Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deletion review

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Ha Ha... if you want to DRV, go to an RfC or a centralized discussion, friends. Longstanding precedent says MfD is not for policy proposals, and killing DRV is a policy proposal. Xoloz 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review

This is the silliest, most broken process we've got in the entire project. [ælfəks] 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - are there any better alternatives to get a page undeleted? MER-C 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Service page needed for Wikipedia:Undeletion policy to be accessible by non-admins. --Allen3 ^talk 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, tagging something for deletion isn't a substitute for actually discussing the issue. If you feel there's something wrong with the page, try discussing an alternative first, just getting rid of the page wouldn't even help. - Bobet 11:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, no reason for deletion given. Eugène van der Pijll 11:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, if you want meaningful changes to deletion and undeletion process, work with one of the proposals going around. Proposing to simply delete existing process pages is pointless and frankly a bit silly. —Stormie 11:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If this page were to be deleted by this process, how would we review its deletion? (See Self-Reference) *Dan T.* 12:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting a page does not change the (un)deletion policy. If WP:DRV is deleted, it can be nominated for review by creating a new page at WP:DRV. Eugène van der Pijll 12:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that be recreating a deleted page in violation of policy? *Dan T.* 12:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. Not if the re-created page is substantially different from the deleted one. And as the deletion of WP:DRV has never been reviewed before, that counts as new content. Eugène van der Pijll 12:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that be Gaming the system? --pgk 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, there wouldn't have been a system left to game any more. Eugène van der Pijll 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this is an accepted page, plus this is not the proper forum for bringing up how borked up DRV is. —this is messedrocker (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a (as said) slightly silly nom. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is a serious nomination. Kill it with a goddamn stick as the quickest way to purge a broken and pathological process-obsessed page. The only downside of burning it down and starting over that I can see is that the project's most pathological process obsessives won't be occupied in one place. - David Gerard 12:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - a big Ouatte de phoque at this one. Silly nom. This is the last resort for deleted articles : it needs to stay. Deenoe 12:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wot David Gerrard said. In fact, I'm tempted to speedy delete it - and then watch all the process addicts scratch their heads as they realise they've no process to reverse my ‘out of process’ deletion ;) – they’d have to undelete it 'out of process', and then the world would explode. BANG! --Doc 13:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Try it, you'd be surprised... According to the undeletion policy, the process for pages deleted out of process is quite simple: they may be restored by any admin. See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Exceptions.
• (As an aside, I was awfully tempted to "speedy close" this discussion after one or two votes, to see where the nominator would go to have my decision reviewed...) Eugène van der Pijll 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• If "pages deleted out of process" (whatever that means) can be restored by any admin... then why do we have this page? --SB | T 13:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• For cases where it is not clear if process has been followed. If two admins disagree, they would be free to re-create a page "because it was deleted out-of-process", and then to re-delete as "recreation of page correctly deleted", and so on. It would probably be better if there was somewhere where these cases could be discussed; for example, at WP:DRV. Eugène van der Pijll 13:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? - Is this a joke? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with nominator but also disagree with deletion of the page. DRV is seriously broken but deleting it solves nothing. John Reid 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with Articles for Undeletion. Phil Sandifer 13:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete of course. Articles that are incorrectly deleted can be undeleted by any administrator. Articles that should be deleted but aren't can still be deleted. This page has simply become a forum for building unnecessarily byzantine evaluations of something called "process", which seems to bear little or no relation to encyclopedic quality of the pages being deleted (or otherwise). --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, necessary social frontend for the technical ability of undeletion. —Xyrael / 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Fascinating. I always wondered if someone would go this route. I think, I hope, we can all accept the proposition that Deletion Review is somewhat broken. I don't think that deletion is necessarily the answer; rather, a stricter policing of DRV, with greater administrator oversight, so that we don't see a second AfD being re-fought. Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, it's absurd that people who are complaining about extensive process go at this through another process instead of trying to discuss the issue somewhere. Everyone knows this will lead to nothing and equates to a random protest that wastes everyone's time. - Bobet 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Would you have me do an Uncle Ed on this? [ælfəks] 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}} the wub "?!" 14:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can't edit people. This is a social problem. [ælfəks] 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep You're failing to understand one of the biggest perks of Wikipedia, the fact that nothing is irreversible. If something was incorrectly done, there is still a second chance to restore something and have the right thing occur. Just because the process is wonked out does not merit deletion, it merits an overhaul and proposal. If this page was deleted it would created a completely unnecessary mess. This page is a necessity for Wikipedia in keeping everything in order. You can't fix people, but you can sway their opinions through civility and strength of argument. Just deleting it because it doesn't quite function in the best fashion you believe doesn't fix a problem, it feeds a fire. Yanksox 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• As Mackensen and others have said above... it's broken. But is deletion the way? I'd rather see this page and process fixed than deleted. It's way too process heavy (it has VOTING!... people focus on whether process was followed in a very structured, processy way!) and creaky, and it seems that a lot of good actions get overturned. But we need a process of some sort. I'm not sure that Articles for UnDeletion (AFUN!! cool acronym) would cover all of the things, as more than articles may need review. Still, this is a wiki. If those nominating it replace it with a better mechanism, I'm fine. And if they don't, if we get wheel wars and more strife instead of improvement, I'l undelete this page myself. Delete ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy raze and salt the earth! Wikipedia's entire array of deletion mechanisms is a swamp of vitriol that should be immediately drained and the alligators sent elsewhere. ➥the Epopt 14:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.