Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: 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.
Shortcut:
WT:DRV

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Deletion review page.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Archiving

This is both a reminder that we currently still have to manually archive finished days into Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February (soon Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March) and a plea for anyone with bot/script knowledge to get in touch with me if you're willing to help in automatizing the process. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't do it myself, but I've made a request for it at the bot requests page. GRBerry 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why was Fazal Mohammed deleted?

Is there any way I can find out why a prodded article was deleted? Specifically the Fazal Mohammed article. - Jwillbur 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was prodded and deleted, it was because no one took the prod tag off. Ask any admin to undelete it, and they will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking for the prod nomination reason? If so, then:
Unsourced for more than a year; Google finds no sources for "Fazal Mohammed" Trinidad ghazal. [1]"
And since it was uncontested and the deleting admin found the nomination reason to be valid, it was deleted per WP:PROD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was looking for, thanks. Jwillbur 14:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have any sources, it would be helpful to add them to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored it and sent it to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the role of deletion review

In the wake of a number of absolutely puzzling decisions combined with the recent Daniel Brandt ArbCom case where even the arbitrators couldn't come up with a conclusion regarding what the role of Deletion Review is...what is the role of deletion review?

No, really.

Is it about deletion process? Is it about overturning bad decisions? If so, how are we actually weighting arguments? Should we be doing a head count, as GRBerry has implied is happening, or should we be doing strength of argument, an assumption that may have been premature.

My perception of what DRV is supposed to be is that it was an appeals process to the community to fix the incorrect decisions. If an article was speedy deleted that shouldn't have been, we could overturn it. If an article was kept at AfD, but didn't meet our standards, we could overturn it. In reality, it seems like none of those things matter - it's more the whim of who shows up, and rarely does an argument make a difference. Consistency is nonexistent.

Do we need to revamp the whole thing, or is it really, truly, working? Are we handling more controversial situations properly? Are we really matching our results up with actual policy on a consistent basis? If not, why is DRV even here? If it's not working, what do we do to make it work? What should we do? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pointers to relevant prior discussion or expression:
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision#Role of Deletion Review - ArbComm unable to articulate the proper role of deletion review
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop#Role of Deletion Review - input given to ArbComm
  3. Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Switch to consensus - slow moving conversation about whether we should switch to consensus or messed up by doing so
  4. Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8#Fundamental change - original suggestion about switching to consensus
  5. Here is my thinking on Feb 5, of how it was working when we were using consensus. I still like the metaphor in the second to last paragraph, and regardless of the mechanics we ought to live to that metaphor.
  6. User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Review closings - my thinking as of yesterday on what we are doing currently
Frankly, I think we don't have a working system right now. One, we don't have enough regular participants. Two, we don't have a clear enough statement of the purpose of deletion review, and what sorts of arguments are relevant here, so that the appearance of irregulars generates a large random factor. Improving either area would increase the consistency of results. GRBerry 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
A question for you, as someone who closes - what's more important, the first or second aspect? As a regular contributor (and someone who'd likely give more input if I could trust the system more), I think the second is the more important area - if we only have three participants in a discussion, but we can clearly come to a conclusion based in policy and in our guidelines, the appeal process worked. Am I out of line in saying that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right now, I think it is the small number of regular participants. If I try to think about who I can expect to see an opinion from in a large fraction of the discussions, it would be Guy, DGG, Amarkov and Cordesaat right now. There are probably two to three times that many editors that I can expect to see often enough to recognize their handles solely from participation here. Other than Guy, nobody really has a more than 50% opine rate. So in a typical discussion, I see around 1-3 opinions from regulars, not in agreement a significant fraction of the time.
I feel like I'm relisting about a fifth to a quarter of the reviews lately because they don't have a clear enough basis to close them. I personally don't like closing on a N+1/N basis. There is no deadline, so I don't mind relisting, but a lot of the relisted ones aren't collecting more opinions, so what do I do after a 10-14 day run when only the nominator, the deleting admin, and one or two other people have opined, and they don't agree? Endorse deletion because nobody cares? Overturn because nobody cares? Make it AFDs problem and hope somebody there cares? None of those options seem right. I wouldn't mind closing a case with a few opiners that had reached agreement. But that doesn't help me with the actual situations of only a few opiners that aren't in agreement. Unless the nom is withdrawn or the closing admin overturns themself, I think that is the most common result right now.
If we could double the number of frequent opiners, then I would say that having a clear statement on the purpose/role of deletion review and the relevant sorts of arguments would become more important than growing the frequent opiner list further. We generally agree that DRV is not AFD phase 2, but what does that really mean to someone who isn't a regular here, and how do we explain it to them?
As an aside, one thing that might help with most of the really contentious cases we have seen recently was if we made the policy clearly state that for articles with a prior keep AFD that have been speedily deleted, the consensus level needed to keep them deleted here is the same consensus level that would have been needed to delete in an AFD - that would at least eliminate the forum shopping issue. Trialsanderrors has been saying this, but hasn't edited the undeletion policy to include it yet. GRBerry 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying that the arguments don't even play into your decisions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that the biggest reason I think it is broken is that it feels like a random number generator would be an equivalent quality replacement right now. This wasn't true when T&E was still closing, but since then I've moved from opining to closing, you've left, and Doug Bell has left. I don't feel like DGG understands the policies and guidelines yet, and we don't have enough active participants that do to educate new people. So the discussions I'm closing are being made predominantly by new editors, the admins whose actions are under review, and drive by opiners who don't have a vision for deletion review.
Let's look at the log for March 3rd, which I should be closing now. 1) "The Everybodyfields" is here from a G4, with a nomination claiming new evidence but no independent sourcing, and a single endorse opinion that says "endorse close but allow recreation" - a 1-1 tie with no arguments worth evaluating. 2) "Rites of Ash" has a nomination from an SPA with a serious case of COI, a question about sources, and a no thanks comment; again a 1-1 tie but with discussion that is meaningful enough to know how I would opine. 3) "Joey Boland", which has a clear consensus to overturn, but somebody has already recreated the article... 4) "Jeopardy! in popular culture" has enough opinions that I'll close it, but it is a 6-7 endorse before I start whacking opinions (this is a bare vote, that and that are AFD round 2, ...). 5) "University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)" has a nomination and seven comments (total of four opiners), but nobody bold enough to express an opinion on what to do. #1, #2, and #5 will be relisted for another round of deletion review. #3 will be closed with the history restored under the new article. #4 will be closed somehow, probably relisted as a tie after I whack the one bare vote. It might be possible to find a non-tie result by weighing arguments more finely, but before I get there I reach Xoloz's headache test (below).
That said, I believe that it would be a mistake to give me, or any other closer, a large amount of discretion to evaluate arguments. If deletion review is to be a forum for establishing cloture, we can't give DRV closers anywhere near the freedom that we give to XfD closers. If we had published guidelines for how to evaluate arguments, and at least some evidence of community consensus for those guidelines, I wouldn't mind using them. But right now, the only discretion I feel I have is to ignore bare votes, IP editors and new single purpose accounts unless they make a compelling and novel argument. GRBerry 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list of admins by number of overturns in DRV. I have my guesses as to who is in the top five. I can say that unilateral admin speedy deletion of articles coupled with a DRV heavily weighted in favor of deletion has been the source of considerable frustration. Jokestress 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... we're not heavily weighted in favor of deletions. A good number of speedy deletions have been overturned, just to be redeleted after an AfD next week. For that matter, even though I don't agree with this, some AfD closures have been overturned on technicalities, which were extremely unlikely to matter, and turned out not to. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not been here for a while, but I find it curious that there's so much disagreement on ArbCom about the role of process in DRV. It was my impression that there was general agreement that DRV is not a place to correct procedural mistakes; that is, if an article is supposed to be deleted, it will not be undeleted at DRV. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind an opposition to that statement? Xiner (talk, email) 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because DRV was traditionally about the process. How it came to be something else, I'm trying to figure out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"Process" has become a dirty word among Wikipedia admins - and that basically disenfranchises the peon editor, just like everything else around here. -- Jay Maynard 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone posting here might also want to see the posts below. Xiner (talk, email) 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One point of order before I begin: I've seen some newbies wonder "What happens if DRV ends in a no consensus"? Lack of consensus is impossible at DRV. An absolute tie is a consensus to relist. Why?

DRV is a forum for cloture, as I've said elsewhere before. Its role as a forum of appeal is primarily to determine whether a matter has been firmly decided, or should be referred to another forum for further discussion. Process is its primary concern, mainly because process in often overlooked in other XfD fora, and especially by speedy deletions. Since DRV is the place of last practical appeal, a process-weighted argument should ideally be favored: denial of process suggests that all points in a discussion have not been heard. If there is much more to said, cloture is inappropriate. Reviewers should ask themselves, "Was debate thorough?", "Were all relevant questions of fact and policy addressed?", and, lastly, "Was justice served?"

The last of these questions is fairly broad, obviously. As the final step in deletion process before a matter is pushed aside, DRV is specially positioned to consider fundamental fairness. This means that, while process is often the first place reviewers look for mistakes, other matters are relevant. Is new information available, relevant to the topic, that was unknown or unconsidered in the XfD? Has a new party come forward to present a perspective or argument unmentioned in the XfD? Is there some mitigating factor, beyond the strict letter of policy, that demands to be addressed in new debate?

Wikipedia trusts its admins, and its XfD fora. In general, they get things right -- or at least, we presume they do. That said, because DRV is just a forum for cloture, "consensus" has its weakest meaning anywhere in Wikipedia -- and that's a good thing. In order for a deletion to be endorsed, a majority must support it. Any other outcome results in referral back to an XfD, except in very limited cases. If a debate ends in a tie, we relist; a "keep closure" may be brought for DRV to review, but -- absent a very strong consensus of 80% -- any overturn simply sends the matter back to XfD. The (positive) biases of DRV are in favor of more discussion (call it, "if in doubt, relist") as well as the traditional Wikipedia content retention bias ("If in doubt, don't delete.")

My esteemed colleague, badlydrawnjeff, is one of the most dedicated content-saviors we have at Wikipedia. I do not always agree with Jeff, and others like him -- is the noble Kappa still with us? -- but I respect that folks like Jeff are really the key to DRV. Advocates for content bring disputed cases of deletion to DRV: ultimately, the job of the closer is to decide if the advocate has made enough headway to indicate that more discussion is in order. DRV is also a meta-analytic forum: "strength of argument" is often very hard to weigh, and any closer is apt to be swayed by any personal inclusionist/deletionist tendencies. To avoid killing each in arguments over whether we have even a "consensus" to stop discussing a thing, DRV is best left to head-counting. The range of closer's discretion is limited.

Having said that, DRV's positive biases insist that a closer scrutinize arguments for irrelevancies. As always, newer users, hopeless POV-warriors, anons, and the truly "out-of-touch" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) can be discounted. In my day, closers didn't sign their closes; the reasoning on DRV close is rarely given, unless the case is monumental or very long -- this is to avoid rule-creep, but also to keep us from (again) the great sin of arguing over whether we should argue over whether people want to keep discussing a thing. The process of meta-analysis has to stop before we go mad. In general, if a case is close enough that it is giving you a headache, relist it to the appropriate XfD. Those cases are really the only time "strength of argument" can outweigh a head-count.

It is absolutely essential that the DRV closer be humble about this. A sophist could devise any number of reasons to weigh "strength of argument" and relist virtually every case. That would lead to process-insanity, and incredible acrimony. In almost every case, the headcount is right. Only cite "strength of argument" to overturn and relist in very limited cases.

Citing "strength of argument" to support deletion is -- except in the case of a newbie flood, where numbers can be grossly distorted -- really an awful idea. If at least half of the Wikipedians present want to continue discussing something, a relist is in order. The closer should never let personal opinion obscure the fact that DRV is just about cloture -- the merits of the article are relevant, but the central question is "Are we, or are we not, done talking about topic X?" Even if you, Mr. Closer, think article X is putrid, you must respect your fellows if a large number of them believe the discussion is not yet finished, and relist.

Thanks to GR for dragging me over here. :) Xoloz 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Xiner raised a point I want to address. If DRV is about "process", does that mean that we overturn debates on mere technicalities? No. DRV is about process fairness -- it is okay, right, and normal for a debate to conclude that, while some tiny mistake of process was made, it is too inconsequential to affect fundamental fairness. On the other hand, process foul-ups often do affect fundamental fairness -- if a debate lasts only one day, instead of five, many opinions were wrongly silenced, and the debate was unfair. Where is line between "inconsequential process tweak" and "grossly unfair process foul up"? The community decides that, basically by headcount, on a case-by-case basis. The community, as a whole, is really very smart. Trust it not to be concerned over tiny things, but to care about justice in every case. Xoloz 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In that sense, I've no argument. Xiner (talk, email) 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading all of this and nodding my head all the way through...Xoloz's explanation makes perfect sense to me. So why do so many people not get it? And the further you get up Wikipedia's hierarchy - from peon editor to admin to senior admin to Arbcom - the worse it gets in terms of people calling us process wonks for trying to make DRV work. I have a feeling that merging the Deletion, Deletion Review, and Undeletion policies might help. It helps to see them all together to understand why DRV needs to be different from AfD. Kla'quot 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't add much what Xoloz hasn't said already (and I paraphrased earlier at WT:UNDEL). DRV as it is now is a number of things: by intention it is the check for admin deletion decisions, by design it is a cloture forum, and by usage it is many things roled into one, one of them being a "pre-filter" for articles that were speedily deleted. The last thing is probably what flustered ArbCom the most, that incorrect procedural speedies are often OKed because the articles would not stand a chance to survive an XfD. I think we do pretty ok on reviewing AfD closures, we do worse on speedies and do poorly on intentional out-of-process (aka WP:IAR) decisions, where too many editors use their opportunity to weigh in on the subject rather than the decision (although I'm at a loss to say which forum might do a better job). This mish-mash of roles obviously creates a lot of confusion, but we should keep in mind that we're not an admin conduct forum, even though the original purpose implies it. Our mission is primarily to decide what to do with the article, not whether the admin deserves a barnstar or a troutslap. So, and even if I'm not a fan of the current setup, DRV makes sure that contested speedies get a five-day discussion. Obviously, by force of habit, those speedy reviews have started to usurp the role of a regular AfD, with a status quo bias against the article (which is what I believe accounts for a lot of Jeff's frustration). The problem for me as closer is more that I have people weighing in on two different issues, which certainly doesn't make closing easier and increases the error rate. ~ trialsanderrors 10:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation

This is a bit of an aside but I think that some of recent relistings are unnecessary. Let's drill into just the Rites of Ash discussion. The page itself was speedy-deleted after an abbreviated AFD discussion. The nominator (a user with the same name) requested undeletion and provided a few claims to notability. Coredesat politely requested sources - a policy-based request. Maybe the new user can provide the sources so Coredesat chose not to antagonize the user with a bold and preemptive "vote". From the wording of the comment, however, it is clear to me that without such sources he/she is endorsing the deletion. The nominator returned with some claims for sources. I replied that those do not meet Wikipedia's standards for sources and will not sway the argument. I also chose to word my comment carefully because I don't want to bite the user unnecessarily. Maybe if they turn their attention to other subjects, they can grow into reliable editors. I'm not sure why I felt that this user had potential when others didn't but it seemed like the best way to word the rejection. Nevertheless, I had assumed that it would be clear from my comment that in the absence of sources which do comply with policy, I also endorsed the deletion of the page.

We've fallen into the habit of summarizing our "votes" up front and in bold. The practice is supposed to be for the convenience of the closer. I'm not sure that it actually works, though. That format takes away a degree of flexibility and tact that are often quite useful in discussions. Writing the answer before you write the reasoning also inevitably creates a slight bias toward a polarized answer and nudges us away from the compromise that is sometimes the best solution. These are discussions, not votes, for a reason. And a good closer still has to carefully read and interpret every comment regardless of the opinion expressed at the front.

At the end of the day, the closer does need to make a decision. And in the Rites of Ash example, no one contributed with any other comments or sources that met policy or that could be interpreted as justifying the overturn of the speedy-deletion. It would have been nice if Coredesat had returned to the discussion to affirm his/her position about the quality of the provided sources but that's still a "delete" opinion. So was mine. Two endorsements of a speedy against the page creator's request for reconsideration seems like a closable discussion to me. I expect someone experienced enough to be closing DRV discussions to be experienced enough to read the comments and to interpret them appropriately. Depending on uniform "endorse" or "overturn" votes at the front of every comment is a crutch - useful but you can't depend on it alone. Xoloz is dead-on with the comments about humility and respecting the will of the participants. At the same time, it's a wiki. We trust you to be bold, even in the act of interpreting comments when closing DRV discussions. Rossami (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... no we don't. DRV closures are rather hard to overturn, so we want to be sure that the decision is correct. I've done quite a few reversions of closures like that. Like any rule, this is sometimes appropriate to ignore, but such cases are very rare. It doesn't hurt to extend a discussion, after all. -Amarkov moo! 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is where I think you've missed the point, however. The article was speedied, and there's nothing I can see to indicate it was an A7 - no one was charging as such at the AfD, and only two people gave input. If it ran two more days and actual input was involved instead of what may be an invalid speedy, we wouldn't have to "drill down" to begin with, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I said above that it was clear how I would opine on that one. I did interpret Rossami's comment as a deletion endorse. If Cordesaat had come back and said what he felt about the sources, I might have been bold enough to close it, with clear consensus visible. He hasn't been active enough here for me to have had confidence that he had looked at them, however. I'm normally willing to interpret comments. (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 2, the opportunity rover discussion contains an example of the kind I won't interpret. T&E left me with a "undelete, but if X endorse" comment for half a day, and that comment was the tiebreaker. Determining X would have taken more work than I was willing to do, so I waited him out until he decided it. I'm not going to put a half hour into a single person's comment on a single discussion.) Otherwise, I'm happy to evaluate what people have said, but prefer to avoid trying to evaluate what people haven't said, because "not said" doesn't distinguish between "didn't look" and "didn't care to comment".
Xoloz has encouraged me to consider a total of three opinions enough to close a discussion. Are others comfortable with closing 2-1 or 1-2 discussions as a clear decision? Since the undeletion policy currently says "if at least three people and a qualified majority of voters have voted for undeletion", that would mean that a 2-1 majority for overturning endorses deletion... although these could just be left open to see if they become 3-1 before ten days are up. If people are comfortable with that practice, a lot more of these can close without relisting. The 1-1 discussions would still need to be relisted. GRBerry 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I mean, honestly, I'm comfortable with 1-0 if the merits of the argument are intact. I'm not comfortable with 3-1 in favor of endorsing an invalid speedy. I think this is what's disturbing me about what I'm reading here right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
God in heaven, some evil person rewrote that. If the decision is 2-1 in favor of overturning, overturn. Simple. Edit the policy to conform to sanity -- that's what it read in May, 2005, when I last read every policy. Xoloz 18:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have returned the policy to sanity. Don't know who muffed it up, but it looks like they -- cleverly -- just moved a comma or two. Xoloz 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) GRBerry, thanks for the explanation. I was concerned from your comments above that we might have been getting lost in the mechanics of the process at the expense of robust discussion. Your comments here reassure me.
Like Jeff, I am comfortable with low levels of participation. Frankly, I'd even be comfortable with a 1:1 closure in most circumstances. If a nominator proposes an overturn, a single experienced editor provides a solid policy-based reason to endorse the close and nobody else comments (despite the many who watch and selectively participate on the page), that's sufficient evidence to close the review as an endorsement of the prior decision.
We have always been told not to participate in every debate. I try to limit my participation to only those discussions where I have something significant to add. "Me, too" comments don't help the discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to opine when

Jeff has a legitimate concern, that has been lost above in other discussion, about what should we overturn and what should we endorse. And whether we are doing what we should be doing. Let's talk about that more.

I view DRV as the second line of defense against bad deletion decisions. (Or the backup safety valve on the pressure cooker.) Discussion with the deleting admin should be the first line of defense.

We are looking for mistaken deletions, trying to find material that is either useful as is, just needs minor patching, or is at least recyclable - or that might be and should be sent to XfD for an evaluation. If I think it should have been thrown out in the garbage can instead of being sent through the garbage disposal, but agree that it is garbage either way, then I really don't care a lot about the jots and tittles of the deletion documentation. (A recent example was an article deleted for lacking context, that could easily have had context filled in from the incoming links, but I'd then have speedy deleted as being spam.)

So if a speedy deletion is brought here for review, I'm more concerned about whether there is any reason to believe that it has a snowball's chance at AFD than whether it perfectly fit the speedy deletion criteria. (PROD deletions are never an issue - they get overturned, although they may be speedy deleted right away.) So I used to ask questions designed to elicit the information needed to believe it would have a chance at AFD. If the requisite information isn't forthcoming, I think that we should look for an outcome that avoids an AFD. An example would be redirecting a band member to their band and restoring history underneath (or a single to an album).

But we also serve, and here is where the safety valve metaphor works a lot better, as a forum for people to get a chance to make a case, hopefully lowering their stress levels. Civility is crucial for this purpose. GRBerry 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the same ArbCom decision that caused this discussion also showed some disadain toward snowball closes, which is important to note. The garbage can/disposal discussion is one thing, but to not give an article a full hearing when it may benefit from one, even if initial discussion trends otherwise, seems to invalidate this concept of a second line of defense.
I guess where I'm going is that if we're going to treat it as a second line of defense, let's do it. If we're going to treat it as a way to make sure process is followed, let's do it. If we're going to be a combo of the two, or if we're going to be neither, let's do it. Frankly, we're none of those four things right now, which is incredibly frustrating unless you're in the business of removing rather than preserving content.
What the end result is going to be, I can live with. But I'd like there to be a result, so DRV actually has a calling as opposed to being a secondary avenue to rubber-stamp poor decisions, as it is prone to be on more and more occasions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't count the loads of times I've seen something that got speedy deleted on soft grounds, didn't look like it had a snowball's chance, be redeemed in a five day AfD when wider input was solicited. I admire Jeff and Kappa because I've seen them save things. They need a fair opportunity to do that. Don't worry about taking too long to discuss things. The pleasant surprises of redeemed good content make up for the wee inconvenience of a five day window on AfD. Xoloz 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A momentary aside

One thing that I've noticed that has been a concern is community involvement. With the closings of several Wiki-orgs such as esperanza and concordia, and from what I've seen many WikiProjects that have become fairly inactive, it should be no surprise that the XfD system (of which DRV is a part) has issues of lack of community involvement.

Perhaps we should start a new discussion about how to "advertise" the processes in some way. It just seems that those involved are typically only those who are directly involved with the article/template/category/etc in question, and a few of those then leave a few other votes on other discussions on the page. The Cent template is nice, but I think if we don't have an XfD template, we should. Awhile back we were discussing some changes to the sidebar. Perhaps a link to a page like: "Content for discussion" - which would act as a page with some links to the various XfD discussions. One thing is fairly certain, Something needs to happen, and soon. - jc37 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We reached the point long ago when the community is simply too large; you're still only going to get the people who are marginally involved, because nobody else sees anything related. We're going to have to trust that XfD regulars combined with people involved with the subject can determine the coorect answer, because if they can't, then there's nothing we can do about it. -Amarkov moo! 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving redux

As part of turning the archiving over to a bot I'm also trying to strip the discussions fom the transclusions of the daily logs. This has become necessary because the monthly logs (which serve as archives beyond the eleven days we have on the WP:DRV frontpage) are becoming monstrously large with the increased number of nominations, and shed the first couple of days towards the end of the month (I believe this is because the amount of text that can be transcluded is limited by the software). This is mostly for Xoloz and GRBerry, since they're the ones most likely to delve into the archives, but all community input is welcome:

  1. Should we strip the discussions from the transclusions as soon as the daily log is closed, or when it drops off the front page? The latter alternative makes for slower load times but quicker access to fairly recent discussions.
  2. I created two different ways of creating those archives, one retains the beige box while the other one turns the log into a simple bulleted list, see March 1 and March 2 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March.

Happy to indulge any proposals as long as a bot can perform them... ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think we should shed them when the daily log is closed. (The bot can check via simple logic: 1) older than today and 2) all discussion headers gone.) The main page takes a noticable time to load, and I'm always on a DSL or better connection. The easier the working page is to laod, the easier it is for people to participate. GRBerry 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about just converting from monthly pages to weekly pages? Keep everything else about the process the same. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The archives are primarily used to check if articles have been reviewed before. Such a search is much easier with monthly than with weekly logs. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • True. And today we can (with some limits) use the search engine to help find them. If you "shed" the discussions, that won't be true anymore. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean in the proposal above? Rossami (talk)
        • Search doesn't really work for DRV, see e.g. Search for "Bambenek". "Shedding" in this case means the full discussions will be preserved on the daily log pages, but only the top line with the result will be transcluded onto the main page/monthly logs. ~ trialsanderrors 01:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing several articles at once

Several related articles have been deleted and, although most were poor quality, it's important that we cover the topic in some form or other. One or two of the article titles should be undeleted, but I'm not sure which. How would I put this up for review? — Omegatron 08:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Which ones are you talking about? >Radiant< 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
HHO Gas, Aquygen, and so on.
I've already written up a rationale, but I don't know how to format it, since six or so related articles have been deleted, and I'm not sure which would be the best place for the content. — Omegatron 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, just put it on DRV (===[[Article1]], [[Article2]] and [[Article3]]===) and we'll talk about it. At first glance it appears to be a non-notable hoax with a strong consensus towards deleting it. But good luck. >Radiant< 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly notable, and hoaxiness is not a criteria for deletion. WP:HOAX is for articles that are hoaxes, not for articles about hoaxes. — Omegatron 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Proof by assertion isn't. At any rate, you should list this on the main page to get wider input. >Radiant< 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Proof by assertion of what? It explains right at the top of the page: Articles about notable hoaxes are okay, if the hoax is recognized as such.
I listed it. — Omegatron 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No concensus

If there is no concensus after 5 days, can deletion review be reopened at a later date despite no new information having come to light? --Oldak Quill 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See the discussions above. A deletion review discussion can't close as a "no consensus". Any such decision would default to "relist to AFD" (or RfD, etc.). Rossami (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection on deletion of pooya mirzaee rad

Hi, The article is similar to other articles which my friends made . I tried to add references and some sources. everyday I studied the wiki and beforehand I tried on sandbox. Now when I was getting successful to put some photos with correct copyright way , you've just deleted my page. there are several websites about Pooya Mirzaee Rad . and I was trying to make a integrated link referenced to each claim on the page. anyway I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Even I don't have the content to make it better... what you are doing is not HELP! it's destroying and I'm so unhappy about it. in the article pooya mirzaee rad there was no advertisement. a user introducing web page or something like that. it was all about kharizmi festival which is an important event and winners are most important topics to follow. please advice... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pooyarad (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

You should follow the steps for nomination at WP:DRV. I can't even guess from this what article is supposed to be undeleted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My I please see a copy of Lengths of fantasy film and television series

I was wondering if an administrator can let me see the text that was deleted from Lengths of fantasy film and television series. I would like to merge its material into Lengths of science fiction film and television series, which survived the AFD nomination. Thanks. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not with that reasoning. You can't copy content from a deleted article into another article, because according to gfdl you have to attribute edits to those people who actually made them. Furthermore, if the afd result is a delete, that means the content will be deleted, not put into another place. If you think the afd should've been closed as a merge instead of a delete (which actually would've made a lot more sense than deleting this one and keeping another just like it), you'll have to ask the afd closer (User:TigerShark) or propose this article for undeletion on the project page. - Bobet 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Article

one quick question. I forgot to save the content on the article called "RadioGreen" that has been removed today. I wanted to place it on the "about" page on the RadioGreen site. I was wondering if i can get the content of the article. Thank You.

--Josh Hubi 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. TomTheHand 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History undeletions

As close to a perennial proposal as DRV gets, but seeing how we're kind of up in the air regarding what DRV is, I think it's time to trot the idea out again.

We should be undeleting the history of DRVs in most cases.

I recognize that copyvios have no need, want, or desire to have their histories exposed, and I grudgingly understand the desire for allegedly defamatory material unavailable for review, but for the rest, what's the logic behind holding it back? It's very difficult to accurately judge many deletions, including A7s/G11s/A1s/A3s in particular, without that necessary context, so why shouldn't this be automatic? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From my pre-admin times I'd say for 80% of the reviews restoring is unnecessary. But if there's a reasoned request I usually restore behind the DRV screen, as long as the number of requests by the same editor is within reason. You can contact me on my talk page or e-mail me if I don't see it. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... why not restore everything under a DRV screen by default, like he suggested? The problem with only restoring when it's necessary is that it's hard after having the information to judge if you needed it to come to an opinion. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What he said. I mean, I could simply request history undeletion on everything, but if it were simply understood that it should occur for most of these, it would cut out the middle man. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And usually the request and sometimes discussion are much more trouble, because once it is simply visible everyone generally just agrees. DGG 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some more clarity in the system, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It also often depends on the reason for the deletion. If it's simply alleged non-notability of a local band or a high school or a webcomic, there's often no harm at all to allowing the article to be visible again for 5 days. If the deletion reason is a more serious problem that is often different. Newyorkbrad 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said in my initial statement... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If the burden were spread equally I wouldn't have a problem with it, but as it is, User:Mangojuice/Slave applies. When I was still the sole regular closer keeping up with formatting fixes and other was a fulltime job. I already made 8 edits to today's log and only one of them was an editorial comment. I can see that a restoration be necessary for a number of contested cases, but I have little interst to add this to my diet for all the cases where the outcome is clear anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair criticism, I suppose. Of course, trying to get one or two admins who only do the history undeletions shouldn't be that much of a problem either, I'd hope. Makes me wish I was a palatable enough candidate for promotion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
*mumbles a complaint about needing more admins* -Amarkov moo! 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the about a month and a half that I was an admin but not a closer, I was quite busy with gnoming other aspects of deletion review (fix malformed nominations, link all AFDs, link all prior DRVs, etc...), plus opining myself. I'd like to see a wikignome doing all those links again, which mostly can be done via reading the "What links here" page for each nominated article, and doesn't need an admin.

I did restore history on a bunch of articles. Because it takes admin time and effort (some, not a lot) to restore the history, I usually did it when I thought both the article deserved a restoration and that the history was needed to show it. I still do some, but I also skip over many requests.

If an admin or two wanted to adopt restoring (appropriate) histories (or citing relevant evidence) as their personal project, I'd have no problem with the idea. But I don't have time for it myself. In the meantime, if someone could find a way to put the google cache search into the nomination template, that might help. At least the cache, if it exists, would always be linked. GRBerry 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm bad with templates and stuff, but I help out with the malformed noms when I can, and try to put up the new day headers if it's getting close. I think most of us who are big on the DRV thing can certainly step up better if that's a need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Google cache added to the template, by the way. -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone should contact them to make sure it's okay, I suppose, but I can't figure it out, so if someone else could it would be nice. I'm not sure whether or not their terms of use would prohibit this. -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why? Good idea btw. ~ trialsanderrors 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I oppose automatic history-restores. I understand the logic behind the request but it is unnecessary and inappropriate in the majority of reviews. Where it would be helpful, it can be requested by the editors in the discussion. But where there is not a good-faith need, we should not be feeding the trolls and other abusive editors who are petitioning for their patently inappropriate page to have a few more days of life. Rossami (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So we need to buckle to the occasional troll and keep well-meaning editors from making sound decisions? I really can't get behind that line of thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My informal count of recent review requests shows more where it would be inappropriate or unnecessary (76%) than where it could be appropriate or helpful (24%). That more than "the occasional troll". Rossami (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What definitions are you using here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The practice of how this page is used makes no sense

This page claims it "considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". It makes no sense to have the page handle deletions where someone wants to overturn the deletion, Keep decisions where someone wants the article to have been deleted, but then NOT to handle redirect decisions, especially as redirection is essentially a form of deletion. If this page is supposed to handle potential improper deletion discussion results, then all of them should be handled, including redirects. If anyone attempts to remove a redirect which was following the conclusion of an AfD debate, someone who notices will put it back and claim that the will of the AfD partipants/closing admin should be followed.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of this page is merely to allow non-admins to get deleted pages back, if such a thing is appropriate, then there is no purpose behind having this page be used to get Keep decisions overturned. Anyone who wants to overturn a Keep decision can simply AfD the article a second time.

So, what is the purpose of this page? --Xyzzyplugh 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects, unless they're performed as "delete and redirect", don't delete the page history. If you get consensus on the talk page or if you have substantial new informetion that fixes the problems brought up in the AfD discussion, you can revert the redirect yourself. You don't need admin help for it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, and Keep results from an AfD don't require this page either, as anyone who disagrees can simply run the article through AfD again. (and, heh, getting consensus on a redirect's talk page wouldn't be too hard, who ever reads talk pages for redirects? A group of 1 can always reach a consensus) --Xyzzyplugh 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Trials is correct. Redirect decisions are solved on the respective article Talk pages. They do not need to be discussed here since the page's history was never deleted. New consensus can be found and carried out without the use of special admin powers. Undeleting a page or re-deciding a Keep decision and then deleting the page both do require admin intervention.
Could you ask for a reconsideration of a Keep decision by simply nominating the article again? Yes. And that's how it works out in most cases. The keep decisions nominated here are by far the exception, not the rule.
By the way, the place to get consensus on the redirect is generally not the redirect's Talk page. That discussion is normally held on the target article's Talk page for just the reason you describe - to find enough interested editors to actually reach a meaningful consensus. Rossami (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what you're implying is that AfD's which result in redirect decisions essentially carry no weight whatsoever. The vast majority of the edits I make on Wikipedia, probably 99%, I don't discuss them on the talk page before I make them, and almost all of them "stick" and aren't immediately reverted. From Wikipedia:Consensus: " "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it". If I come across a redirect which looks to me like it should be restored, or a low traffic stub of an article which I think should be redirected, I do it without discussing it with anyone first every time. The fact that I am rarely reverted means I end up having consensus. If I undo a redirect, and leave a note on the redirect target's talk page saying I have done so, I guarantee you there is a 98% chance no one will object, rarely will anyone care what redirects to some article they're interested in, unless it's a massively high traffic page with thousands of editors paying attention to it and interfering in every decision everyone tries to make. So I can pretty much alone undo any deletion debate decision resulting in redirect. --Xyzzyplugh 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, if an AfD gets closed as "redirect" and an edit war breaks out over it, and you believe the closure was out of process it's ok to have it reviewed here (make note of the edit war). Just to get the ok to revert the redirect you don't have to bring it here. I generally agree that AfD decisions carry some weight even if they don't involve deletions, but DRV should be the last resort if editors can't come to an agreement otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that the AFD discussion carries no weight. It was, after all, a discussion among editors who presumably took the time to educate themselves on the issues and to offer thoughtful opinions. But that part of the decision is no more decisive than an equally thoughtful discussion held on the article's Talk page. Subsequent editors simply have to be ready to defend their assessment that consensus has changed (or stand ready to be reverted when someone finds it in the Recent Changes patrol).
The only time you'd bring a "redirect closure" here is if you think the closure itself was out-of-process. Rossami (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As I understand the general principles of cooperative editing, and particularly the WP:BOLD guidelines, major changes are absolutely to be discussed on the talk page before making them. Except in trivial cases, I think changing an article to a redirect or back should not be done without prior discussion on the talk page. If after a week or so nobody objects, then I think the right to use the argument from silence. When I first came here, I did make a few bold deletions of sections on some pages, though never amounting to redirecting an entire article, and the reaction made it clear to me the utter inadvisability of doing so again on an actively worked on article. I think there is one good place to do it, and that is on an article which seems to be entirely ignored--usually someone wakes up, but if not, then its reasonable to go ahead as best one can. DGG 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at (assuming you haven't, before), Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. An essay only, but one which has had strong support. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a bit of discussion on it when someone tried to delete it. Although, yes, changing a major popular page into a redirect without discussion first is not likely something I would do. --Xyzzyplugh 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

[edit] Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. ~ trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question re: 5.1

On this passage in section 5.1: "Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." Just wondering what actions at the WP:Guide to Deletion page this is referring to? I see no section called 'actions', and no list of obvious actions at that page. I see examples of shorthand, discussion guidelines and the like. Any assistance in directing to a list of common actions is appreciated. Thanks. --Keefer4 | Talk 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Osomosis and time at the page have answered this.--Keefer4 | Talk 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion of user subpage?

I asked for a subpage of mine to be deleted, but now I want it back. I'm guessing that this is the incorrect place to do so.. Where would I bring my request? Zachary talk 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably on the front page under the Content Review section. Or you could just drop a note to any admin who's on line at the time. As long as it's a good-faith request, it sounds pretty straight-forward. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/l/Wikipedia_talk%7EDeletion_review_3b38.html"