Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Pre October 2003 December 2003 – May 2005 February 2004 – August 2005 August 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – November 2006

[edit] Huh?

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning." So what process should be used if you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning? --The Cunctator 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess this is supposed to mean "If you dislike the outcome but can't find fault with the process"... ~ trialsanderrors 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The best way to get an article undeleted if there were no problems with the debate is to rewrite the article to correct the reasons it was deleted for. For example, if an article was deleted as being unverifiable, find reliable sources that back up the information in the article and cite all the facts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a very valid question. You see if Deletion review is not "AfD round 2" and it's wrong to recreate deleted content then how could a deleted article ever come back. We mustn't forget WP:CCC. --WikiSlasher 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a very valid question, and that's a very valid answer (the only answer, as far as I know). Userspace can be used (within reason) to work on fixing dead articles and bringing them up to scratch, as can other wikis or even one's own hard drive. If the deletion was procedurally valid and grounded in solid principles (WP:V, etc.) then the best way to ressurect an article is to show that those concerns have been dealt with, either by changing circumstances or by fixing the article. It's happened many times before. One example off the top of my head is Keyra Augustina, who was deleted when she was just a name attached to a bunch of photos floating around on blogs, but was re-created after being featured in Maxim magazine, thus creating a verifiable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between bringing a deleted article back and writing a new article on the same topic. If, in order to be sure that you are creating a different and better article, you need to see the old version, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Content review to receive a userfied copy. DRV does not need to get involved in the process of recreating articles unless either 1) the page was protected deleted due to repeated problem creations, in which case we usually want to see the promised new article at the start of our review or 2) the new article is speedy deleted as a recreation, in which case the admins here will evaluate whether it was a recreation that didn't solve the problems or a new article that did solve the problems. GRBerry 16:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving DRV's

Starting with the December 1 log we'll archive deletion reviews directly on the log page, using {{drt}} and {{drb}}, similar to closing AfD debates. Here is a quick run through the mechanics:

====[[Header]]====                                    → Replace with {{subst:drt|[[Header]]|DECISION|~~~~~}}
  Header (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD) ← If this is missing from the discussion it should be included for archiving.
DISCUSSION                                            ← Body of the discussion stays unchanged
                                                      → Close the box with {{subst:drb}}

There'll be some shifting around and some sandboxing over the next couple of days, but once it's road tested it should be much easier for both closing admins to archive and for editors to review archived discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This method messes up the edit section links. For example, the review for Megan (on December 1 log) was closed using this template. The section edit links before and after it appear at the "1 December 2006" and "List of idioms in the English language (A)" headings. When I went to click the section edit link next to "List of idioms" heading, the section edited was the review for Web directories. Clicking the edit link for "1 December" edited the correct section - quite confusing. Kimchi.sg 06:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than that, it works okay. Kimchi.sg 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was getting too ambitious and tried to shrink the header size in transclusions using "===<includeonly>=</includeonly>". Turns out this has this odd effect of linking the edit buttons to the wrong sections. It's reverted now (and had nothing to do with the templates themselves). ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Was this related to the way the GNAA drv's table had eaten the rest of the page until a minute ago? --tjstrf talk 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No that was hand-coded. ~ trialsanderrors 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just wondering, do you think it is a good idea to append the closer's name as well? - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we only have to do that once it's more than two admin closing the discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing mainpage clutter

I guess most of the regulars don't even look at the instructions on the DRV main page anymore, but for inexperienced users the instruction creep is pretty hard to navigate and frequently leads to misplaced nominations. So I'm trying to start a drive to cut down the clutter. I already made a couple of changes due to the new way of archiving, but some other things could also be uncluttered. A couple of ideas on which I'm looking for feedback:

1. Which elements should appear on the main page, besides Instructions?
   • Active discussions
   • Recent discussions (closed and unclosed discussions older than 6 days)
   • Archives
2. Should the "special cases" (content review, prodded deletions, history-oly undeletions) be folded into the general discussion section?
3. How can adding a new discussion be simplified or mechanized?
4. Cut down on the instruction creep in general?

Thanks for all comments. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The active discussions list in the box is too long; the recent discussions list we probably don't need. Similarly, active discussions are not being included in Wikipedia:Deletion review. Wikipedia:Undeletion policy says that reviews remane active for ten days. See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins). After five days, if there is adequate consensus to undelete, we may undelete and close the discussion. After ten days, we shall close the discussion and either undelete, relist, or endorse. Right now we only have the current and five prior days on the deletion review page, so we are missing almost half the days eligible for live discussions. Or, alternatively, we should change the undeletion policy to match the new process here, if that is widely agreed upon. Since I don't recall a discussion of practice change here we should have that before changing policy. GRBerry 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a bit more of a system to it than you give it credit. First, the Active log lists 6 days because the discussion at the top of day -5 still haven't run for 120 hours, so we can't close them yet. WP:AFD does the same. Anything that moves from Active to Recent can be closed if it has garnered enough opinions. Second, the ten day provision is pretty much applied similar to AfD closures: Any discussion that has run the required five days is closed as soon as it has garnered enough opinions so that consensus can be determined. This could be after seven, eight or ten days or, if there aren't enough opinions after ten days, could be relisted. Technically there should only be five days on the "Recent" log, the sixth day is for the closers' convenience. But it could be replaced by an Archive link and the Archive column on the right removed. Third, we have had an increase both in nominations for review and amount of discussion each review gets, so keeping all open discussions on the main site is starting to become unmanageable. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So you are saying that what we should update is Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins), because it says that after 5 days we have the option to close and undelete, but all other closures should wait the full 10 days. What you describe fits my memory of the usual practice prior to reformatting the pages, so we probably should update the policy... I don't recall anyone ever objecting to obvious consensus closures by Xoloz before 10 days were up. GRBerry 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • i don't think anyone ever dragged out WP:UNDEL to contest Xoloz's closure in recent memory but it makes sense to update the policy to reflect current practice. ~ trialsanderrors 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• After ten days, we shall close the discussion and either undelete, relist, or endorse - or delete. The discussions between 3rd and 8th December seem to have disappeared. Where are they? Proto::► 13:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • They're still here afaict. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it, who really reads this stuff except people new to the process and trying to either comment or more likely list a new DRV. I tried to address this the other day and I think I cleared things up... the instructions for listing a DRV were quite effectively buried. Just wanted to chime in to say that design of the main DRV page should keep in mind what (at least in my opinion) most people will be reading sections other than the current DRV listings for. --W.marsh 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's one reason why I want to fold in the "special cases". ~ trialsanderrors 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning at the top of the page

AJMS recently added commented-out instructions to the top of Wikipedia:Deletion Review, and a visible red-bordered banner to the top of this page, which says (to paraphrase) "Hey morons, don't do what you're about to do". Although the commented-out instructions are a good idea, I've removed the banner - a) the commented-out instructions should be sufficient, b) the banner is ugly and intrusive, and c) we aren't being overwhelmed by misplaced requests anyway. Posting here for further discussion if necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The box was my idea of bypassing the introductionary spiel for those who just want to add a new review. Sorry if it sounded different from its intent. Kimchi.sg 15:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)