Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 4

message: Good proposal. Too many sentences. Not instruction creep if written right, as it's just a change of scope. I share Kim Bruning's concern that each new rule is a new battleground for the future. How about:
#Deletion review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:
#*They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question;
#*The action in question was so clearly out-of-process that it would be reasonable to expect a near-unanimous vote here. They should, as a courtesy, inform the editor whose action they are reversing.
#*In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be. 
#*An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above.
#Significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. If you can simply write a new article, be WP:BOLD and do so!
:*If a deletion debate was closed with a non-delete result early and an editor thinks there is non-bureaucratic value in re-opening it, they may do so.
:*This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process not content.
That says it all, I think.-Splash 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the simplicity but feel it needs something regarding restricting admins.  This approach does not change the current problems between admins and while this does say that it applies to "all" editors it does not indicate that admins should use this method instead of, dare I say it, unilateral boldness against the consensus and process. - Tεxτurε 18:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to avoid the "u" word, although I am familiar with the fact that some recent troubles stem from it. It does use the words "all" and "any", however, so there's not much wriggle room. I added an explicit mention of admins. I think the wriggles will come from the second "unless" — that may need phrasing more tightly. -Splash 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I made some changes to the original draft, along these lines (use the diff). The thing about AN/I — would people just prefer no such clause at all?
-Splash 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The AN/I thing reads better to me, because it makes clear that the guiding principle is community consensus rather than "I, the Lone Gun Admin, am all that stands between the people of Wikipedia and Anarchy." Nandesuka 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fewer words!

message: If this page is to be renamed, I find Deletion review cumbersome; and easy to confuse with "Deletion Reform".
I much prefer the straightforward Undeletion. Septentrionalis 18:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Deletion reconsideration or Deletions up for reconsideration?  This seems to be a more apt description of what is happening on the page. NoSeptember 15:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: I've removed some material from the main page.  If someone thinks it should go back, do that of course. brenneman(t)(c) 23:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't feed the...

message: CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal here. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particualrly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD A7 clarification proposal 

message: There appears, to me at least, to be a broad support for making a change towards the boxed proposal above. There are concerns about the detail of the process, however. As I read the discussion above (and not the discussion below, since it relates to a fundamentally different approach) we are consider something like 3 options:
#Simple: A strong consensus (e.g. three-quarters) to amend a closing admin's decision i.e. a delete turned into a notdelete or vice versa, or a straight keep turned into a redirect/merge, or a keep turned into a delete. Also, a simple decision to "relist" when things are very unclear.
#*There are suggestions of a lower notion of consensus: at present VfU needs a simple majority. This is too low a threshold imo, since we should start out by trusting our closers — there is no reason to defy tradition and remove the element of trusted judgement implied by a successful RfA.
#More complicated: A kind of purgatory. If the numerics are in the 50-75% range (with the usual emphasis on process not content demanded from participants) then the article returns to AfD (or _fD). If above three-quarters the decision is simply mandated and implemented.
Some sort of a merge of the two might be appropriate. What do people think? -Splashtalk 18:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have more comments as I think about it more but right off the top of my head, I recommend removing the clause about speedy-deletions.  Leaving speedies in scope will inevitably draw us into content discussions, not process discussions.  Remember that the community has not yet expressed an opinion on the content in a speedy decision.  A speedy is executed on the opinion of a single admin.  Speedy-deletes are only supposed to be for non-controversial deletions.  If a speedy is contested in good faith, the article should immediately be restored without bureaucracy or discussion.  The restored article should, however, be immediately nominated for a full deletion discussion.  That restored article could be kept (as a "no consensus") if as few as a third of the discussion participants want it.  That process and standards are at odds with both the process and the standards proposed above for overturning a full AFD decision.  Easiest just to put speedies out of scope and stick with the current review process for them.  Rossami (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point -- the above is really more tailored to disputing XfD results. OTOH, bringing disputed speedies to DR or a similar forum might help to developp a consistant practice on what patent nonsense or a claim of notability (to quote probably the two most disputed and mis-used speedy criteria), and to get most admins doing speedy deletes on the same page, guided by a community consensus. Please recall that it was discuaaion on VfU that led to the empasis on the WP:CSD page on th3 distinctiuon betweeen content and context. But if it is decided to elimitate speedy deltions from the DR scope, so be it. DES (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanics

message: *An alternative proposal: Afd challenge
** Already, policy dictates that disputed speedies go to Afd.
** I suggest that all disputes to deletion and AfD results go to AfD using the existing process, with the following additional rules:
*** A sysop who disputes a deletion in process can undelete and relist on AfD (he can already undelete without further process if the article in question isn't a speedy or AfD candidate; this is filling in the gray areas)
*** A non-sysop who disputes any deletion can ask a sysop to undelete and relist on AfD.
*** If no sysop agrees to undelete, the article can be relisted on AfD in its deleted state.  If it was an out-of-process deletion, existing policy says that it can be undeleted at will by any sysop.
*** Only one challenge is permitted. Once an article has been through two AfDs, recreation of the same content can be speedied and any further attempt to challenge will be summarily removed.
*** Any person who disputes any non-delete close can relist (this is already allowed)
*** During the dispute period the article will not be deleted.
*** After a dispute of a non-delete that results in deletion, there is no further appeal.
**There would be no need for:
*** VFU: appeal against deletion would take place on AfD.
*** Separate close procedures: the same close would be performed on AfD for primary listings and challenges.
** I think this would work better than having a separate venue.  In the interests of transparency, challenges to AfD results should occur in the same venue as AfDs. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Afd challenge

message: Tony, I find it deeply distasteful that you make such changes as you just did to an established process when your proposal has thus far received no support. You told us to change policy if we didn't like it. That's what we're talking about doing. You on the other hand, have simply decided to reshape procedure you don't like on a whim. I could as well have changed the header, moved the page to a new anme and proclaimed the issue settled. But I figured discussion was a better way to go. Thus far, everyone apart from you seems happy that discussion is indeed the way to go. -Splashtalk 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wanted to say, before everything just died, that I realize you took the wording out of the undelete policy. But it seems to have been done with the fairly clear intention that the mechanics of VfU be peremptorily changed, given your current interpretation of what they are. -Splashtalk 22:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, he was trying to make a WP:POINT? - Tεxτurε 22:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking me or Tony? I don't think it was a WP:POINT, particularly. -Splashtalk 23:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Simply: the purpose of the page section should be replaced by the boxed proposal above, subject to us working out the details of the mechanics. The consequential changes should then be made to the undeletion policy. -Splashtalk 18:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If you cannot gain a consensus here, then no, it is obviously not right.  You are changing undeletion policy by claiming another policy is somehow altering that policy or superceding.  This claim is unreasonable. - Tεxτurε 02:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Purpose of the page" section

message: The above section with the DR proposal had overwhelming support with very few challenging it. What's next? - Tεxτurε 17:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to offer a challenge here, having just become aware of the debate. (Whatever happened to things like mentioning changes on the mailing list and the like?) If VfU is procedural, I don't think we ought have a vote to determine adherence to procedure. We do not have Votes for Unblocking (Thank GOD) to determine whether the blocking policy was followed correctly. Admins sort it out amongst themselves. In the case of a procedural failure - either to delete or to keep - the dispute should be sorted out by the participants. To have a vote would lead to odd results like the same procedural decision being considered an error or acceptable on a case by case basis, depending as largely on who shows up to vote that week as on the actual correctness of the decision. Which is to say that this is not something that should be left up to whim, whether collective or individual. Snowspinner 18:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review support 

message: Who gets to determine whether or not there is rough consensus on the Deletion Review? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 1

message: Again, what's contentious are those Overturn and (action) that fall into that area between "rough" and 75%.  For many admins, this area does not exist.  For those who are willing to close a normal XfD in this zone, they'd have to be pretty sure of themselves to commit (action) in this very public venue.  Thus this is a non-issue to me compared to setting the lower bound.brenneman(t)(c) 01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Setting the upper bound - action 

message: Never cropped up yet but How can one overturn a disputed "merge" result into a "delete" when the closing admin has gone ahead and merged the articles? Revert the merge (which has since possibly been heavily edited)? Delete those versions with the merged content from the history? Or what else? Shall we just say that "merge" results cannot be disputed at DR? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll answer this one.  Delete the article per the DR ruling.  After that a merge is just any other edit to the other article.  Keep it or revert it per that article's discussion.  (It has nothing to do anymore with the deleted article.)  The ruling to "delete" versus the old ruling to "merge" really only changed a "keep" to a "delete".  The other article would have to be discussed separately if you wanted to undo added content. - Tεxτurε 14:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the GFDL-isms with merges can be cleared away with a history copy-paste to the talk of the target article. This does still seem to allow someone to say "oh, this is a delete but I can't bear to, so I'll merge it instead" and be able to override the consensus to remove the content completely which is a bit concerning. -Splashtalk 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 3

message: Ok, I've altered the text as per suggestioned.  My feeling is that it is incorrect to state the XfD paradigm as "no consensus, so keep".  It is far more accurate to say "no consensus, do nothing".  In fact, we've had some bitter disputes in the recent past over this very matter with regards to how non-consensus closures should be recorded.   
I also would have liked wider participation in this. (Tony has said he's not interested.) 
I'm swayed by Splash's need for speed and DES' and Titoxd's desire for a lower threshold to relist.  I've created a template (it's used above) and added it to the page... in comment wrappers.  However, I'd like to make a date in either three months or when it rears its head to talk again about "rough consensus" vs. "50/75 consensus".brenneman(t)(c) 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Slight pause.  If past performance is anything to go by, E's input will be worth waiting for.  brenneman(t)(c) 05:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to point out as I did in Wikipedia_talk:Undeletion_policy#wording_change that currently Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]] is in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy since wikipedia is not a democracy, and every attempt I make to bring it in line with existing policy is reverted. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would take a moment to read around, Jtkeifer, you would have quickly noticed that changes to Undel policy are currently being discussed, with wide support. They will be more in line with your favourite policy once the discussions conclude: there is no hurry. You should join the discussion rather than complaining about undiscussed changes being removed. -Splashtalk 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all at least have the couretesy to get my name right, secondly it's not my favorite policy (ignore all the rules is) it's just policy and I like you and every other user is bound by it, and I don't see why VFU should be an exception to the rules. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 17:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the misspelling. You must get it quite a lot. My hope is that VfU will not be the glaring exception to consensus policy it currently is for too much longer, although it will not comply completely with the usually-fuzzy notion of consensus. -Splashtalk 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "rough consensus"

message: Most people who have commetned seem to support, or at least not oppose, the current proposal and the current version of the mechanics. Have hwe had enough participation and enough time to consider this a consensus to make this change? I suggest that the currently edited proposal and mechanics be reposted (so it is clear what is current) with a date (say in a week?) when we think they should go into effect, absent further opposition, and post renewed notices at the pump and other places where people will see them. On the specifeid date, fi tehre stil seems to be consensus, this page will be moved and the nned alterations will be made to the instructions and other sectiosn of the page, and to appropriate pages that link to [[WP:VFU]. Does this seem like a reasonable way to proceed? If not what does?  DES (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I have only just seen this. See my comment at the Village Pump/Policy, and take yourselves over to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal. -Splashtalk 01:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: Neutrality has been kind enough to provide us with some fodder for discussion in the last few days. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminations

message: What's a "proper" listing?  What should be done with one that's not?
*All listings are proper unless a newbie makes a mistake and requests restoration of a not-deleted article (happens sometimes). Ergo there is no answer to the second question. When the change to DR is made this does not change — whilst there is in both cases a clear preference for prior discussion, it is not and should not be a prerequisite for coming here. -Splashtalk 01:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal (e.g. improper listings)

message: Aside from the obvious (self-revert) ones, when could a debate be closed early?
*Per the undeletion policy, when something was "obviously deleted out of process". Thus AfD closure almost never unless plainly in bad-faith. Speedies sometimes. Since this typically requires undeletion, it can be left to the admin's judgement. It should be generally discouraged unless the word "exception" applies. It is frequently shortcircuited by admins who either do not like VfU or are not aware of the VfU debate (or who are aware of it but pretend not to be). That does not make it ok to do so, unless we are in exceptional circumstance. Deliberation and patience are good antidotes to unilateralism and bewailing admin actions. The change to DR affects this stance very little since it is probably philosophically tricky to keep an article out of-process, and we should almost never summarily delete articles that do not meet CSDs (unless they're copyvios or highly damaging for some reason). Taking time to deliberate over a deletion or a keepdeletedtion is important. -Splashtalk 01:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early closure

message: Wikipedia:Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability proposal 

message: Copied from WP:RM
* Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion — Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion → Wikipedia:Deletion review – This has been proposed by several editors in line with the above.  Uncle G 23:51:49, 2005-08-26 (UTC) 
* Or Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion — Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion → Wikipedia:Undeletion. Simpler and less ambiguous. Septentrionalis
::Moved from WP:RM Discussion should take place on the Talk Page of the page to be moved (Philip Baird Shearer):
**I think the goal is not to make this simply another VfU but rather a review of both deletions and undeletions.  We need a page specifically to review admin actions regarding a vote. - Tεxτurε 14:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussions on a WP:RM take place on the talk page of the page to be moved (not on the WP:RM page). As there is no delete involved whether the page is moved or not moved the record of the discussion can be kept on the relevant talk page as is all other talk about the article in question. If you think I have copied it to an inappropriate place on the talk page then please move it. Philip Baird Shearer 13:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From WP:RM

message: Wikipedia:Undeletion policy mentions that images can be listed in Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion but I didn't see any image listings here. Can images for undeletion be listed here ? Jay 07:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's peculiar. Images can't be undeleted — it's a technical thing rather than a policy thing. There is the possibility, in particularly vitally extreme cases of having someone go through database dumps to find it, but, in almost all cases, you'd need to upload the image again. -Splashtalk 11:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive the primary effect of a successful image listing on VfU would be that a new download of the image would not qualify for speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. --Allen3 talk 11:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Allen, and I would like to add that it is possible to find the images through one of our many mirrors and forks. Lost images deals with these kinds of things. Titoxd(?!?) 16:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images for undeletion

message: I've labeled as disputed, several deletions within my comments that were replaced with <personal attack removed> labels.  The ones I disputed unfairly and exageratedly characterize my comments, which were more in the nature of accusations, such as might be done in an RfC or an ARBCOM case.  Removing accusations such as these, and then characterizing them as personal attacks will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who would bring abusive behavior to the attention of the community, and would harm the communities ability to openly police itself.  I did not dispute a couple of statements, that while they would not be personal attacks if they were true, since I was mistaken and they are false accusations which have I apologized for.--Silverback 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusations remain in the page history, so there's nothing to worry about. Titoxd(?!?) 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed statements in SB comments 

message: I've moved this page to Deletion Review, per consensus in the above discussion. Radiant_>|< 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: ===Serious problems===
*
*
The problems are pretty obvious.  The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy.  To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. Would you care to explain why, or is "Tony Sidaway says so" sufficient? --Calton | Talk 03:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My memory of this is that there was detailed discussion on this very header about a month ago, and that a fair summary of the discussion would be "just about everyone who participated in the discussion, except Tony, agreed with the version that Aaron is reverting to."  So if bowlderizing and mutilating the header to remove one of the most central points discussed (namely Deletion review applies to administrators also) without even bothering to come to the talk page first is "consensus-building", then I am Marie of Roumania.  There is a line between "bold" and "reckless", and I think Tony is crossing it. Nandesuka 12:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header]] 

message: *
*
The problems are pretty obvious.  The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy.  To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. Would you care to explain why, or is "Tony Sidaway says so" sufficient? --Calton | Talk 03:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My memory of this is that there was detailed discussion on this very header about a month ago, and that a fair summary of the discussion would be "just about everyone who participated in the discussion, except Tony, agreed with the version that Aaron is reverting to."  So if bowlderizing and mutilating the header to remove one of the most central points discussed (namely Deletion review applies to administrators also) without even bothering to come to the talk page first is "consensus-building", then I am Marie of Roumania.  There is a line between "bold" and "reckless", and I think Tony is crossing it. Nandesuka 12:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious problems

message: As a sub-policy of the official undeletion policy, the instructions on "Deletion Review" (or "VFU" or whatever it's being called today) cannot contradict the official policy that it falls under, regardless of any discussion or consensus found on the sub-page's talk page.  Official policy cannot be undermined by consensus regarding related subpolicies.  To do so is to commit a fiat of the official policy.  Any time that a subpage is out of sync with the policy it falls under, for any reason, any editor is performing properly when they correct the subpage to conform with the actual policy.  Please find consensus to change the official undeletion policy before inserting further nonsense about this being about "process only".  Unfocused 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion review is a sub-policy of the OFFICIAL Undeletion Policy

message: There is currently some controversy about the meaning and relevance of this phrase, and its suitability for inclusion on WP:DRV and WP:DEL. The controversy has manifested as an edit war on those pages (see for example , , , , , ), and a short block on two editors . I believe it might be helpful, in efforts to resolve the dispute, to look at the phrase's history and intent. 
=== History ===
Tony Sidaway, SimonP and others are correct when they say that the phrase has been with WP for a long time. Its earliest use that I know of was in the document that eventually became WP:DEL. The original page can still be seen; it dates from February 25 2002, but was actually written in November 2001 in the old software.
That page was an instruction to administrators. In the old UseModWiki software, page deletions were qualitatively different from page deletions in our current system: once a page was deleted, it was completely removed, such that it was "impossible to restore from within the system." The present day equivalent is removal of the page history from the database by a developer.
This permanent quality of deletions made it imperative that any deletion decision was made with particular care—there was no such thing as "undeletion" at the time. The rules were a reminder to anyone about to delete a page what was generally expected of them; to wit, these were "some rules that those tasked with permanently deleting pages can generally be expected to follow in making the decision to delete or not."
On September 20 2003, more than two years ago, old time user Cimon avaro moved the instructions to a very appropriate, newly created page, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. You can see the original  here. 
=== Meaning & intent ===
The above history makes the meaning of the phrase in question crystal clear. It is an instruction to administrators (ie. to people who can delete pages) to be careful when commiting that final act, and to desist if they cannot make up their minds about whether they should delete a page. The phrase is an axiom for individual administrators to bear in mind when they make their delete decisions. The Deletion guidelines for administrators also provides other helpful tips to administrators. For example:
*Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
*As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
These are all sensible rules of thumb for administrators to keep in mind as they consider their closes; "if in doubt, don't delete" is one among them.
=== (Mis)use ===
I have noticed that this phrase appears to be often misused these days. The clearest misuse happens when someone uses it to proclaim that another admin's close was invalid, because it was closed at a rough consensus standard that they believe to be unacceptable. This is often expressed with something like: "You should not have deleted that page. It was too close; two-thirds isn't a consensus. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'" 
This is the sort of thing that makes you go "Whaa—?". It's a misunderstanding of the axiom. IIDDD is not intended to call into question deletion decisions made in perfect accordance with the criteria in WP:DEL and WP:CON by an administrator who had no doubts as to the validity of the closure. 
Another misuse of the axiom is the idea contained in the following: "You should not have deleted it because there was doubt. The very fact that I'm disagreeing with you proves that there is doubt. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'" This is incorrect, for what should be very obvious reasons.
Tony Sidaway has recently made several edits to the VFU header page, in which he characterizes IIDDD in an interesting way. He writes,
:Deletion can be challenged [in DR] under two policies:
:*Deletion policy the chief precept of which is "if in doubt, don't delete"
and
:This page operates within two policies, both of which deliberately adopt a very permissive approach to Wikipedia articles:
:*deletion policy, if in doubt, don't delete.
It is unclear to me how an instruction to administrators to be careful when performing deletions became "the chief precept" of WP:DEL. The deletion policy is a document that specifies what things within WP may be removed. Where the main namespace is concerned¹, what may be removed are
*pages which conflict two of the article policy trifecta (ie. WP:V and WP:NOR), 
*pages on or containing a number of things deemed unencyclopedic by long-standing tradition, which are noted in WP:NOT, and
*pages contravening WP:Copyrights.
These are the bases of article space policy and the fountainhead of deletion policy—they are what the deletion policy was written to enforce.
The axiom IIDDD on the other hand is merely a simple reminder to admins who're on the job not to be trigger happy. It is most certainly not "the chief precept" of deletion policy, just as "don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" is not the chief precept of deletion policy, nor any other of those little, if helpful, reminders given to admins who're working on deletions. The idea that IIDDD makes WP permissive is also misleading, I believe. It neither makes it more permissive nor less. What goes and stays on WP is determined by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. All else are secondary, and all else are derivations. In this editor's humble opinion, at any rate.
Perhaps the intent is to emphasize the open nature of the wiki. This is a fair point, but:
#if so, that point should be properly expressed. This phrase does not express that idea, despite many people apparently believing it does. It simply cannot: its very construction shows that.
#the openess of the wiki is subservient to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. As I said earlier, these foundational principles form the basis of the deletion policy, and together with WP:NPOV they dictate what is and is not allowable in the mainspace.
=== Where should IIDDD be placed? ===
This brings us to the question that started all this. Should "if in doubt, don't delete" be placed in WP:DEL and WP:DRV? This seems to be the source of much dispute, but that is only because IIDDD is misunderstood. Personally I will not strongly object with listing the admin reminders on the deletion page, because I know what they are and what they were written to for, and putting them there will not make me treat the article-space policy any less seriously. However, I do see the point that they're out-of-place. WP:DEL is primarily written for users and editors of the encyclopedia, not sysops. Placing IIDDD in such a page, in the way it has been placed there now,  does sound odd—because non-sysops can't delete, whether they are in doubt or not. IIDDD is directed at sysops, the folks who do the deleting. The correct place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it fits perfectly and where it has been placed since the inception of that page. (Yes, it was also in the page that eventually became WP:DEL, but that was when that page was in fact directed at admins. You can read it [http://here.)
What about WP:DRV? The same applies. Wherever the thing is placed however, I would ask that it is not misrepresented, or written in a way that gives a misleading account of article space and deletion policy on Wikipedia. If I've been wrong in any of the above, do correct me—it will not be the first time, nor the last :) I do believe that this issue needn't divide us as it has. Kind regards encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ¹ There is one more class of item that can be deleted from the mainspace and which is not covered in the above policies, and that is the "useless redirect," normally deleted via WP:RFD. I have left it out from the above for simplicity. encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "If in doubt, don't delete" 

message: This brings us to the question that started all this. Should "if in doubt, don't delete" be placed in WP:DEL and WP:DRV? This seems to be the source of much dispute, but that is only because IIDDD is misunderstood. Personally I will not strongly object with listing the admin reminders on the deletion page, because I know what they are and what they were written to for, and putting them there will not make me treat the article-space policy any less seriously. However, I do see the point that they're out-of-place. WP:DEL is primarily written for users and editors of the encyclopedia, not sysops. Placing IIDDD in such a page, in the way it has been placed there now,  does sound odd—because non-sysops can't delete, whether they are in doubt or not. IIDDD is directed at sysops, the folks who do the deleting. The correct place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it fits perfectly and where it has been placed since the inception of that page. (Yes, it was also in the page that eventually became WP:DEL, but that was when that page was in fact directed at admins. You can read it [http://here.)
What about WP:DRV? The same applies. Wherever the thing is placed however, I would ask that it is not misrepresented, or written in a way that gives a misleading account of article space and deletion policy on Wikipedia. If I've been wrong in any of the above, do correct me—it will not be the first time, nor the last :) I do believe that this issue needn't divide us as it has. Kind regards encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ¹ There is one more class of item that can be deleted from the mainspace and which is not covered in the above policies, and that is the "useless redirect," normally deleted via WP:RFD. I have left it out from the above for simplicity. encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should IIDDD be placed? 

message: Since thare are soem cases (contested speedies) which are laregely content issues, and others in which content is relevant to determine whether the process was correct or not I propose altering this wording from "This page is about process, not content." to "This page is primarily about process, rather than content." to avoid the implicatiuon that any discussion of content is banned, and, i hope, to make things more agreeable to those who object to the current version. DES (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see a problem with the old wording, as reviewing the content of speedies is part of the process. The wording is meant to discourage AfD 2nd. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, and to be honest I don't have a strong objection to yours either, if that helps. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the purpose, and was one of the advocates of putting this phrase, often cited in VfU discussions, into the written purpose statement. But some people seem to fear that it means that any mention of content is off-limits, and I hoped to clarify that. If others don't think it helpful -- well it was just an idea. DES (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfocused you most likely did a 3RR with that last edit. Anyway, I made an attempt for a comprimise. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header wording "Process not content"? 

message: Is there no archive of Deletion Review discussions? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in the history, although there's been talk of changing that re:TfD or somesuch. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: and then i can link it back again and also my other watchlist things need to be sorted outPerrymason 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want my post back 

message: Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored.
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 10:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Resource Bank Article wrongly deleted  

message: As a compromise between having a complicated archiving system and the sudden, unexplained disppearance of entries from this page, I have started a "Recently Concluded" section at the bottom of DRV. This tells of recent closings, and points to appropriate AFDs, where applicable. If an achiving system is later worked out, obviously that will supercede this, but in the meantime this seemed quite helpful. Necessary, perhaps. As I can't imagine anything being terribly controversial about this, I just went ahead and did it. Obviously nothing is now forcing everyone who closes these debates from doing this, but I would encourage them to, as it's much easier than looking through the page history to find out what results were. -R. fiend 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that'll be necessary, I removed some extra ones and I noted that it should be limited to the last 10 concluded reviews to keep the size to a limited amount. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd still like to see a bit more structure to the way that we do this.  Currently, an article could go to AfD, be closed as keep, come to deletion review and potentially be overturned and deleted without that being noted anywhere.  This might be pretty hard for someone to track down who wasn't up to speed on DRV.  Ideally we'd have a) Template notice on the XfD listing pointing to b)some record of the DR discussion that was somewhat easy to find.  brenneman(t)(c) 22:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently conluded section