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.
Just passing by due to a cross-post, but could a script be written to deal with this, similar to how Twinkle takes care of all of the XFD nomination steps? Primefac (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sounds more like a script is needed. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over half the time, even the first template (((drv2)), on the deletion review subpage (no, there's no ((drv1)))) gets filled out wrong. The deletion discussion isn't linked, or the wrong one's linked, a non-deletion-discussion is linked in the xfd field, or a full url is used for the deletion discussion or page name or both, or even the page name is wrong. Mostly it's me who ends up cleaning it up and placing ((delrevxfd)) and sometimes ((drvnote)), and the problems aren't consistent enough that I've ever considered automating it. A bot that assumes the first step was done right is going to break at least two other pages and probably end up being a net increase in manual labor. —Cryptic 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Wouldn't the bot or script detect incorrectly-formatted ((drv2)) templates in order to prevent errors like this? Jarble (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jarble, as a bot op, no. There are a million different ways editors can mess up wikitext. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If users screw up the ((drv2)) over half the time, that seems like the bot would run into too much GIGO to be useful. Anomie⚔ 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, it gives more reason to have a script, as there can be #ifexist checks and the like to make sure things are input properly. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to incorporating functionality into something like Twinkle or Ultraviolet (with preference towards the latter). — Frostly (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automating this would be great. But the process wasn't too horrible... SmolBrane (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I have to look at the instructions again every time I close DRV, and dearly miss WP:XFDCLOSER. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for undeleting the article: Salman Farhan Sudi[edit]
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.
Retrieval of Deleted Draft Content : YogiGuru Saugaato[edit]
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)[reply]
The draft was deleted because it was a blatant advertisement. Such content is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you truly have no intentions of publishing this content on Wikipedia again, it may be possible to ask one of the admins who deleted it, Jimfbleak or Seraphimblade, to email its contents to you (note that they are not required to do this) Mach61 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
((DRV notice)) has a parameter that makes the "a deletion review" link point to a log subpage. (Example.) Whoever left that on your talk page didn't use it, so the best the template could do was point at Wikipedia:Deletion review#File:The sun1.jpg. —Cryptic 20:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth changing ((DRV notice)) so that - in the absence of the |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)[reply]
I think it would be more harmful to point at the wrong log subpage than to point at DRV proper. If someone notifies late - either because someone yelled at the original requester for not notifying, or they're less of a jerk and are just doing it for them - and the template's not invoked until after midnight UTC, they're left pointing at the wrong page entirely with no hint of what went wrong.I suspect most people besides me just paste the drv notice syntax from either the log page's commented text or from step II.2 of WP:DELREVD. (I don't, for example, ever recall seeing anything other than "An editor" at the start of the notice when I've checked to see if someone's been notified.) If ((DRV notice)) could accept an explicit date instead of the horrifically unfriendly days=0 syntax, we could make at least the commented text always be right ("<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving ((subst:DRVNote|log=2024 February 22|page name)) on their talk page."...), and the instructions at DELREVD at least be obviously wrong if you're notifying for a previous date. —Cryptic 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an interface for getting the current revision of a page in the Scribunto documentation (I'd expect it to be in the title object). I know it's not possible short of that. —Cryptic 23:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation for what it's using says it's disabled on WMF wikis. Serves me right for trusting it. —Cryptic 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the other issue with permalinks is that there's no section edit links unless you're still pointing at the current revision. If Fastily were only now seeing the notification for yesterday's review of File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg, the link would look like Special:Permalink/1209451477#File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg; that would let him see the discussion but have no way to edit it other than clicking on the only-barely-intuitively-linked date header. —Cryptic 19:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the correct procedure is demanding a presentation of a draft that is prima facie worthy of a review, and if it seems that thre is no prospect for that submission to even be reviewed because it is obviously not worthy of a review, and a few participants have noted so, the DRV can be speedily closed as 'speedy endorse' due to no prospect of success. There must be a path to recreation. We can not know that BDFI will not be a notable topic in the future. If I start believing that BDFI has become a notable topic I will want to create an article, I will be able to draft something suitable for a quick review at DRV, and I will not be satisfied with my submission being dismissed on purely formal grounds (a fantasy scenario, don't take it at face value). —Alalch E. 22:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]