago, I found the following note on my talk page:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:The sun1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
As you can see, the link is useless now. Just now I was curious to see what was involved, so I had to go to the image and check WhatLinksHere to find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23. Why must this be the case? Active DRV discussions are transcluded in log pages, so it's not like we have some technical barrier; the latest active discussion, for Elizabeth Shown Mills, can be linked either Wikipedia:Deletion review#Elizabeth Shown Mills or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 21#Elizabeth Shown Mills. As far as I can see, the template could easily link to the log page, which won't change, instead of to the main DRV page, which will always be changing. Nyttend ( talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
|days=
parameter being specified - it assumes that the DRV has been filed on the current day? To my understanding, this is what currently happens with (e.g.) {{
Rfd notice}} & {{
Tfd notice}}. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 20:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER. Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER. The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER. I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests. Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Deletion review page. |
|
This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc. |
Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard ( talk) 23:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Every single time there's a deletion review, I see people trying to relitigate the AfD rather than analyzing the discussion and strength of arguments. The distinction between those two is nuanced enough that this is pretty much inevitable, but I do think that an editnotice explaining how deletion review works and how discussion is supposed to be focused might help on the margins. (For a very rough parallel, think of the editnotice we use for RfAs.) Would folks be in support of adding something? And if so, anyone want to contribute some language we'd want to use/help draft it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and
should not be used because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. We should therefore be encouraging participants to focus in their comments on assessing consensus rather than relitigating the AfD. It's a similar distinction to the difference between a good close and a supervote. Granted, as I said at the top, it's a fine distinction, and as you note there can be gray areas. The difference between
Overturn because the subject clearly passes GNGand
Overturn because the arguments made that the subject passes GNG were clearly stronger and should have been given more weightoften reflects just that the latter editor is more experienced and knows how to frame their view. Still, weighing the strength of arguments without injecting one's personal opinion is what we expect closers to do, and it's what we should aspire for deletion review participants to do as well. If an editnotice helps on the margins to get a few more editors to put aside their personal views and focus on assessing consensus, I think it's worthwhile to have. Does that help explain? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 ( talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the {{ Delrevxfd}}, {{ Delrev}}, and {{ DRV notice}} templates? Jarble ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @ Anomie and Timotheus Canens: Can this bot be programmed to do the tasks that I listed here? Jarble ( talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Salman Farhan Sudi was deleted due to several points which should be corrected instead of deletion the whole article, Please I am requeating to undelete that article and return it to discussion.
Thankz. Hawali Nur ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Team,
It is a humble request to help retrieve the content of the draft of YogiGuru Saugaato that was deleted. I require the latest version of the draft and have been unable to retrieve it from anywhere else. There is no copy, and was a dictation version. Kindly share the latest edited draft of the content. I assure it will not be used to published anything on any Wikipedia pages. Debottama23 ( talk) 12:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Several months ago, I found the following note on my talk page:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:The sun1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
As you can see, the link is useless now. Just now I was curious to see what was involved, so I had to go to the image and check WhatLinksHere to find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23. Why must this be the case? Active DRV discussions are transcluded in log pages, so it's not like we have some technical barrier; the latest active discussion, for Elizabeth Shown Mills, can be linked either Wikipedia:Deletion review#Elizabeth Shown Mills or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 21#Elizabeth Shown Mills. As far as I can see, the template could easily link to the log page, which won't change, instead of to the main DRV page, which will always be changing. Nyttend ( talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
|days=
parameter being specified - it assumes that the DRV has been filed on the current day? To my understanding, this is what currently happens with (e.g.) {{
Rfd notice}} & {{
Tfd notice}}. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 20:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER. Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER. The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER. I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests. Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)