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.

The speedy deletion policy currently says that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Consequently, less than obvious cases should be handled at XfD instead. If an admin's speedy deletion is appealed using DRV and there is no consensus to endorse the deletion, this means the deletion was not in an obvious case. In my experience, most admins closing such a DRV will treat this outcome as "list at XFD" in almost all cases which is the only correct interpretation of the speedy policy's "only obvious" rule imho. Since I saw an admin write that they think "no consensus" means the speedy is endorsed though, I propose we amend the DRV page to clarify this. I had made that change already, believing it to reflect consensus but I was reverted by Timotheus Canens (pinging) which is why I am raising it here now. Regards SoWhy 17:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this in the cases of copyright and BLP/G10 deletions, in those cases material shouldn't be reinstated unless there is a consensus that the content is acceptable. As Timotheus Canens says this shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule. Hut 8.5 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why I worded it as "should". Although I cannot imagine any DRV for such material that was correctly speedy deleted ending in "no consensus" because what policy-based argument could one make to restore clear G10/G12 material? Regards SoWhy 18:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no valid argument that would support a copyright violation, of course, but one could argue that the copyright status of a work is not clear, or that its status has changed. Mduvekot (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If "most admins closing such a DRV will treat this outcome as "list at XFD" in almost all cases", then I'm not convinced that there's a problem to solve. I do not see in March 2017 any DRV on a speedy that was closed as "no consensus, default to endorse". An admin did make the point that he could have closed a couple DRVs as "no consensus to overturn", but chose to close it as "list as AFD" instead, but that's just a strangely worded way of exercising the closer's discretion already permitted by the current wording.

Even "should" is stronger than I'd support. This should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a multitude of factors like the state of the discussion, the CSD at issue, the content deleted, the chance that the page would survive an XFD, and so forth. If a closer mistakenly believes that they had no discretion to close a no-consensus DRV on a speedy as "list as XFD", they can be easily pointed to the existing policy and asked to reconsider. I simply don't see the point of introducing the extra constraint on closer's discretion.

T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The Speedy criteria are supposed to be clear-cut, bright line criteria. If you can't get a group commenting at DRV to endorse a given speedy, it wasn't clear-cut and that is that. Restore, and list at XFD if that seems warranted. Had just one of those opposing the speedy noticed it first and declined the speedy, that would have settled the matter -- next stop XfD. The fate of a page shouldn't depend quite so completely on who happens to be patrolling Category:CSD at the relevant time. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The place for nuance is in the DRV discussion, and perhaps in a following XfD discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• By its nature, DRV sees a lot of corner cases and one-off or bizarre situations. We rely on the DRV closer's integrity, wisdom, and occasionally, creativity. I don't yet see how putting boundaries on that creativity will help DRVs be closed better.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• We should clarify that the default for a speedy deletion brought to DRV is that it is overturned. Thus, when the consensus is clear that a speedy was right, nothing changes. Ditto for when the consensus is that the speedy was wrong, nothing changes. What this WOULD do is raise the bar: if a contested speedy isn't reaffirmed by DRV consensus, then an XfD is triggered. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is right. I feel there has been, in the last year or two, a definite slackening in interpretation of the text of WP:CSD, and DRV has been trending from asking "was the CSD policy applied properly" to asking "should this page be deleted". By moving to the second question, the de facto power to delete shifts from "per policy" to "administrator's judgement", which is a shift away from Wikipedia being a community run project to administrators-oligarchy. CSDs are supposed to be for objectively incontestable cases where there is no point in discussion. If someone wants a discussion, they should be allowed one. In almost all CSDs, where a CSD is challenged, either at the tagging stage or post-deletion, XfD should be triggered automatically. For some, like G10 and copyright, there needs to be administrator discretion on whether the offensiveness or copyright violation is "objectively incontestable", but these tend to be the exceptions in cases of CSD complaints at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Jclemens's view, he put it perfectly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• I would like to support this, on the basis of this case. The nom was an editor with a history of hostility to the Soka Gakkai, Japan's largest Buddhist movement. What he did here was to delete from Buddhist humanism all cites to sources not related to the movement, and then claim that since the remaining sources were related that the article was "promotional" of its philosophy and should be deleted G11. I found this to be a rather outrageous example of a bad faith nomination. Ultimately, despite a lack of consensus on whether G11 should apply to the description of a philosophy, it was deleted on the grounds that it was a "POV fork" of another existing article. This seems unfair, since the only way to tell whether the article was POV was to read it, which non-admins couldn't do because it was gone. One of the "restore" !voters pointed this out. Others pointed out that since there was no consensus it should go to AfD. To no avail. I might add that since this decision I've scaled back my contributions to Wikipedia. Up to that point I had been participating in AfD and thinking I might accept if someone nominated me as an admin. Now, not so much. Up to the day it was deleted, I had spent a couple of hours trying to improve the references in the article. That work is gone now, so it really seems like, what's the point? You try to be responsible and do good work, but it's so easy to spoil. If there's no recourse, why bother? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support proposal per SmokeyJoe and Jclemens. Basically speaking if you can't get consensus that a speedy was done correctly, it shouldn't have been a speedy. Speedies are for clear cut cases. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to the idea here. The original edit was too verbose, though, especially when the instructions at DRV are already far, far too verbose. "However, in some for speedy deletions and some other cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." gets the idea across without adding another half inch to the DRV header height. —Cryptic 02:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a bit weaker than I would prefer. I'd rather have something at the end like "For speedy discussions, no consensus should generally result in a listing at AfD." I'm not sure that your wording make it clear that CSD "no consensus" results should, in most cases, become a listing at AfD. Which is I think what people are going for. Not a "must" but a "should". Hobit (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Nitpick: XfD, but yeah, this. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • My intention was to be brief, not to weaken it.
      Alternately - would anyone object if I just put the "Closing reviews" section in a collapse box, or maybe merge it into Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Administrator_instructions (and then link that directly from WP:DRV, instead of just the daily pages)? That's how most other deletion process pages do it; the people most likely to get confused by the pages and pages of text at the top don't need to read it; and we'd be able to be as instruction creepy wordy as we like with this. —Cryptic 05:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with a collapsed box. I'd rather be complete in the directions to closers than worry about being too verbose. And so if there are concerns we are getting too verbose here, collapsing seems like a good way forward. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing the impetus for this was the discussion concerning "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids", which does seem to be to be an unusual case requiring some discretion rather than a straight up-and-down restore. For certain classifications (attack page, copyvio, etc) I don't think that a split decision should result in an overturn, but for other more subjective types like A7 I can see an argument for that. Are there any other recent examples of discussions of those sorts of speedies being closed as "no consensus default to status quo"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 17 but I doubt any lessons should be drawn from it. The closer gave a rationale for not listing (in this case not reopening the listing). Thincat (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was not, rather comments by some admins that they believe no consensus to mean the speedy deletion is upheld. But the DRV you mention is another good example. As I said above, I really don't think there can be a "no consensus" when it comes to clear attack pages or copyvio but ff it's really unclear, then speedy deletion clearly was not the correct way to go since "uncontroversial" is a major requirement. There are sufficient ways to hide such potentially problematic content (blanking and such) for the duration of XFD after all. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that one, although I think that's even more of an unusual case than the one I brought up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC).

• Support as per SmokeyJoe, Hobit, and Jclemens above. Note the recent close: No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether this text was spammy enough to warrant the G11 deletion. For lack of consensus to overturn, the speedy deletion is maintained by default.. Speedy deletions should be for clear-cut cases. If there is not a consensus to endorse not just the deletion but the CSD reason in the log (or some other specific CSD reason, as when A G11 is contented as not too promotional, but found to be a copyvio during the DRV discussion) , the deletion should be undone by default. "If in doubt, don't delete." applies particualrly strongly to speedy deletions. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The CSD give consensus in advance, but only for pages strictly within their written terms. If a page doesn't fit, and there isn't some other consensus to delete (at an XfD or by PROD) no deletion is justified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• absolutely not  DRV should not be forcing nominatorless nominations on the deletion community, ever.  If there is no one willing to prepare a deletion nomination, there is no need for a deletion discussion.  There is nothing to prevent anyone from creating a page "WP:Requests for deletion discussions", if closers need to give such direction.

Note that a closing admin is using a !vote count if he/she documents that a "non-controversial" deletion was controversial, and then sustains it as no consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Unscintillating, I agree that, in general, automatic or "procedural" nominations at an XfD are a bad idea, but I don't see what that has to do with this proposal. This is simply a proposal to change what happens when a challenged speedy deletion is brought to XfD and there is not a clear consensus either to overturn or to endorse the speedy. Currently the default is to "Endorse". This proposal would change the default to "Overturn". That is all that it would do, as I understand it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

• Oops I see that the original edit did include a provision for automatically listing at an XfD. I will provide revised lanaguage below. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Modified proposal

I propose that the following language should be inserted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Closing reviews:

"If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate."

I think this is much clearer and simpler to administer, with no significant downside. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Modified proposal

• Support as proposer. Speedy deletions should be for clear-cut cases. If there is not a consensus to endorse not just the deletion but the CSD reason in the log (or some other specific CSD reason, as when A G11 is contented as not too promotional, but found to be a copyvio during the DRV discussion) , the deletion should be undone by default. "If in doubt, don't delete." applies particualrly strongly to speedy deletions. Lack of consensus to delete means that a page should not be deleted. The CSD give consensus in advance, but only for pages strictly within their written terms. If a page doesn't fit, and there isn't some other consensus to delete (at an XfD or by PROD) no deletion is justified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per what I wrote above and DES's comments. Speedies are for clear cut cases. If you can't get consensus it was appropriate, it wasn't. Plus, I like the wording. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support and since discussion has found no opposes to this wording after ~2.5 weeks, will be implementing this presently. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Late Support as initiator of the discussion. Closes like this one show that this is needed. Regards SoWhy 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, that was a bad close. This language should make it easier to close better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. A speedy that doesn't enjoy consensus is a bad speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

As the proposal has been implemented should the discussion be closed? As the proposer, I don't think I should close this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I added an entry for July 7th today about Afd KSL Capital Partners, to the review board. But I dont know how to do the header tag, so it isn't listing on the main DR page. Can someone please help me with it? Click here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_July_7 and you will see the sea of red errors, thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cryptic has sorted things out.[1] Thincat (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone help me please! The group were talking about the 7 colours of the rainbow. As a child I was told that music was carried around on music sticks. From dark colours were for the low notes to light colours for the higher notes. The colour lengths were painted for the length of the note to be played. Musicians when they met could transfer music by painting their own sticks. Have I been told correctly many years ago?

Yours Truly John Nichol Callum

<email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.250.141 (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Try the reference desk. Hut 8.5 06:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The instructions state to consult with the closing admin on his talkpage, but don't even suggest contacting the original AFD's nominator. Why this oversight? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the close their contesting, the admin can explain their closing and how they read the consensus. If that's not good enough then DRV discusses if the process was followed correctly and if the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. I fail to see the original AFD nominator's significance in any of that. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean they are not their. I suggest the inclusion of: All contributors to the AfD should be pinged to inform them of the DRV. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC).

inexperienced users tend to relitigate the afd rather then discussing the close. Review generally means fresh eyes. I don't see the point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Spartaz above; DRs hopefully draws a different audience. In any case, my AfDs are on my watch list, so I generally catch the DRs if they are started. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The instructions say to consult the deleting admin because, at least for speedy deletions, he may be willing to reverse himself without a full review. An AFD nominator has no such authority. Even so, if they watchlist the AFDs the start, they should see when they're tagged ((Delrevxfd)). While it's true that a majority of DRV nominations omit both that tag and notification of the deleting admin (I try to correct both whenever I see a new DRV submitted), I'm guessing that notification of the AFD nominator, as the person least likely to advocate restoration, would be even more likely to be "accidentally forgotten". —Cryptic 06:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No I absolutely me their (First definition I can find "belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified" - the closing associated with the adminstrator is absolutely the meaning, as for "they are" I have absolutely no clue how that would work within the context of the sentence I wrote. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)