This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. historical revision history

I don't really follow the actual DRV closes, but my sense is that it is not often that DRV results in an outcome different from what the closing admin posted. The rare overturn outcome of List of bow tie wearers got me thinking. Are there statistics somewhere that indicate how often DRV's outcome is different from the XfD reviewed? I think such stats would help give those desiring to post a DRV request a better sense of what they are up against. DRV does seem to be a very good educational tool for the nominators since most participants provide suggestions, so the stats should be presented in a way that does not discourage posting DRV requests. -- Suntag ☼ 02:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any recent statistics. I know Badlydrawnjeff made some at one point, but those would be pretty old by now. It shouldn;t be too hard to get a month or two of statistics; it just depends on someone being interested and willing. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest I know of that evaluated the overturn rate are at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 9#December 2006 Deletion Statistics. Those are almost two years old. Badlydrawnjeff's are at User:Bdj/DRV is Broken and were instead an attempt to answer the question of whether or not DRV was producing the "right" outcome - and that made his data highly contentious. GRBerry 04:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just, for the first time, used this process.

I can see a pair of problems, technical ones, not process problems:

1. The Namespace in the thing we have to Subst: - it really is not clear what to put in when it is in the Article space. I got it wrong.
2. Unless it is some form of cache, when you place a review request in today's page, it only appears to get transcluded when the new date is opened and today becomes yesterday. I tried this in a browser I almost never use as well as my normal one to see if it was a local cache issue, and it is not.

So, unless it's me, which is always a possibility, it is not entirely working. Happy to be shown how wrong I am :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the template, and haven't had time to finally get around to fixing it properly. I guess now's as good a time as ever. It should be done in not too long (meaning up to a week).

I'm not sure what's going on with the latter. Like you said, it shows up fine now. It's possible there was an issue with the server cache. I don't visit the actual WP:DRV page often (I usually navigate directly to the log pages), so I don't know if this is a recurring issue. If it looks like it's happening again, try this link. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. Only slightly longer, now just using a #switch. Should be nearly bug-free now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you've tried this check for #2: Put a temporary piece of text on the current day's paage; See if that is transcluded in a normal way; see if the turning of midnight (presumably "server time"?) changes that. I don't want to try this because I'm "nothing to do with the page" and have no skills in the rather arcane templating language.

Kudos for sorting the other out at a technical level. I've not looked at the instructions, they were pretty "huh?" too. Mind you it does no harm frightening the unwashed off! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When someebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

• I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

• OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really something that this talk page can help with. Supposing that either of your suggestions are implemented, DRV will still be where they're reviewed. If you haven't yet, try hitting up WT:DEL and WT:DELPRO. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. If we nip this in the bud, perhaps you won't have so many things ending up here because they were (or were not) judged by the proper criteria for deletion to begin with. SBHarris 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get That Guy with the Glasses added to the log. It shows up as a subpage, and you can see the entry if you click today's date in the log, but the discussion is not visible like others in the log, and the link from the article doesn't work either. Never done one of these before, and I can't tell what I'm doing wrong. Help please. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

My extensive work on this Article was intended to assist professors of law evaluate this useful caselaw textbook for their use in the exercise of their profession as academic lawyers. I myself--as it would have become clear to the reader had he or she chose to investigate the available ancillary article information--inserted the "

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template, in an attempt at rule compliance.

It remains a travesty of justice that this Article was summarily deleted. Its inclusion would have done honor and justice to the great endeavor that is Wikipedia. I challenge the Wikipedian--if he or she has the courage--to identify himself or herself to me, on this Wikipedia talkpage or otherwise, ex gratia to paul.gill@usa.com--to answer as to why this important Article was destroyed.

I am not interested in the citation of the Wikipedia rules--with which I clearly was in the process of compliance, as each Wikipedian has reasonable latitude--but I am instead interested in being told, in and with preciseness of exactitude--again, if you have the courage--without passion or prejudice, why this was done.

Small-minded and closed-minded obfuscatory attempts to explain yourself are not acceptable and do no justice to the academic freedom that Wikipedia stands for. Although it is a universal and absolute axiom that actions always "speak louder" than words, I require you to explain yourself and the context of this destructive act. The Article was about the application of rules of law; your response should, in turn, cite the application of your destructive, even desecratory, act, without caprice.

I cannot see the redeeming worth of your despicable act. That does not necessarily mean one does not exist; simply, that I assert that unwarrranted caprice was inflicted here, in this precise and specific instance.

Professor Scott's work and academic freedom were compromised given your choice to take this unwarranted and reprehensible action. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School that Prof. Scott represents was similarly harassed in your actions. However, as Wikipedian and author of the work that would have comprised this descriptive and helpful Wikipedia article, I require your response be given to me. I am a graduate and alumnus of Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

John Paul Nelson Gill, D.Jur.

Hahbie 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the article in question is at Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work, and the above is a duplicate of what's posted to the article talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how anybody was "harassed" by anything that happened here, and Wikipedia is not responsible for anybody's academic freedom. Nobody has the "right" to post anything on Wikipedia. We, as Wikipedia contributors, are responsible to the encyclopedia, and therefore to the consensus of the community of Wikipedia editors on how to run the encyclopedia. Should you wish to contest the deletion, you may file a request at WP:DRV, by following the directions there. Otherwise, letters such as the one above will get you nowhere, and will in fact hurt your cause amongst Wikipedians. Please refrain from repeating such counterproductive actions. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, I closed a DRV decision as "no consensus to overturn deletion". The nominator, in good faith, thinks that I evaluated the debate incorrectly. Can a WP:DRV debate be started about whether the previous DRV debate was closed incorrectly? Or do they have to take it to WP:AN?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but generally DRV is the end of the line. Unless there was blatant wrongdoing on the part of the admin, it's not likely to get overturned. They can go to AN if they want, but it'll likely be turned aside. The usual response to someone is to have them examine why the article was deleted, and write a new draft in their Userspace that addresses the problems with the article. Depending on the original article, if you feel it can be salvaged, the deleted version can be copied to their userspace for them to work on. Once they have a draft, they can post a new DRV request to have folks re-evaluate the article and see if it fixed the problems. If the user goes that route, I'd suggest abstaining from the discussion unless asked to explain your decision. Hope that helps! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In practice, if someone has a new draft, or new arguments, they start another DRV. Some articles have gone to several DRVs. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the page in question was actually a userpage, so you can't really userfy it. :) I've already advised the user to go to WP:AN, I was just wondering if I should've advised them that starting another WP:DRV to appeal my closure of the first WP:DRV discussion was also an option.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you did fine. I can only see the need for another DRV if the issues of shortcoming are addressed, and the reposting to DRV specifically addresses how they were taken care of. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

At 21:11, 22 October 2008, I posted above "If someone object to a DRV close, could they list the DRV at DRV?" to which GRBerry replied, "Attempting a DRV of a DRV has happened, though not successfully. From time to time, asking for a more senior DRV hand to review a DRV close has had results, but those cases are once or twice a year type things. ... GRBerry 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)" An additional way to resolve your question, Aervanath, would be to suggest to the editor to look over the past 30 days of DRV closes and ask one or two recent closer whether they thought your close should be change. If some other recent closer thinks it should be change, then you can work with them to address a reclose. If not, that would seem to be the end of the line for process review. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Deletion review review? 140.247.248.104 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a few deletion review decisions "reviewed" at DRV. Most of the time it wasn't worth the effort, since a good deal of the conversation consisted of folks amusing themselves at the irony of it all. If something truly AWFUL happened at DRV, I might consider posting a notice at AN, but for run of the mill decisions where the outcome is somehow unfavorable, the dispute resolution chain might work best. By this I mean content RfCs, noticeboards, etc. Not a conduct RfC on the closer. And the comments above noting that multiple deletion reviews have been made for articles where consensus or evidence changes are correct. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual on the happily rare occasions when I want to nominate one of these, I followed the template instuctions carefully, producing a pile-up on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 18 which any attempt on my part to sort out will only make worse. It doesn't appear on the main page & is generally screwed up, though all the information is there. Can anyone kindly sort it out? Obviously some people manage to use the template successfully, though God knows how. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok User:PhilKnight has kindly sorted. I see from the page above I'm far from alone in having difficulties here. Can anything be done to make the instructions clearer? Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the prior-to-December-22,2004 deletion logs were never restored. I believe there was an Alice Crimmins article, but was unable to find one using the deletion log for the period since that date. I would like an admin with access to to indicate if there was an Alice Crimmins article or not in the Wikipedia. If there was an article, could I obtain a deletion review for it? The process seems to presume that the text is available in the article's deletion history. patsw (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look and personally cannot find a record of such an article. Davewild (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The older deletions are still listed at Wikipedia:Deletion log's subpages. If you knew a specific date for a deletion, you could look it up from those, but manually going through each isn't very practical. Neither google nor wikipedia's search (in the Wikipedia-namespace, which should include the old deletion logs) come up with anything that would indicate there ever was an article with that title. - Bobet 08:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing showing up at Special:Undelete either. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a limit on how long since an article can asked to be reviewed after being deleted? The reason I ask is that the List of ship launches in 1946 was deleted with two delete votes and no support back in 2006. It was commented that the list should be referred to WP:SHIPS but this wasn't done. I have asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and am awaiting his response. I have also informed the nominator that I have done this. What would be the correct procedure here? If the article is restored, then the material that existed then would be restored. If the article has to be recreated from scratch, then the material that was included at deletion would have to be recreated from scratch too. I suspect that a DRV would, on the face of it conclude that the original deletion was correct according to the votes given at the time. However, my opinion is that if the article existed now as it was when listed at AfD, the result of the debate would be to keep it. How do we get round this? One solution would be to restore it and relist at AfD to see what the consensus is now. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article has been restored after a discussion at WP:SHIPS so this case seems closed but the general question is still interesting. The best solution in such cases is often userfication, where the deleted content is restored and then moved to the requestors userspace for improvement before being moved back to mainspace. That way the deleted content is available, with proper atribution, for use in the article, but the concerns of the AfD can be addressed before the result is de facto overturned and the article fully returns. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The article was restored once it was clear that there would be sufficient material to vastly expand from the original deleted version, thus the concerns in the AfD debate were addressed. The deleting admin was happy that discussion was taking place and nobody was rushing to recreate the article until consensus had been gained that it should be recreated. I tagged the talk page with the deletion banner, and the reason it was restored. I'd be interested to hear what others think is best in these cases though. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Eluchi is right; generally a userfication is the best way; most admins will do it for you. A list of them can be found at CAT:RESTORE. Once you're ready to put it back into mainspace, then I would re-read the original Afd. If you're confident the concerns have been addressed, then just be bold and move it back. If you're not that sure, or someone objects, then the guidelines at DRV say you should first discuss it with the deleting admin. If the admin thinks the issues have been resolved, then there's no problem in replacing it into mainspace. You only take it to DRV if the admin doesn't think the original concerns have been addressed. In cases where the deleting admin does not respond to queries, then you should take it to DRV to get more comments. I hope this is clearly written, since it's almost 5am here. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep, makes sense here. I was erring on the side of caution rather than being bold. I'm sure you'll agree that the resurrected article is much better than the one that was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So I was browsing archives and The Well (Church) was approved to restore at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19; but the article (which subsequently survived an AfD) was copy-and-paste recreated at The Well (church), and its old history never properly restored. What's the right course of action here? Should it be treated like a copy-and-paste move? Dcoetzee 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it was restored by the DRV and then kept at the Afd, then there's no problem with treating it like any other cut-and-paste move. I've now merged the histories, so no problems there.--Aervanath (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly, but there is something on this page (JavaScript most likely) and only this page that brings my browser to a crawl. Please remove whatever it is. SharkD (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I added an entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_2 - but it doesn't seem to be showing up on the main page. Thought I followed all the procedures properly; can someone take a look and tweak, if need be? Thanks .. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Showing up just fine here. You may need to flush your browser's cache. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is lots of information on this so there should be a page about it but it is being blocked.

I am ironbatman (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to go onto the main page and request it be unblocked. However, your best bet is to write an article in your user space (such as User:I am ironbatman/Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series and then go to DRV to request your version be moved to article space. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE: Charles Laquidara has, for several months, begged in vain for someone-anyone- of the many Wikipedia editors to make any corrections or changes in my bio which they deem necessary, in order for it not to have that ugly “citation” at the beginning of this page, (a citation which implies negatively that there are some lines in the content there-in that are illegal, immoral or just plain inappropriate and should be dealt with at some point before the (said) ugly “citation” can be made to go away). Charles pleads guilty to having written some passages that were, in retrospect, self-serving and he now regrets having done so and is just hoping to have a simple, no-frills biography posted on these Wikipedia pages.

Charles has already written several e-mails to these editors, who continually ignore him because he is obviously not qualified to even complain if he doesn't speak “Wikipedian” and can't figure out how to properly address this issue on the discussion pages.

Charles- not being a computer expert and, in fact, being pretty much of an ignoramus about these matters (He was a DISC JOCKEY for God's sake!) cannot for the life of him ascertain how to approach this problem in the proper Wikipedian manner using the Wikipedia criteria set forth in hundreds of pages of rules and regulations. Charles has even suggested (as a last resort) that if necessary, perhaps someone on the editorial board-if they weren't able to just change and/or edit out the “offending sentences”- could delete his entire biography ... but, alas! to no avail- his pleas continue to fall upon deaf ears.. and poor Charles has no way of dealing with the problem, except to kvetch here and now on this “edit page” hoping that someone out there will take notice and do something- anything- to make that ominous, ugly “citation” disappear once and for all. To make it more official: I, Charles Laquidara, hereby do swear that I am giving the editors of Wikipedia absolute authority and permission to make any changes which they feel necessary to this biography in order to make the below information appropriate to their standards of Wikipedia excellence. Mahalo. Laquidara (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have dealt with Mr. Laquidara's concerns.--Aervanath (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding the how things work here. A discussion takes place regarding deletion, merge and redirect; and the decision is to redirect. So how is a redirect considered proper when the article being redirected to makes no mention of the article being redirect to it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trunnell Elementary School Does one simply assume that since this is a school name and since it is being redirected to Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky) that it must be part of that school district? And if that is the case, should there not be a redirect for every elementary school to a parent article? Dbiel ^(Talk) 10:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the easiest thing to do here would be to add the mention of the school to the Jefferson County school system article.--Aervanath (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Listing a page on DRV can be a daunting task because the current DRV templates and their syntax are not very flexible or user-friendly. They don't do well with requests to overturn RfDs, requests to overturn a second deletion nomination, or grouped requests to undelete multiple files. To remedy this problem I've created two new templates: Template:drv2 and Template:DRV links. Here are some examples:

Example 1

((subst:drv2
|page=Fooo
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
))

Fooo

Fooo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Example 2

((subst:drv2
|page=Fooo
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fooo (2nd nomination)
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
))

Fooo

Fooo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Example 3

((subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~
))

File:Foo.png

File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Example 4

====Images related to foo====
* ((DRV links|File:Foo.png|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo))
* ((DRV links|File:Foobar.jpeg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foobar.jpeg|article=Foo))
* ((DRV links|File:Fubar.svg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Fubar.svg|article=Foo))

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. ~~~~

Images related to foo

• File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
• File:Foobar.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
• File:Fubar.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

My goal here was to make these templates easy to use, straightforward, and flexible. If there are no objections then I'll add documentation and update the instructions to say to use these templates instead of the old ones. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objection. I certainly know that the templates have tripped me up before. Thanks for work. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No objections here.--Aervanath (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Two major problems to fix, based on my sandbox testing.
  1. The google cache piece is broken for any namespace. It failed for every example I tried, though the failure pattern is different depending on whether or not there is a space in the full name (namespace name + page name) of the page.
  2. The logs link is broken when a space character appears in the namespace name, namely for any talk namespace other than article talk, but works fine if there is a space character in the page name. GRBerry 17:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing those out! Those issues are now fixed, for example:
    • ((DRV links|Template talk:Foo))
    • Template talk:Foo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The cache link is still not working, but at least you fixed the space issue. Your cache link does not link to Google's cache, it links to a google search for both the word cache and the page title. This is significantly less useful than the current template. You want a url of the form http://www.google.com/search?q=cache=XXX where XXX is the actual URL the page had when it existed (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page name for article space or or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace:page name for other namespaces).
    • I also think the template should return the AFD link whether or not the nominator supplies an XFD, whether or not there was one is highly relevant information, and we should know whether or not the nominator chooses to point out a particular one. We just have to live with the possibility that the nominator doesn't list one and one later than the first is relevant, but experienced DRV hands already know to look for that. GRBerry 19:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, the cache link works now. I don't want to complicate things by adding too many options or behaviors, but I did add some useful defaults. If the user does not supply an XfD and an AfD or MfD page corresponds to the deleted page, that AfD or MfD page is used for the XfD link. For example:
        • ((DRV links|Foo)) = Foo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
        • ((DRV links|Talk:Guns n roses lyrics)) =

        Talk:Guns n roses lyrics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

      • So, if you do not see an XfD link, rest assured that there was no AfD or MfD for that page. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks to GRBerry for taking the time to look at these more closely. All the concerns raised have been dealt with to my satisfaction. Pending the raing of additional concerns I believe that these templates are ready to go live. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Okay, I've updated the instructions to say to use the new templates. I've also improved the page header system so that only one line of code appears at the top of each log page instead of 10. Please let me know if there are any problems with the new system. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been pretty inactive for a few months, and I'm just starting to get involved in Wikipedia again. Therefore, I'm reluctant to be very assertive about something that may have changed while I wasn't looking. Hence, I'm asking here.

Is it still true that we require articles to be verifiable in independent reliable sources? I ask because I saw an article kept in AfD when nobody even suggested that there was coverage in independent sources. Most arguments ran along the lines of: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so why not keep this one, too? The closing admin told me he closed as no consensus because there were experienced editors on both sides. Apparently whether they were arguing from policy or not just doesn't matter?

So, what's up? Have we started keeping articles whose contents can't be verified in independent sources, and... if so, why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No such change has been made that I've seen, and I'd have surely noticed the kerfluffle such a change would cause.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No sensible editor would advocate keeping articles where the subject lacks proper coverage. But, we get lots of clueless people spouting irrelevant nonsense on AFDs. It sucks when admins are among the clueless people, but it happens. Just ignore whoever is clueless and do the right thing. Friday (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I was just reluctant to be as BOLD as I normally might, given my recent sabbatical. This is going to make waves, but I think it's worth it: Lsongs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We have not been keeping articles where the contents cannot be verified and I hope we never shall; we have been a little more flexible in keeping articles where the contents have not yet been verified, or where the sources may be somewhat other than the traditional ones. i think thise are positive developments and will rescue good articles. Think carefully, please, before you oppose this trend. DGG (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review contains a prominent notice that instructs editors to "please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)" before starting a new deletion review. I would like to propose that we begin actually enforcing this notice.

I know that this issue has been discussed on other occasions and there has never been consensus to close DRVs solely because the initiator did not attempt discuss the matter with the closing admin. What I would like to propose is to temporarily place DRVs where there has been no prior attempt to resolve the issue in "pending" status. When a discussion is in pending status, it could look something like this:

Article (pending)

If an informal resolution (i.e. on a talk page, between the closing admin and the initiator of the deletion review) is not reached (within 24 hours, for instance), whether due to disagreement, the closer saying "take it to DRV", or the closer not responding, the discussion can be re-opened (by anyone) and allowed to proceed as normal.

It's an idea that's been in my head for a few days and I want to see what everyone else thinks about it. So, any thoughts? Is it a good idea, a terrible idea, a CREEPy idea, a solution in search of a problem, heresy, and/or proof of God or Satan (that last one probably is heresy in some jurisdictions...)? If there is support for the idea, a few tweaks to the instructions on this page and to Template:DRV top are all that would be needed. If there isn't, that's fine too, as long as you don't burn me at the stake—after all, we have to think of global warming. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My only comment is that 24 hours might be too short. There are one or two admins that have a real life. Or so I've heard... ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this will put another, perhaps unneccessary, layer on an already complicated and slightly formalized process. And not always will the people involved like to discuss it with the deleting admin (perceived bias, ownership issues et. al). Lectonar (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This will just be another obstacle. We want to facilitate review of administrative functions... too many wp editors are scared of admins as it is. The message currently used was worked out by Stifle and myself jointly to try to give the right balance of encouragement to ask first without being too forbidding towards those who don't. I think we've got a good balance here and we should continue using it . response in the week or two it has been in effect has been positive. We may have fixed this, and if he and I could actually agree on this after fighting each other for months about it, please give it a chance. If we could agree on this in spite of everything we've said to each other maybe we can go on to solve all the other problems of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG on this one. The current message is more strongly worded than it used to be. If you'd like people to discuss with the admins, you could just follow Stifle's practice of opposing DRV's if the nominator doesn't provide a link to any discussion with the deleting nom.--Aervanath (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was unaware that the current message was the result of months of discussion, and I have no desire to upset the compromise that was reached. Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to pipe up, I only oppose DRVs by default when the nominator fails to respond to my request for explanation (which I treat, to use a legal team, as failure to prosecute the appeal). If the nominator replies with any sort of explanation, I will almost always consider the DRV on its merits. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• No need to further formalize the process or otherwise make it harder to start a DRV. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would it be better to rename ((Deletion review log header)) to ((Deletion review daily header)), and create a ((Deletion review monthly header)) for the monthly log pages? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now had two AfD closes go to DRV and not known about them - one of them closed before I found out it had even opened. Is it a requirement for the closing admin to be notified or not? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a requirement, but certainly normally an expectation. As a counter-example, if the nomination is "the AFD was closed correctly, but I've found this additional information..." then the AFD is not under challenge and the AFD closer's opinion is neither more nor less valuable than anybody elses. And lately there has been a stronger push to get people to talk to AFD closing admins before opening a DRV, which may be leading to less attention to notifying closers after a DRV is opened than there used to be. Lovely little statistics challenge there if anyone wants to pick it up. GRBerry 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My close was challenged at the DRV for Alexis Grace, and I only found out about it by chance yesterday morning (UTC) after it had close. Which was a shame, as I was asked to consider all kinds of things in that debate and never got the chance. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question. Please feel free to move if another place is more appropriate.

It is often stated that this isn't AfD2. However, this raises a question (which has seen some discussion in a recent DrV). Articles can (and are) sent to AfD many times. Sometimes they are deleted after many keep results. Say that there was nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. Can it ever legitimately come to DrV? After all things can change. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not AFD2 is a shorthand way of saying that the issues to discuss here are different from those to be discussed at AFD. If an article was kept at AFD and there is nothing procedurally/substantively wrong with the AFD or its close, then AFD remains the proper venue if things change. If an article was deleted at AFD, and new data has come to light - e.g. new sourcing for someone whose career has progressed - then it may or may not be appropriate to bring it to DRV. If an editor can write a new article that would escape WP:CSD#G4 and the page is not salted, it is usually better to do so than to bring it to DRV. If the editor is not certain if the new sources are enough or if the page is salted, then DRV could well be a good idea. GRBerry 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And if the AfD result was just wrong? As noted before, people who feel "keep" results are wrong can (and do) bring them back to AfD (again and again and again) until they get the result they want. Assuming we had the "perfect" article on a topic and it got deleted (which could happen if notability was in debate) what is the process for trying to bring it back? As WP:CCC, there needs to be a way. Hobit (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Define wrong? If you mean "I" disagree with the result, then that's pretty much what the not AfD2 is about. If you mean the argument wasn't weighed fairly or in line with general community consensus (as is tied up in our body of policy and guidelines as well as the debate itself) then that's DRV fodder, but there can be a fine line between the two. I can sympathise with the repeat AfD issue, though I was of the impression that relisting frequently when previous debates have been clear keep (rather than borderline or no-consensus) and very quickly after the last debate are often seen as disruptive (e.g. WP:POINT gaming the system). I'm not sure I agree that notibility should skew a debate so far that the only way to revive it is to bring it to DRV without further input. The things will be (i) If it's notable then in the intervening time there is likely to be more coverage about it, so more sourcing etc. to meet the WP:GNG, i.e. the reasons for deletion are overcome so either review or recreation are in order (recreation with the new sourcing that is.) (ii) in terms of the more general change of consensus, this maybe another reason to bring something to DRV, but not just a vague handwave towards CCC, show some evidence that consensus has indeed shifted, if the notability guideline has changed then show that in the DRV request, if a slew of recent and obviously similar articles have been kept at a deletion debate, then show that etc. The main thing is it shouldn't just be bringing up the same arguements about the same material which have already reached a consensus at AfD --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just recently I saw something deleted on AfD 4 (or 5?) and the !vote consensus was keep. It happens and in fact the admin discounted "NOTAGAIN" as a weak argument to keep. So if we are going to allow that kind of thing, we should be allowing DrV as AfD2. Or just not allow that kind of thing. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is that why would we have DRV as AfD2? We'd just allow relisting at AfD, entertaining the same basic argument in 2 venues is pointless and likely to lead to more inconsistency in the process. There are also people who will read an argument there way regardless (or have some vested interest etc.) we don't want to be contintually revisting the same debate. Could AfD really take being inundated with replays of the 1000 upon 1000 of debates someone thought was just wrong? Regardless DRV has no special say, it couldn't decide that it can now replace it's AfD argument with the real one, you'd need to start a separate community to debate to reach consensus on that.

Regarding NOTAGAIN there are a couple of things, if the admin gave it too much weight (in this instance against) then that maybe a DRV issue anyway. Without seeing the debate it's hard to tell, but if someone genuinely raised new deletion issues then people failing to respond to those new issues is of course pretty weak, "we said last time that it is verifiable, so we aren't going to check if it's OR" is weak, if the deletion request was pretty much the same as a recent one, then references to the recent devate should be fine. If you want to change the perception of NOTAGAIN, then here is not the place, but a debate elsewhere showing a community consensus that they think it has a better amount of weight would certainly change things. (Remeber policy/guideline based arguements in debates get more weight because they reflect the broader community consensus). And there is of course the opportunity to educate people that NOTAGAIN arguments are often seen as weak. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt that "consensus can change" is a valid reason for DRV. That being said, consensus is unlikely to change over a couple of weeks and that's a stronger arguement for a DRV after 6 months, maybe a year. Also, in those cases it's often a better idea to create a userpage draft to present to DRV or RfC (a userpage draft accepted by RfC will be unlikely to be exposed to CSD). "Not AfD2" is (or should be) used when something is escalated immediately after the AfD with no motivation for DRV other than "I think this AfD reached the wrong result so I want to try again here" or some derivative of the same logic. Since consensus is what the encyclopaedia is based on, an AfD that has followed process and reached a consensus can't be wrong - it's annoying when that goes against you but such is life. If it has broken process or the closer didn't adhere to consensus (which is within the remit of the admin, AfD is not a vote) then it is certainly applicable for DRV. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that there is no requirement to open a DRV if you want to re-create an article from scratch. If you can create an article that overcomes the deletion reasons from the Afd, then be bold and do it. That article can then be Afd'ed if someone wants to, but there's no reason to tie up DRV with this kind of re-creation request, unless the title has been create-protected.--Aervanath (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

perhaps we might emphasise this a little more in the instructions, at at various other places. DGG (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that, although I'm not sure exactly what changes to make. Suggestions?--Aervanath (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a guideline be introduced to the WP:DRV process which makes it adds two aspects to DRV. Obviously these would need to be worded differently but here is the jist of it.

1. In cases where the process or closure of an AfD is questioned, it should be mandatory to notify the closing administrator of the DRV before it is in turn closed. The closing administrator should be given 3 days to respond to the DRV. A template can be created to timestamp notification of the closing admin in the DRV.

2. In cases where no snowball or speedy closure of the DRV is realistic and where the content of the deleted material is not potentially copyvio, attack or otherwise unacceptable, it should be recommended for the content of the article being discussed to be temporarily recreated to allow non-admin users to study it. To avoid indexation and search inclusion of deleted material the material should be moved to DRVPAGE/PAGENAME for the duration of the DRV. For example, the recreation of TurnKey Linux (DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29) would be done to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29/TurnKey Linux.

I appreciate the feedback of the community. I would also, longer term, like to see notification of the nominator and maybe all contributors to the previous AfD, but I leave that out of this version of this discussion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to recreate the content - if it seems a good idea, the history can be recreated and anyone can view the history. We have already had one case where what may have been a publicity attempt about a timed event was recreated for DRV because the Admin recreating it had not been aware of the time issue - when he learned about it he re-deleted fortunately. I'm not convinced that moving it would stop indexing/search, since it doesn't with User pages. I'm happy with mandatory notification but are you suggesting that the DRV doesn't take place until the Admin has a chance to reply? That's what I'd prefer. Notification and immediate DRV, which I've also seen recently, isn't satisfactory. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look for example at a search for "deletion review" in the search engine. I have no problem with a blanked version of the page being recreated to allow people to look at historic versions, the main goal is simply that I (yes, I'm that egoistic) should be able to see the content being discussed. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How about I nominate you for RFA then? =D Stifle (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that egoistic? :-D Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going in the right general direction, but may duplicate what's already there. For one thing, the instructions already say that you're supposed to notify the admin who closed the discussion; adding a rule saying "you're really supposed to notify the admin" won't help.

Also, the vast majority of the time, an admin will restore deleted pages on request (under a ((tempundelete))) for inspection at DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's already there as a suggestion, but this would formalize it further, giving an explicit reason to reopen if the admin wasn't notified. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that I would like the guidance to say that only the history should be made visible during a DRV. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with all of it other than the 3 days. There are admins (Stifle I think is an example) who prefer you go to DrV directly and in any case it adds a layer of bureaucracy. I do think admins need to be contacted and it is a good idea to wait for their response in general. But their lack of response shouldn't hold things up. Heck, if there were a trivial way to do it, I'd like to see all participants notified of the DrV too. Oh, and history-only would be the way to do the undelete. Or maybe automatic userfication (though that opens up a can of worms). Hobit (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of automatic userfication notice my comment above about moving it into the Wikipedia namespace. It would still appear as a result in a google search though, even though it would disappear from wikipedias search unless that search contained a namespace declaration. I suppose the DRV noms namespace could work just as well but there could be a conflict for example if the nom already had a userpage with that name. The important thing is that the content is always available, most people taking part in DRV will know how to navigate a history so thats a fine solution as far as I'm concerned. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to putting any additional burden on a person appealing an administrative decision. Though it would be nice if the asked in the most effective and efficient ways possible, and avoided formal process when it is not necessary, any way of appealing should be acceptable. If they do it wrong, we just fix it up and move it to the right place and proceed as best we can. Most ordinary users are scared of admins. We admins may think this absurd, but we should consider what it is in our own behavior that has encouraged this feeling: that's what really needs fixing. One bad experience with an admin, and most editors will never as an admin anything again: a few rude or indifferent admins can poison the system. Even talking about the great majority of admins, who are polite and careful, there are enough incorrect admin actions that we should actively encourage people to use informal channels,and if they feel more comfortable, formal ones. I know I have at least a 1% error rate at Speedy, and I would guess that at least 10% of XfDs could use some looking at. We should be getting at least 20 cases a day here, about 10 of which will turn out to be meritorious. If they don't notify then nominator, someone else should. We should get a bot or script to do it, but if not, people here will. From experience here, going first to the admin will not solve more than a small fraction of the problems that come to DRV.

As for making articles visible,this should be a matter of course except in major BLP violations, and copyvio. . I don't really care where it goes, because it's only a few days. We should get a bot or script to do it, but if not, people here will. If we want to keep things out of search engines, we can mark them at the top of the article as DGG (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT with Glen Gale means this was posted w/o reading his post.

I completely agree on the first point, and I think a bot which did the notifications would be amazing, until then however, and for my lack of ability to code that bot, the suggestion above certainly wasn't that we would ignore a DRV request where the requestor didn't notify the Admin! The suggestion was that closing the DRV without notifying the admin would be wrong. Since closing of DRV is almost exclusively done by admins (is there NAC for DRV at all?) this would be adding a single further item to the checklist of the closing admin. Notifying the admin (and adding the "admin notified" note in the debate), if forgotten by the nom, could be done by anyone - just like linking to the AfD. I know badmins are a problem, I myself hesitated for a long time to contact admins, not from any bad experience in particular but just from a general fear of what is percieved as "authority"... :-/

With regard to visible articles I don't think this is about whether they should be visible (all the same reservations about BLP, copyvio attack etc notwithstanding) but rather how. I've seen four suggestions so far:

1. Flag the article with ((tempundelete)) and leave it in mainspace with a marker.
2. Blank the article in mainspace and replace it with a ((tempundelete)) flag, making the history visible.
3. move the articles into another namespace while leaving them full but ((tempundelete)) marked.
4. Blank the article and replace it with a ((tempundelete)) (common trend anyone?) flag AND move it into another namespace.

My personal favourite might be 1 or 3 but I'm happy with 2 or 4 and understand the concern that people have about the content in being immediately visible with 1 and 3...

Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV has to do more with topic than content. Deleted content isn't needed for a check on reliable sources to be had on a topic, towards a take on notability. I think it's wonderful when an admin gets told about a thread having to do with a close they've made but I wouldn't want to see a DRV cut short only because someone forgot (or didn't want) to copy-paste something onto an admin's talk page. Besides, I can't think of any time a DRV on a close I made went for more than a few days without my hearing about it from someone. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that would depend on circumstance? With a closing arguement like "That article was clearly written in adspeak, it wasn't salvagable", "contained nothing worth mentioning" or "no references were made to sources given" and a DRV nom who is saying that simply wasn't true, it greatly improves the ability to see whether this is accurate or not if you can see the article... Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean but the only pith in a DRV is whether the topic is notable. Any text written by an editor, whatever it is, has nothing to do with the topic's notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, you seem to have forgotten the existence of WP:NOT. (I too sometimes feel this way about that particular page of ill-assorted policies:) .) There are many reasons for an article to be unacceptable besides lacking notability. More basically, we do not judge topics at AfD. it's about actual articles, not whether an article could conceivably be written. DGG (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If a topic is notable it can always be rewritten (fixing the copyvio, soapboxing, OR, advertisement, BLP stuff, lack of any assertion of notability, whatever). It's all about notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But even with that logic there can be use for the article content to establish notability. Remember from above that we cannot place the highest demands on the users who bring items to DRV as they have, in many cases, only just begun editting. As such, we can't expect them to bring all the data needed to establish the notability of a subject to DRV, even if it was in the article as created. Likewise, the references in the article or claims made about prizes won and accomplishments, even if not yet sourced, could be useful in the effort to establish notability. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree with Usrnme h8er's points here (that admins should be notified when their decisions are appealed to DRV, and that articles should routinely be undeleted during a DRV, barring copyright and BLP issues), I don't see a need for more formal rules. Most admins will grant a request for a ((tempundelete)) during a DRV; I recently closed a DRV where DGG had done just that. As for the first, the instructions already say to notify the admin. If the admin hasn't been notified, (usually because the DRV nominator is a newbie) then someone more experienced should help them out by notifying the admin; there's no need for a formal rule. These read like instruction creep, I'm afraid. As far as keeping deleted content out of search results, why not just add _NOINDEX_ to the ((tempundelete)) template, so it's automatically done?--Aervanath (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

While I recognize and respect your point about creep (we should avoid rules and processes for their own sake) I still think this is a worthwhile change; especially point 2 and especially as a clarification of how this should be done rather than whether (so it's very much guiding, not controlling). That being said including _NOINDEX_ in the start of the template is a great idea and should probably be implemented independently of this discussion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to *require* notice to the closing admin, or to *require* article undeletion during the discussion. It seems to be understood that any admin who thinks it would be helpful can restore the article using the ((TempUndelete)) banner for reference during the discussion. In the past it has been common that the article would still be in the Google cache during the DRV, unless it was long after the AfD proper or the article had been speedy deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question to Usrnme h8er: Maybe there's something you're seeing that we're not. What do you think the difference will be between having formal regulations in these areas, as opposed to the informal process we have now? What you're proposing is already recommended; what will making it required actually change? What is the problem that formalizing this will fix?--Aervanath (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As tempting as it is to take a procedural and intellectual high ground and claim that I'm seeing soemthing you are not, I don't quite reach that level of vanity. I conceed the concern over instruction creep and have struck the former of the two suggestions. As far as the latter is concerned, some of the most prolific administrator participants in the DRV process have already participated in this discussion and have made it clear that they don't object to recreating content for the purposes of DRV. While this makes things easier for me as I won't hesitate to ask you, I still think two things can be accomplished here: to increase the proportion of pages which are recreated for reference without someone having to request it, and to agree on the modus of such a recreation (see my list above). For the time being I've added _NOINDEX_ to the beginning of the ((tempundelete)) template, if one of you could check whether I did this right, I'd appreciate it. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But there is no need to recreate the content -- people can still see it through its history (and the template can explain how to do it). Recreating the content can cause problems, and if that is to be done then I think there have to be more hoops before you can take an article to DRV. Why do something unnecessary that might be problematic? Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, when an article is "deleted", only admins can see the content. What you are describing is what I'm calling recreation followed by blanking, or suggestions 2 and 4 above. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the DRV page again, I found Wikipedia:Drv#Temporary_review, where point 1 seems to already address your concern. Maybe it should just be made more prominent, so people know that they can ask for it to be undeleted during the review? Or, even better, an edit notice could be added to the DRV log pages, so that people filing a DRV could know to request it when they file the nomination.--Aervanath (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean a history only restoration, as I think I've said above. I note that Wikipedia:Drv#Temporary_review says only uncontroversial versions will be restored, which is a bit tricky, another reason to say that any restoration should be history only. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My original intention was to make recreation a part of the process which didn't need to be explicitly requested. DGGs concerns about beginners being unwilling to contact admins with requests are well founded and I think there is a risk of excluding some members of the community from parts of DRV. I am ok with a clarification on the WP:DRV page (I think the term "temporary review" in the context of "deletion review" might be misleading as "review" is used differently) and a notice at the top of each days DRV page about this (Commented out but visible when editting) but even so I implore the admins present to undelete the histories (when not "controversial", which will have to be the judgement of the admin) even when not explicitly asked to do so. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe add a sub-header to the Instructions section. Proposed text:

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the ((tempundelete)) template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Comments/proposed modifications/objections/random abuse?--Aervanath (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Without adding more rules and regulations it simply clarifies and formalizes an existing norm. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is little need to further formalize this. If you like, you can add text to the DRV header that suggest that users may request a temp undeletion, but I don't see what good it would do to force people to undelete content unnecessarily. I should also note that contested CSD decisions should be undeleted (w/ the exception of copyvio/blp/etc.) when being reviewed at DRV (this is already written into the policy somewhere). Protonk (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a mini-drama that plays out all too often at AfD and then DRV.

There's a "no consensus" AfD. The admin closes it one of two ways:

1) "No consensus". Result: it's automatically brought back to AfD two or three weeks later, because a practically immediate fresh AfD is seen as acceptable and any !vote based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is disregarded. Therefore, a "no consensus" close is pointless and the admin might as well just re-list it immediately.

2) "Admin fiat", where the closer simply chooses whichever outcome they prefer, safe in the knowledge that any decision that's controversial at AfD is automatically controversial at DRV, which means they can be sure of "no consensus to overturn" at DRV.

What this means is that "no consensus" at AfD is an "admin fiat" outcome that can't effectively be challenged in any venue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, DRV was seen as a forum for determining cloture. Thus, if there was even a slight majority here in favor of overturning or additional discussion, said additional discussion ensued via a relisting at XFD. A clear consensus to overturn would be implemented immediately without And the working definition of consensus here was approximately "majority after discounting sockpuppets and meatpuppets". It has been a year or so since I was doing much closing, but those were the standards in the old day. GRBerry 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In "working definition of consensus here", do you mean "here" as DRV or deletion discussions in general? Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By "here" I meant DRV. In order to create cloture, DRV can't end with "no consensus", it has to make a decision either to endorse or to overturn. So DRV has to reach a decision no matter how close the DRV discussion. AFD is not intended to create cloture, so can close as no consensus and postpone the final decision for an indeterminate length of time. GRBerry 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fascinating, and pretty far from my perception of the current process. I think that in today's process, the "majority after discounting sockpuppets and meatpuppets" is often ignored with complete impunity.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I came across User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Deletion discussion closed against the numbers while reading WP:DGFA. It looks like that section hasn't changed since March 2007. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A non-consensus is not automatically brought back in two or three weeks. Many of them are never brought back, because the article gets improved or sometimes merged, or it is realised that consensus is changing & the article will be surely kept--or people lose interest in getting it deleted. Normally I would advise waiting somewhat longer than 2 weeks--it is in practice more likely to achieve consensus the next time around if one waits about 4 to 8 weeks or longer--possibly after a while the defenders of the article might even no longer care. I know this thread is in part because I recently closed as delete one that was brought back after only 2 or 3 weeks, but I think there were unusual circumstances which I explained, and I am not sure yet what the consensus at deletion review will be for it. There is a difficult distinction for an admins to make between discounting sockpuppets, SPAs, and irrelevant arguments on the one hand and discounting those arguments the admin does not agree with on the other--and in some cases more than one result is equally justifiable. (In cases where one has argued a personal view, obviously any reasonable admin should come to the result one argued for, however they get there--I know i feel that way often about a position I take in an argument). I see an increasing tendency to relist, when in earlier years there might be a noconsensus close, and I think that in general a good idea. It's certainly better than the earlier practice of closing after only two or three people give their views. What I think we do need firm rules about is repeated afds after successive keeps. I think that after the first keep at least 6 months must elapse, unless permission is obtained to bring it earlier or there is a new reason found, and 12 months after the second successive keep, and then 24. We need closure at some point. And there's something else to watch for--the idea to close the non-consensus afds on BLPs to mean delete, which would if adopted totally change the balance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I'm not trying to make this about you personally, DGG. I've said I think you made a bad close, and I do think that, but I think you did it in good faith; and I've certainly seen this with other admins as well (and I'll refrain from naming them): if there's a controversy at AfD, then the case will still be controversial at DRV. And because admins are reluctant to overrule each other and DRV treats "no consensus" as "endorse", that means an individual admin's decision is extremely hard to challenge.

What this does is that it makes the admin mop into a judge's gavel.

What I'd suggest is to make it clearer in the relevant policies that the community has never authorised, and never intended to authorise, admins to overrule a majority of established editors making reasoned arguments grounded in policy or guidelines, irrespective of the admin in question's personal view of how the debate should be closed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While I tend to disagree with .—S Marshall on the scope and nature of the problem. I would like to flag the comments by Xoloz (formely the main closer of DRV's) here where he forcefully argues that no consensus at DRV should default to relist. While in one sense we do want an AfD closure to have some finality and not be frivilously reviewed and overturned (DRv is not AfD 2) we also want to ensure that there are real limits on admin discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading Xoloz's comments linked to by Eluchil404, I have to say that I would be fine with a no consensus close at DRV resulting in an automatic relist. Currently, I believe that current practice (and what I've been implementing in my closes) is that a no consensus close automatically endorses the decision being appealed. However, if we can't come to a consensus at DRV, then that means that there is at least a significant minority of editors putting forth good opinions why the original closer was incorrect. If that's the case, then maybe DRV shouldn't cut off discussion at that point, because a definitive consensus hasn't been achieved, and DRV really should be a place for the community to reach strong consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That would address all of my concerns. But before we proceed much further with this idea, I think we would need to consider the impact on BLP deletions—wouldn't this lead to automatic re-creation of undesirable BLP material for discussion at AfD?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I have always considered "No consensus to overturn" at DRV to mean just that, that there is no consensus to overturn. People can always file for DRV again later if they want, but I don't think that an automatic relist makes sense. DRV can end with "no consensus", it does not have to make a decision either to endorse or to overturn. DRV does not need to reach a decision, when a decision is not made then the status quo remains. While one can always file for DRV again, I don't think a lack of consensus at DRV justifies having AfD #2. If there is no consensus the AfD was improper then it should not be treated as such. Chillum 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you emerge with that impression after reading Xoloz's comments?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that "people can always file for DRV again later if they want", how often does that happen? My impression is that people don't usually come back for another DRV if the first one finished without consensus (although I may be wrong on this point). Also, while Chillum's point makes sense for the results of XFD's, what if it's a challenged speedy deletion? Normally, any editor except the creator of the page can decline a speedy, requiring a referral to XFD; if there's at least one other editor at the DRV who disagrees with the speedy, doesn't that make it an automatic candidate for XFD?

As for S Marshall's concern about BLP above (and I think that the same concern would apply to copyright issues), I'm not sure how to deal with that. Maybe carve out an exception for those two? For example, the closing instructions could say, "A DRV discussion resulting in a no consensus close should default to a finding of relist, although closers should use their discretion, especially in cases of BLP and copyright violations."--Aervanath (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if a DRV closes as "no consensus" and the article's re-listed at AfD accordingly, it could be re-created in an unindexed space of some kind for the purposes of the AfD?

I'm concerned about ways this idea could be used to game the system, but having post-AfD articles held in an unindexed space would address most of the concerns I can foresee.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No S Marshall, I came to these conclusions on my own not after reading Xoloz's comments(I have not read said comments). I do think any sort of automatic relisting would be both gamed and contrary. Why should an AfD be relisted if there is no consensus that is was wrong? We redo an AfD if there was a consensus that needs to be redone or if there is new information. A lack of consensus that the AfD closure was incorrect is just that, a lack of consensus that it was incorrect. Redoing the AfD seems contrary in the lack of such a consensus. Chillum 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you object strongly to reading his words?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Having read those words, I am still not convinced. It seems to be based on the assumption that a debate cannot end in no consensus. This is clearly not true, any debate can end in no consensus. You could pick one side or the other but that does not a consensus make, if there is no consensus such a decision would be a judgment call posing as consensus. Another false assumption is that DRV is a cloture, it is not as people can re-open the debate at any time. No debate on Wikipedia is closed forever, they can all be brought up again if one has convincing arguments to make. If an AfD is closed as delete, and there is no consensus that the closure was incorrect then it should stand until someone can bring up arguments at a DRV that convince people otherwise.

The question brought up in DRV is whether the closing was correct, if there is not a consensus that is was incorrect then it has not been found to be incorrect. To treat an AfD closure(presumably based on consensus) as though it was found to be incorrect when there was no such consensus seems to be an act against the consensus of the AfD. How can a non-consensus at DRV invalidate a consensus at AfD? AfD is kept by default when there is no consensus to delete, so why should we discard an AfD when there is no consensus that it is wrong? Chillum 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the theory is that where neither the AfD nor the DRV have resulted in consensus, it could be worth asking for more opinions at AfD to continue the discussion in the hope that consensus can then be reached. (To put this into context, figures linked above show that at present, DRV overturns about one in two thousand AfD closures; this would lead to maybe another one in two thousand being re-listed for further discussion at AfD.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to respond to this: AfD is kept by default when there is no consensus to delete, so why should we discard an AfD when there is no consensus that it is wrong? — Actually, by current custom and practice, "no consensus" means the article can be brought back to AfD almost immediately and repeatedly re-listed until it gets a consensus one way or another (because WP:NOTAGAIN is, by current custom and practice, disregarded for "no consensus" keeps). So AfDs are often tacitly disregarded when there's no consensus by being brought back to AfD in search of the consensus that couldn't be found before.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Question for Chillum: I can see your point about appeals of XFD closures, but what about speedy deletions, which have never been through an XFD? (see my comments above).--Aervanath (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the archived discussions worried about endorses based on deletion being the correct eventual outcome, ignoring whether the speedy was correct. While I have noticed those rationales occasionally, my impression is that list at AfD is freely suggested for borderline cases. I think DRV is the appropriate venue for G4 in particular, since it deals with recreation after an outstanding XfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV is not usually necessary for G4 , unless the article has been salted--it will suffice to make a better article. Where it is needed is in case the dispute is whether the article is in fact improved enough. DGG (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to make a tentative change to the policy, saying "No consensus closes can lead to 'endorse' or 're-list' at the discretion of the admin who closes the DRV"?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate.--Aervanath (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it can be left to the discretion of the closing admin, it already kind of is at their discretion. I would like to point out that just because something ends up at DRV does not mean there was a lack of consensus at the XfD. Chillum 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the majority of the time there was a consensus at the Xfd; it's just that someone doesn't agree with it. I'll go ahead and make the change in the policy and see who objects.--Aervanath (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Aervanath!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed an article I wrote on the band té was deleted a while ago because apparently they're not notable enough, the only reference linked being their myspace page. They've had a #1 single, top 10 album, played in the USA, toured with 65daysofstatic, have 2 live DVDs and a couple of music videos. They aren't as popular as other bands in the genre outside Japan but still have quite a few fans. They also have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te%27

Some more links:

• http://tee.daa.jp/
• http://www.myspace.com/tejapanese
• http://www.hearjapan.com/store/group/9
• http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?reviewid=28584

Ianbeale steeplecoqcue (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the concerns at the Afd were that there were no reliable sources to support the notability of the band. If you think you can re-create the article with reliable sources, then go ahead and be bold about it. However, the four sources you name above are:

the band's official site

the band's MySpace page

an online music store

an online music forum.

You will need to acquire sources of much higher caliber than that to convince people the band is notable. Please read WP:Reliable sources, WP:Notability and WP:Notability (bands) before re-creating this article; it'll help you create a better article that might be kept in a deletion discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DRV should probably be 7 days for consistency.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support that; the same reasons that applied to Afd should also apply here.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see a point in this one. Unlike AFDs, the person wanting to keep the article is being proactive and has time to get their sources and reasoning in order before opening the listing. Extending this would lead to unnecessary delays. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the person wanting to keep the article is being proactive, but in some cases the deleting admin might need time to respond. (Example: I opened one on 23rd/24th April—it was exactly midnight server time—and the deleting admin hasn't yet expressed a view.) Also, the arguments for making AfD 7 days would seem to apply equally here, in that users who can only contribute at certain times (e.g. weekends) could be unnecessarily excluded from the discussion.

As for the "unnecessary delays" point, I'd say for something like a contentious BLP, delays to give more consideration time could, sometimes, be very desirable.

I can see who would benefit from 7-day DRVs, but what I don't see is who would suffer.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Stifle; most of the people at DRVs are regulars anyway and we don't stop the Wiki when we are not around for a week or 5 days, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the factual truth of your statement, but "most of the people at DRVs are regulars anyway" still means that there is a minority which doesn't get to participate.--Aervanath (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Nobody's stopping them. In the unlikely event that a DRV was closed after five days and someone came along after seven and relisted it because there was a new source they'd found, they'd get a proper hearing. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, but what's the urgency in closing after five days? As S Marshall says above: "I can see who would benefit from 7-day DRVs, but what I don't see is who would suffer." Who is going to suffer?--Aervanath (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• 7 days is certainly advisable here, even more so than AfD, as there are often many people to notify and there needs to be time for their voices to be heard. Much of AfD is not controversial--almost everything here is, and there is a need for full discussion. That the people here are mainly regulars is not a virtue--wider participation would be very helpful--again, even more so than at AfD. DGG (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with DGG. And of course, there is much less rush to get DRVs closed as fast as possible, given the few cases this page has. At worst, it will take 2 days longer to delete an article that was kept at AFD or restore one that was deleted at AFD - but at best it allows more people to voice their opinions and consistency with AFD's running time. SoWhy 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. 7 days is even more important than at AfD, since stuff here is by nature highly controversial. If WP:SNOW doesn't apply at AfD anymore, it is even more inapplicable at DRV. A DRV discussion could be thought of as more "conclusive," and needs more discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support – Why not? Let's stay consistent with XFD, PROD, ad nauseam. MuZemike 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support 7 days for consistency reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, especially per King of Hearts. DRVs, while not an explicit continuation of AfDs, can be very deep arguments due to the initial controversy over the AfD result in question and the existing AfD arguments themselves, and to lengthen the time in which they take place will encourage more discussion and less chance of a premature closure due to what's essentially superfluous bureaucracy in the form of a time limit. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of consistency (I wonder how long until someone trots out that Emerson quote...). The arguments made on the basis of the marginal importance of 2 days are less than convincing. I just suggest sticking to the rationale that a small, relatively unimportant change should be made for relatively small and unimportant reasons. No point in shooting for the moon to come up w/ reasons why 5 days is cruel and 7 days is just. Protonk (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Seven days sounds like a reasonable time frame for a deletion review discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Because it will be good to have uniformity with the other recent changes to related deletion discussion processes. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for consistency's sake. –xeno ^talk 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I consider the consensus here empowers me to make this change, and I shall now boldly do so.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the discussion run for 7 days? (ducks) –xeno ^talk 22:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this the appropriate place to do such a thing, or does one just create a second AfD? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If you disagree with the nature in which the discussion was closed, for example if you feel that the closing admin eggregiously closed the discussion inappropriately, then this is the appropriate forum. If you just don't like how the consensus ended up going, or if it was a borderline case and the admin simply made a judgement call, this may not be appropriate. Remember that DRV is not "AFD round 2", but a place to discuss the deletion procedure in specific cases, NOT the merits of the article itself. Also, if DRV is not appropriate that does not automatically mean that a second AFD is appropriate at this time. If the AFD was closed recently, then immediately starting a new AFD may be a bad idea as well. If its been a few months past, and you want to test for a new consensus, than a new AFD may be OK. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. The case in question is this, where I feel that the issue of the article's lack of sources was not elaborated on enough in the discussion; the result of "keep" was largely based on the fact that lists can complement categories, which I agree with and is largely irrelevant to my concern. I've discussed the issue with the closing admin, Jerry, who asserted that, to my disagreement, the list does not need sourcing due to its uncontroversial content. Rather than have a pseudo-AfD conversation with him, it'd be more appropriate to discuss this out in the open. Would it be appropriate to open either another AfD or a DRV, considering this context? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the closure was done fully in line with policy. Even if we ignore the closing admin's rationale, I would have likely closed the discussion as "No consensus to delete" as there seemed to be a roughly equal number of delete and keep comments, and those votes all came with reasonable rationales from well-established and respected users. Given that data, delete would NOT be an appropriate action in any event, since the best we could say is "There is no consensus one way or the other" and, in the event of that conclusion, the status quo is always preserved. So, even though I may or may not agree with the rationale by the closing admin in this case, the end result cannot be debated based on the sum total of the discussion in question... there may not have been a clear consensus to keep, but neither was there a consensus to delete and in such cases, the default is always the status quo. Given that this closed only a few weeks ago, a new AFD at this time would result in a "speedy close" as it would be deemed "too soon". I would give it a few months, come back at the end of the summer, and see if the article has improved any. If the problems have not been addressed by that time, you could see if consensus is clearer at that time with a new AFD. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems highly unfair. Are those the only windows of time, then, in which deletion can be contended? I'd've thought if new points can be raised, there would be somewhere suitable to discuss it and establish consensus, but per the current guidelines it seems we have to stick with what is a largely faulty consensus to keep a list article based on the fact that an equivalent category exists, while largely ignoring the list's own lack of sourcing. I'm assuming the "too soon" rule applies even if new points are raised by the nominator? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule on that. I've brought an article back to AfD just a few days after a keep close, but I also pointed out some important circumstances that were overlooked in the first AfD. But that's extremely rare. You need to use your judgment -- if you do bring it back it AfD, be prepared for a chorus of "too soons". Have you spent quite a bit of time determining that the article can't be sourced? Or is your objection just that it currently isn't sourced. If it's the latter, I'd recommend against bringing back to AfD any time soon.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Even if you're right, what's the rush? Just wait a few months and try again. That said, I really don't think you'll be successful if your only complaint is a current lack of sourcing. Just to see, I did a quick internet search for the first few entries and turned up reliable sources for all of them indicating that they use cel-shaded graphics. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll look into its sourcing for now and raise the issue again when appropriate. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Its also important to remember that AFD is not a competition. Like everything else at Wikipedia, its about finding ways to improve the article. When you use terms like "unfair" you make it sound like getting a "delete" result would have been "winning" for you, and that is probably the wrong attitude to take. I have been involved in many AFD discussions where the end result was actually a greatly improved article, which I think may be the best possible result. If an article becomes a decent, well written, and well referenced article through an AFD, that is a far better result than deletion would ever be. Plus, as a secondary note, AFD is not really about the state the article is in now, but on the potential of the article. Articles are not usually deleted for being unsourced, but rather being unsourcable. It isn't necessary that the article has to actually have the sources now, but rather that the sources are out there in the world, waiting to be used by an interested party to improve the article. In this case, Chunky Rice's research has turned up that sources exist to make the list referencable, and as such, it would only take a dedicated user to clean it up... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By "unfair" I was referring to the time between which AfDs for an article can be made, not any sort of naïve win/loss perception of the AfD process; I know how the deletion processes work, I just currently think they're too bureaucratic. I'm still somewhat doubtful on the article's potential, but I'll look into it for now. Thanks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the informal "time limit" between renominations exists to prevent people from disruptively making a point or repeatedly making multiple AFD requests to get the result they "want" or otherwise gaming the system. Remember that, while we understand that consensus can change, we also understand that Wikipedia is in no rush and there is no impending doom from letting this sit for a short time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A certain recent DRV has turned into a complete Charlie Foxtrot because of a (not completely unreasonable) allegation of canvassing. The issue is that the DRV has turned from being about the subject into a battleground between the ARS and those who oppose them, and I think the upshot is that the resulting discussion is beyond retrieval.

If there are issues with the ARS, or accusations to make, please take them to the appropriate venue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad I've !voted in it, because I don't want to be the one to have to close it. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• My money's on an Aervanath close for that one. The poor chap...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

...and I was wrong.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone got to it before I did. :) I didn't realize I'd developed a reputation for homing in on the difficult ones...or is it just a reputation as a sucker for the ones no one else wants to close? *grin*--Aervanath (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked User:Schutz, the operator of User:Zorglbot, whether his bot could take over the task of creating the daily log pages for DRV (see here). I did not anticipate that there would be any objections, but I still want to make note of it here. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We had once put in a bot request for this task, but the operator who was going to do it appears to have simply forgotten about it. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DRVBot and User:DRVBot. GRBerry 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is every single one of these bloody articles going to end up at DRV?

I think it's in danger of becoming disruptive. We've got the same users !voting the same way on all of them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(later) I'm going to quote ArbCom here.

"...coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited."—Common ArbCom remedy, in (for example) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology.

Am I alone in believing that editors appear to be banding together in informal alliances, and engaging in factional voting, with respect to these articles?

I move that the identity of participants in these alliances is agreed, and their collective !votes are treated as one !vote for DRV purposes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. How the same handful of accounts saying the same thing across dozens of AfDs and DRVs actually represents consensus is beyond me. In addition the DRVs, we are seeing multiple renominations maybe even a month or two later as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

After devoting further thought to this, I would also like to draw attention to the definition of a tag team and invite participants to consider whether this applies to anyone involved.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To reply to the original question: no, obviously not, only the impressive numbers of those that should never have been created in the first place, and a (hopefully smaller) number of articles that look similar, but that should not have been AfD'ed because they have clear potential. As long as many of the AfD's are indeed for deletable articles, this is not disruptive at all. As for the similar voting patterns: if you have very similar articles, it is not unusual to have very similar opinions on them as well. If you had the same people turning out at unrelated AfD's as well, then concerns of meatpuppeteering and tag teaming may be appropriate. But to have the same people comment in the same way on many AfD's on articles on similar topics with similar problems (and often the same creator as well) is only what can be expected. Fram (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and S. Marshall, you should really try to remember that votecount is irrelevant in AfD and DRV closures, so "and their collective !votes are treated as one !vote for DRV purposes." is a proposal without ground. Whether a closure has a 8-4 support or a 4-4 split or whatever is largely irrelevant if the strength of arguments is wildly different. Fram (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it your opinion, Fram, that the strength of the arguments involved is such that no evaluation of the !vote count need take place?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First criterium is the strength of arguments. If twenty people argue to keep something, but one person conclusively idetfies it as a copyvio, it should be deleted. Of course, the less difference there is in the power of the arguments (e.g. whether a few minor sources are sufficient or not for WP:N), the more emphasis will be placed on the number of people supporting one position or the other. But in general one thoughtful, to the point, policy based opinion backed by evidence far outweighs a dozen "ilikeits" or "idon'tlikeits". So no, I don't suggest that votecount should not be evaluated at all, only that it is secondary to strength of arguments. If one person states that X does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and twenty established editors argue (with arguments) that in this partcular case, athlete should be ignored, then I would not close it as delete. If the same happened, but ATHLETE was replaced with WP:V, then I would probably delete it anyway, since there are no arguments good enough to ignore WP:V. Fram (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Another aspect is that votecount only works when there is a wide margin: whether there are 7 keeps vs. 6 deletes or 6keeps versus 7 deletes should make no difference for the closure: when there are twenty keeps vs. 1 delete, a delete closure should have very good arguments, but (as indicated above) is not unthinkable. Fram (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I do understand all that rather clearly.

My question was, in view of your earlier remark, do you think the strength of the arguments involved in these specific cases is such that the !votes need not be counted?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that in most of these discussions, votecount is not really the essential point. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Netherlands relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Netherlands relations, ... are all pretty clear-cut, and whether it is 10-0 or 12-1 is not essential. And as it now stands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Tunisia relations (2nd nomination) would be a delete, based on strength of arguments and votecount. So while I do of course observe whether the general voting goes towards keeping, deletion, or divided, I don't consider it to be the major deciding factor where the grouping of some votes together may change the balance. Fram (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've !voted both ways in X-Y relations AFD and DRVs, and I would oppose any suggestion of counting "blocs" together. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am getting frustrated closing these because I am unable to be consistent from one AfD to another. For large swathes of them, it seems to be a bit of a lottery, with articles under some headings having near-identical keep and delete reasons. I am not surprised that they keep ending up at DRV, and am annoyed in a way that the proposed moratorium on these AfDs was not accepted, given the ongoing merging efforts by some of our editors. This is a very time-consuming, and I believe pointless set of AfDs/DRVs. Now, with that grumbling, I will take my leave and go mumble to myself elsewhere... Fritzpoll (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I appear to be in the minority, and there's no point pursuing a view that will not gain consensus. I will not object to this being closed when another editor feels it is ready.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've looked at the DRVs for these articles that are currently live, and I don't see any clear evidence of blocs/tag teams at this time. However, if I close any of them, I'll re-evaluate and check for that at that time. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What they are doing is hovering over these and indiscriminately saying to delete all of them with the same copy and paste votes as seen at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting, while using "kill it with fire" hyperbole edit summaries and now we even have "the hand of God" at play. These, plus two times some of these accounts delcaring that places which were indeed colonies of France were "not even a colony" despite France_–_Trinidad_and_Tobago_relations#Colonial_history just shows that the accounts in question are either not actually looking for sources, do not know how to look for sources, or are flat out lying, because it took me but seconds to verify this information on Google. For what ever reason, maybe a dozen? accounts despise these sorts of articles and are bent on deleting them all, even the ones that are improved and so we are left with tons of AfDs and MfDs of questionable usefulness in place of articles that are at least relevant to someone. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "hand of god" argument is certainly not going to carry much weight with the closer of that DRV. I'm not sure where this should be started, but I think someone should start a WP:Notability (bilateral relations) or similar guideline to get some sort of uniform standards for these. If consensus can be achieved on such a guideline, then these AfDs would be much more of a cut-and-dried affair.--Aervanath (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not just the "hand of God" comment, we also have such sarcastic faux keeps as this by the same account. I do not know what is worse there, the lack of seriousness or the mocking nature of the post that just fans the fires further? These bilateral relations AfDs are, however, becoming harder to take seriously. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or have some laughs? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The obvious course, is to suspend discussion on these until there is some degree of consensus from the community on how to handle it. Stifle and I have agreed on proposing this for new AfDs or reviews, and i think we should simply extend this to the current ones. Serious encyclopedias do not contain random articles, but have some degree of consistency. it's time we grew up. If we do not stop the processes now, we will surely end up reviewing half of them after the policy does become decided on. I notice in this connection that A Man in Black has taken upon himself to close a deletion review on one of these articles after only two days, and I have added this to the evidence in the ongoing arb com. [1]. DGG (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The result was obvious, there's two different discussions about not having such discussions, and there's a fair amount of evidence that RAN was using a template DRV nom. You couldn't have brought this up on my talk page first? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right that I should. At this point I agree we might as well let it be closed rather than complicate matters further. DGG (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet, but it seems to me like it'd be easy and completely obvious: Whenever an article gets listed at DRV, the person should immediately 1) contact the closing admin and 2) leave a notice at the bottom of the AFD in question saying that it's been listed. The first is supposed to be practice, and the second should be done to both keep a paper trail (so the AFD can also note the results of the DRV) and also be an easy way to alert anyone who might have had that AFD watchlisted. It's ridiculous that things listed at DRV are done in a vacuum where the AFD participants have no easy way of knowing anything is going on without watching DRV like a hawk in case something shows up later. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly appreciate that. Often someone will notify me (for which I am grateful), but I leave the AfD pages "watched" and this would be helpful. JJL (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it, though I don't think requiring it would be a good idea. The regulars should be able to handle it fairly well, if it's advertised well enough. I made a quick possibility at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/DRV on XfD, if anyone would like to look at it. Possibilities for additions I can think of are a parameter for the result (probably something like |result=?) and a category for sorting. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Two FfDs that have come up for DRV have cited NFCC#8 as grounds for deletion:

• 26 June 2009 Crayola FfD DRV
• 19 June 2009 al-Libi corpse FfD DRV closed

...coincidentally both by Peripitus.

In both I argued that NFCC#8 is unlike the other criteria to delete non-free images on the grounds that there is a real issue of judgement involved in deciding the relevance of the image to the article, and that admins may very well differ widely in their application of this criterion. Hence admins should not simply decide whether they think NFCC#8 applies or not, but weigh up the balance of opinion.

Before I go about making this assertion in other DRVs, I think I should ask for feedback on it... — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

NFCC#8 has a lot of gray area, more than many of the other criteria. There are some cases where an image unambiguously violates NFCC#8, and no amount of discussion can change that. For instance, it's very well established that using album covers in articles that aren't about the album is an NFCC#8 violation, no matter how many ILIKEIT !votes chime in. On the other hand, there are many cases where it's not clear-cut, where editors of good faith, who understand our policy and sincerely want it applied, disagree on whether the image's omission would be "detrimental" to fully understanding the article. A closing admin should recognize the difference between unambiguous cases and gray areas, even when that admin has a strong opinion. If the case is not unambiguous, it is the responsibility of the closing admin to regard his/her own opinion no higher than anyone else's when gauging consensus. Some admins have shown themselves to be good at that; in my opinion, Peripitus has not. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question answered. Thank you, this is very well put. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the FFDs in question, so I won't comment on Peripitus's closures, but I think Quadell has the right interpretation on NFCC#8 here: sometimes it's black-and-white, so the admin should be able to close against the numbers in the discussion, but sometimes it's borderline, in which case the admin should analyze the discussion in depth before making a decision based on the arguments raised in the discussion. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.