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.

i have modified the DRV instructions, here.

DRV is suitable if recreation prevented by de-SALTing denied; re-creation explicitly prohibited; or AfC decline/reject is disputed.

Otherwise, if the AfD is old, and you have overcome the reasons for deletion, then just re-create, and see if anyone else nominates it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've reverted. There's no need to limit "significant new information:" for instance, we recently overturned an AfD because the nominator was a sock. Your rules would have meant DRV did not apply. I much prefer a wide interpretation of "significant new information." However, we can fix the problem by adding a "not be used for:" something like "11. contesting a stale AfD only to ask permission to create a new article on the same subject, when the article is not protected." The wording could be better, but that solves the problem more gracefully in my opinion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, why don’t you do it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • We'll get quibbles about the definition of "stale" if we do that. I would prefer for DRV to accept and examine most nominations without telling the nominator they're in the wrong place; we should be careful not to limit access to review with complex processes.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
      • My definition was hasty, and I'd prefer to get a little more consensus before being bold. I think this falls under: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead." I think this just needs to be changed to: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. In this instance, use WP:REFUND instead, or simply create a new article with the new sources." SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
        • In the meantime, the instructions are wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
          • No, they're not - they're maybe a bit unclear. DRV isn't a high volume business anyway, and any "mistakes" are easily remedied until it's sorted. SportingFlyer T·C 07:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought SmokeyJoe's language was pretty good, but I also agree about having a wide interpretation of "significant new information" and potentially drawing a line between "uncontroversial" re-creation (BOLD) and "controversial" re-creation (DRV). The instructions that are there now should be changed/updated, and I'm hopeful agreeable language can be workshopped, or if not at least on an RFC A/B proposal or something like that. Lev¡vich 08:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• My problem with SmokeyJoe's language is that it limited DRV, and we want DRV to be as welcoming as possible! I don't really see this as a problem that needs to be solved, as it comes up relatively rarely, and when it does people tend to "get permission" to recreate the article, which is technically welcoming. The problem we're trying to solve here is to make clearer the fact you don't need to use DRV if the AfD you're challenging is old, you rewrite the article, and you now think the article now passes WP:N, as opposed to limiting the scope of DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 08:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think we disagree. People SHOULD NOT use DRV if they have not already tried REFUND for a REFUND, or tried RFUP for de-SALTing (and noting the highlighted instruction they’ll find there), and really should be discouraged from coming straight to DRV with new sources after a years old AfD. DRV SHOULD NOT be saccharine sweet, like the old AfC “decline” messages were in giving a plain letter reading that told them to do unproductive time wasting things. Sure, if someone comes to DRV ill-advised but in good faith DRV admins don’t speedy close, we participants give feedback, but this is not an efficient process compared to the recommended path, with is typically REFUND and add new sources to the draft. The problem we are trying to solve here is to limit well meaning Wikipedians like RMcC giving poor advice based on the poor DRV instructions. DRV is a review process, it for for catching errors, in judgement or process, and for providing running community based education where there have been errors. DRV should NOT be routinely used for notability assessments. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we do, I think we're just approaching the problem from a very different angle. DRV isn't saccharine sweet now and works as intended in the vast majority of cases. I am not trying to expand the scope of DRV, but as an appeal of last resort, we do not want to make it harder for someone to use DRV by limiting the instructions. Users will be mistaken sometimes, that's fine, but that's exactly what DRV is there for. I really don't think this is that big of a problem, I don't think the instructions are that unclear, although I think they can be improved slightly to make clear you can work around an old AfD by producing a new article. The proposed instructions limited "significant new information" to three very specific instances, which I do disagree with quite firmly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Good. If only there were a wiki page somewhere where we could interactively edit the text to get it right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Maybe a talk page? SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• This page? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be used for 2 purposes: to determine if it's good enough to pass G4 (the alternative being to trust a single admin's judgement), and to deal with a SALTed page. 109.186.211.111 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFUP should be used for desalting, which includes asking the salting admin first, if they are active. DRV should be reserved for a refused de-salting request, and should not be the port of first call. This is not to say that such requests should be speedily rebuffed, but that Wikipedians should be able to easily understand the instructions when advising newcomers on the best course of action. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 we have yet another case where, by following the instructions, an experienced Wikipedian comes to DRV for permission to recreate based on new sources since and old AfD. Everytime, we agree that they could have more easily got a REFUND, optionally drafted, or boldly recreated. Even if it needs to come to DRV, DRV is much better informed if a draft exists, or a G4-ed newer version can be referred to. Does anyone have any substantive reason for the instructions not encouraging the REFUND bold recreation or AfC where they believe that the AfD’s reasons for deletion are overcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• They couldn't necessarily have easily gotten a refund. WP:REFUND states: This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all. While boldly recreating's (almost?) always an option, DRV's purview should allow for discussion about whether REFUND is appropriate. We disagree on that. SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No one ever said anyone should "necessarily have easily gotten a refund".
  What the instructions should say, is try asking for a REFUND first. Alternatively, one can ask the deleting admin, or indeed any admin. There are two very big advantages to this: (1) you may get the page undeleted immediately and painlessly; (2) if refused, you should get a reason, and then you have a focused point for discussion at DRV.
  Something should be said also, both here and at REFUND, about whether to request REFUND direct to mainspace, to userspace, or to draftspace. There is too much implication that REFUND requests are to undelete back to mainspace, when WP:Userfication or undeletion to draftspace should probably be the default for an AfD-deleted page.
• There is no intention from me to restrict DRV's purview to discuss anything. The intention is to inform and advise people of the easier and more efficient alternative path. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The way things currently work though is that you can't REFUND a page to mainspace which was deleted at AfD "controversially," which I interpret as "deleted after discussion/not soft-deleted." For instance, there's no way the United Airlines Flight 1175 page should be restored to mainspace at REFUND, but DRV could conclude that's possible. My only immediate suggestion would be this change, but I'm still not sure about it: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating restoring the deleted page; SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Where restoration in mainspace is obvious, it should be done without a week or more at DRV. Where it is not obvious, it is a very good idea to have a live draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, but what's "obvious" to us as DRV regulars may not be obvious to everyone. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. But this is a principle. An editor will quickly find out when asking for a REFUND. Do you oppose putting in information and encouragement for editors to use REFUND or to ask the deleting admin, and encouragement to ensure there is a draft before going to DRV arguing “new sources”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think we need to workshop some outcomes here, because I do generally oppose that. Why? REFUND doesn't work if a deletion was controversial, even if it's old. Admins come and go. And we shouldn't require people to create drafts when they bring new sources, if they're requesting a restore. I for one don't really mind when someone comes to DRV with the odd "can I recreate this page?" since the workload isn't that great anyways. I propose finding examples of DRVs that you'd like to discourage in the future and then figuring out how we change policies across the project to fix those. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Workshop before edit? OK.
  REFUND doesn't work if a deletion was controversial, even if it's old. That assumes "REFUND to mainspace". I am thinking to specifically suggest "REFUND to userpace or draftspace".
  The admins at REFUND I have noted to be experienced and sensible. However, the header documentation at REFUND looks like it has grown without review for a long time, it needs simplification to achieve readability even more than DRV/Purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind a discussion about controversial deletions being able to be refunded to draft space or user space. Is that the extent of the change you're thinking of? For instance we have Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021 February 27#Friday Night Funkin', one user has said this is outside the scope of DRV, even though they're asking for a mainspace restore - I've read your response, but are you trying to discourage these types of discussions? SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Friday Night Funkin? Who says it’s out of scope. No, not trying to discourage these, but there was an easier option of asking the deleting admin to undelete now that it is no longer TOOSOON. If someone really wants to come to DRV then fine, but I want the instructions to inform of easier options for simple cases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The page sandeep singh rissam has been wrongly deleted. Even when the page had enough of references and moreover the hindi language newspapers mentioning him were not considered. Why ? A notable person means a someone doing a work which is notable. Also it was wrongly mentioned in the discussion that the references have his name as passing name whereas most of the reference of news given had him as main person. The profile of sandeep Singh Rissam can also be checked by googling his name. Sunny50888 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the deletion review talk page; please follow the instructions on the project page and post your review there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_16#Mavis_Amankwah. Courtesy ping @WilyD: as initiator of discussion.

Hi all, at the above linked discussion, I offered an endorsement for my own close, while providing a couple of procedural notes in reference to statements by the nominator. You can see my comment there.

In response to this, WilyD stated that "XfDs need to be closed by an admin who can at least act as a disinterested party", and when I questioned how I was not disinterested, this was clarified with "an admin closing a discussion as a disinterested party acting on community consensus wouldn't come to DRV to argue for a particular outcome".

My personal view was that the closer of a discussion could contribute willingly to any deletion review, given it is an assessment of the process rather than the article content itself. However, I will concede that I am frequently wrong about current process, and may be wrong about this also. Either way, I would appreciate some clarity from the DRV community about to what extent, if any, the closer of the discussion can be involved and advocate for their close to be endorsed (a lot, some, or not at all).

Cheers
Daniel (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• WilyD is not reflecting long standing practice here. It would be disingenuous if an admin just endorsed without mentioning their role in the close but otherwise DRV would be interested in the closing admin's views on their close and any further comments. I tend not to participate in DRVs of my closes unless specifically requested but that's only because I'm much more grumpy and irritable now than I was when I became an admin. Your contribution was fine Daniel. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• When your close is being reviewed it is important to declare yourself, as you did, and to be available to answer any simple questions. I don't see any problems with your close or your contributions to the DRV. WilyD I know as a sensible Wikipedian, but on this occasion, I find his meaning and intent a bit opaque. I can read his posts there as oblique statement of principles, not necessarily implying that you have done what he criticizes, and you may be over-reading personal criticism. I am tempted to use simpler direct language to resolve: WilyD, what did Daniel do wrong? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Daniel is acting entirely unobjectionably. Participating in a DRV of your own AFD closure does not retrospectively make yourself "an interested party". It is advisable to mention in your DRV contribution that you were the closing admin, but even this is not mandatory as it can be readily discovered one click away. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's 100% normal and expected that the closing admin will offer their thoughts at a DRV. WilyD's comments there are bizarre—they seem to be accusing you of being involved in that run-of-the-mill AfD with no evidence whatsoever—and I would also appreciate it if they could explain what on earth they are talking about. – Joe (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• One of the most helpful things for DRV participants is when the closer explains their reasoning and thought processes. WP:ADMINACCT is pretty clear that closers should do this.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's of course a good thing for a closing admin to do where appropriate; we should be accountable for our admin actions and explain them when asked or challenged. That's different from using our admin tools in discussions or issues where we're also advocating for a position. WilyD 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was shocked to see the "interested party" claim. DRV closers are the best in the business and understand when a AfD closer "endorses as closer" - this really isn't a vote per se but does show the closer thinks they got it right, and this should be encouraged. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It makes sense for a closing admin to offer their thoughts or other details on things they considered but maybe didn't expound on in what they wrote in the close. But no admin who didn't hold the community in complete contempt would endorse their own close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
    • It happens all the time, it's an accepted practice, and it all it means is that the closer doesn't think there was an error. I'm at a complete loss as to why you think otherwise. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @WilyD: Are you seriously accusing Daniel of tool misuse and "contempt" for the community because he put endorse in bold? Endorse slapping you with a fish. – Joe (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I can't know what's in his heart, of course. I can only say the action treats the community and process with contempt. WilyD 11:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• It makes no sense for the closing admin (or non-admin, for that matter) to be considered "involved" as long as they note that they were the closer - I have "Endorsed as closer" a number of times over the years, but apparently that means I hold the community in complete contempt now, so, yeah, whatever. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Though A) I think the AfD in question shouldn't have been closed they way it as and B) I very rarely find myself disagreeing with WilyD, here I've got to say that I think it's fine, and in fact good, for a closer to come to DRV to explain their close. Hobit (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)