Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8

message: Have you noticed a huge increase in the number of deletion review requests in the talk page? Perhaps that is a result of the main page being harder to use, but I think we should crack down on these attempts. This page is meant to discuss the Wikipedia:Deletion review page itself. Deletion review requests belong in the main page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the fact that these requests don't get closed will be good enough, but I think legitimate discussions about the DRV page itself are being swamped under the sheer volume of deletion review requests and complaints about articles being deleted. I'm just as guilty of responding as others, but maybe we should just make a standard "please bring your request to the main Wikipedia:Deletion review page, rather than starting a discussion in this talk page: response to any future deletion review requests made on the talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to the wording "crack down" perhaps the wording "helpfully redirect the user" .  I would like to point out, that the first time I found DelRev I was actually directed, by a user, to post my request on Talk.  So it seems like the misconception extends a bit. Wjhonson 18:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might help if we had a notice actually telling people that this was not the correct page. I mean, it seems obvious, but we don't really have anything saying NOT to put undeletion requests here. If no one objects, I'll add a Template:Notice at the top of the page making it explicit. --tjstrf 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something similar to the wording at the top of, say, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard would be good. And yes, perhaps "crack down" is too strong... Wjhonson's politically correct rewording is better. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and would there be any objections to archiving everything but this particular section? That would make the notice much more noticeable, and we can start fresh with new deletion requests made to this talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here to archiving or putting a notice on top. I've just started moving actual reviews that get started here to the current day's DRV, otherwise a "DRV is thataway" seems to work okay. -- nae'blis 18:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine with me as well Syrthiss 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Bigger, simpler, less polite, and uglier. I guess it doesn't really matter so long as it gets the point across though. --tjstrf 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page is being used as [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]] 

message: :From Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)
I have reinstated the WP:SNOW comment on Boston, Ontario.  Please stop doctoring this close, whoever you are.  --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this discussion here from the day's talk page. - brenneman {L} 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The edit of Tony's is here.  The "deliberate doctoring" is here, and Tony replaces it again here.  I've reverted again here.  This was closed the second time without it being added to recently closed, which perhaps explains Tony's apparent inability to read the histories.  I pointed to the most recent close while removing the editorialising, per previous talk page discussions. brenneman {L} 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The WP:SNOW comment was unnecessary and could be construed as deliberately inflammatory.  WP:SNOW is not policy, guideline or any direct basis for taking any admin action.  WP:SNOW is an essay and a controversial one at that.  The objections raised during the review discussion were clearly in the minority but they were also principled and articulate.  Tagging those objections with WP:SNOW marginalizes the discussion inappropriately.  According to the edit history, the comment has now been removed by two separate people.  I agree with their decision.  That is not "doctoring the close".  It is routine clean-up.  Leave it off.  Rossami (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, we have someone trying to add unnecessary detail to the closing comments in a Deletion review. I'm beginning to think we should forcibly make everything as: (deletion/closure) endorsed, (deletion/closure) overturned, closed early. That's it, no details. Details are unnecessary. If anyone wants details, look at the friggin' diff. Sheesh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is how we run DRV, not the "unnecessary detail."  As long as we treat DRV as a vote rather than an actual discussion regarding policy and process regarding deletions, we're going to continually run into these problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only talking about the summary, not the DRV process itself. The summary itself should be kept as short as possible. Whether DRV is a vote or not is irrelevant to keeping the summaries as short as possible. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the issue.  As long as we're not treating this like we treat everything else here, we're not going to be able to get concise closes that are easily understood based on how things are expected to run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, riddle me this. How is treating DRV like a vote causing close summaries to get long? I don't see how that's a causal factor. Keep the close summaries short. Regardless of whether DRV is broken, is a vote, is not a vote, causes cucumbers to turn into pickles, I don't see how that gets in the way of keeping the summaries as short as possible. "Deletion endorsed", "Deletion overturned", "Keep closure endorsed", "Listed on AfD": how the heck is DRV being broken, is a vote, is not a vote, causing cucumbers to turn into pickles, or whatever making these short summaries impossible? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take, for instance, Tony's close.  He knows he can't truly get away with "Keep closure endorsed," so he's got to clarify it.  It undoubtedly becomes the same as we "endorse" other closes in ways we shouldn't be.  It's part and parcel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, he needs to make these comments in the edit summary. Since we record the diff in the close summary, the edit summary comments will be quite visible to anyone who wants to see the DRV closure comments. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A doctored close 

message: I'd like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for Undeletion, which I've proposed as a replacement to this mess. [ælfəks] 15:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've suggested on the new AFU talk page that DRV be for process review (which appears to be what a lot of the regulars want it to strictly stick to) and the new AFU for merit review - David Gerard 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love nothing better than to keep DRV clear of "second xfD" aspirations, but wouldn't it be hard for folks, especially relatively new folks, to figure out between a merit review and a process review? This has a slight instruction creep scent to it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I would strongly suggest discussing DRV first, before forking off another process. A fork would be confusing, and I fear it might spawn revert wars and/or wheel wars. We're in no hurry, so let's talk! >Radiant< 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Another issue is that Articles for Undeletion seems to apply only to articles (and even if the process expands, the name is misleading) while DRV applies to categories, images, and everything else as well. Partly for that reason as well, I doubt that AFU could replace DRV completely. I am, however, completely in favor of revamping DRV. —Cswrye 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible replacement system 

message: Wikipedia works via consensus.  It's how every process here operates, from RfA to AfD.  Somehow, DRV is a relic of another time, when dinosaurs roamed and a 14.4 modem was quick.  According to DRV:
:If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.
As it stands, it's nothing more than a vote count.  This is contrary to many things - every other process here, our consensus guideline, for examples - and, to coin a phrase from others, it's "unwiki."  Quite simply, DRV discussions should be closed based on the weight of the argument rather than how many people show up, just like everything else.  Is anyone opposed to changing this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they already must be closed in that way.Kim Bruning 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be, but they're not, and it's due to the language that should be followed until it's changed at the top.  Recent examples include Axe Murder Boyz and Futuristic Sex Robotz both times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how are you proposing that it be reworded? Do you merely intend to replace the vote-based language with consensus-based terms, or actually change something about the process itself? Also, if this change is made, how do you propose DRV stay fundamentally different than XfD? I have no opinion on the change until those questions are addressed. --tjstrf 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fundamentally different from XfD because DRV is about discussing a) the process, and b) new information not considered during the XfD/new information found after an XfD.  Changing the result of a DRV closure would not and should not change the intent of DRV, and would furthermore not step on the toes of any chances at a XfU like above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with new changes, of course we should be using consensus to determine these things. --Deville (Talk) 20:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not according to Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.  There is some talk about this in the archives.  IIRC, the rationale is that the article has already had its chance at AFD and consenus was to delete. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  DRV is for when we have questions about that determination of consensus, right? Kim Bruning 13:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental change

message: I've found two Deletion reviews where I've found overriding reasons to act in some way. One because new(?) information has been found, showing that the AFD came to the wrong conclusion. The other because we'd be breaking the law and our own rules. 
In any case I noted it on those two DRVs, and I hope they will be closed as per consensus. Especially in the latter case, if you close the wrong way you end up potentially breaking the law, so Don't Do That(tm).
Oddly there's no documentation on overriding reasons on WP:Consensus, a page which is admittedly a mess. Can some experienced admin monitor this further? Kim Bruning 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links please? >Radiant< 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overriding reason 

message: When an article is deleted, it's entire content is no longer available to non-admins.  In cases where the deleted version(s) contained copyvios, potential libel, personal details, or other things which are legal risks to Wikipedia; that policy makes perfect sense.  Specific revisions which might put the project or the foundation at risk should be made unavailable.  Articles containing nothing but such (i.e. attack articles and the like) and have no "good" versions should be wholly unavailable.
Beyond that--why not move deleted articles, which may be unencyclopedic (and thus unworthy of article space), elsewhere?  Perhaps a new namespace could be created, say, the Deleted article: namespace; then we could have access to the article for deletion reviews.  At the end of a certain period--long enough for DRs to occur; articles would be permanently deleted.  Users moving articles out of the deletion space into userspace would be permitted, in which case the article could be kept there and not subject to the time limit.  However, moving back to article space without good reason would be a no-no.
Many users often "archive" articles at AfD elsewhere on Wikipedia, or at locations external to Wikipedia; no attempt is generally made to curb this practice.
--EngineerScotty 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are deleted versions unavailable? 

message: This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved.  Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages.  Rossami (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: The boilerplate at the top of that section had the following paragraph.  The instructions are good and I understand the constant need to recruit more admins to support that housekeeping task but I think the paragraph clutters up the page more than it helps it.  The instructions considerably longer than ideal.  Perhaps we can find a better home for this paragraph?  Rossami (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note; the above category is now at :Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. -- nae'blis 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review]] 

message: I requested the undeletion of the history of Percy Nobby Norton Article no one has responded on my Talk Page and I have recieved no feedback. What is the next step. Did I post correctly, did it get lost, should I repost. Please help. -- Trant Dent 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Based on the AFD for the article, the article was judged a pathetic hoax or lame joke, which then was reposted multiple times until the page was protected. I'm sure your request was not taken seriously, nor is it likely to be in the future. Fan-1967 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Request 

message: Hiya, I have a process question about reviewing a "keep" decision. Basically, we have/had an article, Antonia Bennett, that was:
* Speedy-deleted by  
* Re-created
* Submitted for AfD
* Had a messy AfD process, including a Delete comment getting removed and no one noticing for a couple days 
* Ultimately had a decision of "Keep" on the AfD 
* Has had the "Keep"  protested by three different editors (myself, Danny, and Chairboy)
* Was then re-speedy-deleted by  
Personally, I feel that the article should be undeleted, and then submitted for either an (Un)Deletion Review, or a second AfD with wider participation and more careful monitoring.  Then again, it might be better to just leave the article speedy-deleted, since that'll probably be the end result anyway.  But the situation has gotten complex enough, that I'd like other opinions.  Anyone else care to weigh in on the best way to handle this at this point?  Comments are appreciated at Talk:Antonia Bennett.  Thanks, Elonka 17:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've talked to Chairboy; we'll see what he says.  In the meantime, feel free to open a DRV request, as this seems like a good case to be heard, IMO. Xoloz 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Antonia Bennett

message: I don't understand the result given here: "Kept woman, Dr. E. von Wolf, Kootenai Valley Press, Portal gun - Deletions endorsed. 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal gun

message: I'm really thinking we should put something on the page about the pokemon defense and how it's not a valid argument. Not that anyone ever reads the rules anyway. Whispering(talk/c) 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean something like WP:INN?  Rossami (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is valid for Pokemon articles. I haven't seen that one used recently anyway, at least in a direct form. So I'm not sure how it would help to link to it. --tjstrf 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do people even use that anymore (except on Pokarticles, of course)? If not, WP:BEANS would apply here. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. In fact, somebody used it just last week. William Pietri 02:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Pokemon Defense isn't really all that valid, because almost all species of Pokemon have, or will have, multiple third-party reliable sources written about them.  The most prominent one (for the original 151.  There's also a later edition which lists the Gold/Silver ones as well) is Barbo, Maria. The Official Pokémon Handbook.  The game guides written for the various versions of Pokemon also have minor sections on each.  ColourBurst 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon Defense 

message: It seems we have a number of articles that are AFD'ed over and over again, which after a while becomes entirely pointless and seems to irritate people on both sides of the issue. If an article is deleted a couple of times, we protect it against recreation until deletion is overturned on this page. Would it be reasonable to propose that if an article is AFD'ed a couple of times and ends up not deleted, it is 'protected' against further AFD'ing until non-deletion is overturned on this page? Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there seems to be little gain in rehashing the same arguments every couple of weeks. >Radiant< 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried that at Speedy Keep last spring, and got thoroughly shot down the minute I tried to use it in an AfD discussion.  The community doesn't want it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The community generally won't support rapid reAFDing.  If it has been a few to several months, prior AFDs become much less significant.  Sometimes a prior keep result can become additional evidence for deletion - generally in conjunction with a keep and clean up opinion from a substantial fraction of the keep opiners plus a failure to clean-up the article.  Remember consensus can change.  Right now I think the general wikiwide consensus is shifting a bit towards emphasizing quality instead of quantity, but this is a guess and gut feel more than something that can be evidenced.  GRBerry 02:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is untrue.  Only in some cases are they closed (rightfully) as WP:POINT violations.  In practice, people are typically allowed to AfD things as many times as they like to get a desired result, and the community is okay with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, over time the community's standards do change, and it becomes necessary to revisit some things.  Only relatively recently has the community begun to truly take reliable sourcing seriously (IMHO largely as a result of the John Seigenthaler debacle) and as a result some things are being deleted as unverifiable these days which might have slid by as "harmless" a year ago.  This is mostly a good thing, as what's the point of building an encyclopedia if nobody trusts its accuracy as an information source?  In any case, multiple listings are simply not that big a problem: of millions of articles, how many can you name that have been AfDed more than 3 times?  My educated guess is there's been less than a dozen such articles in the whole history of wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renominations

message: There was a DRV in the last few months for a micronation. However, I don't remember the name of the article and I'm having trouble finding it. Any help would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Found it. JoshuaZ 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micronation. Trying to find old DRV - assistance in finding old DRV would be appreciated. 

message: I posted a proposal for a new way to archive DRV's at User:Trialsanderrors/DRV. Please feel free to comment at User talk. ~ trialsanderrors 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving DRV debates

message: I had an administrator user:Robdurbar remove my deletion review.  is this kosher? RichMac (Talk) 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks accidental (though I don't know why he didn't get an edit conflict).  I've put it back. —Cryptic 11:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. RichMac (Talk) 11:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion review deleted 

message: Why does WP:RFU redirect here yet nowhere on the page is it explained what R.F.U. stands for?  Thanks in advance for correcting this.  Badagnani 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFU meaning