Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 5

message: I think somewhere at the top of the page we should describe standardized wording for votes, particularly given that the rather contradictory verbs endorse (the deletion) and oppose (the undeletion request) amount to the same thing. Perhaps stick with, undelete and keep deleted. Marskell 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a yellow box describing precisely that. In the change to Deletion review, the notion of reviewing a not-delete debate was introduced, and the old wording doesn't really fit that. -Splashtalk 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes. To qualify then, we should follow the wording as presented. (And perhaps we should tidy the top of the page). Marskell 04:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Not a vote. Is discussion. Splitting into votes not compatible with good discussion. -Splashtalk 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand it's not a vote, but it's no more not a vote than RFA is not a vote.  We're asking people to assert their preference for one of three alternatives; we might as well make it easy to figure out which of those they are asserting.  --RoySmith 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done by the bolding most people use. AfD works fine with this format. I see no need to change it here. Reading the discussion is vastly more important. -Splashtalk 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: (i.e. deleted)
If I trimmed any current threads, a firm spanking is always welcome. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived to history 

message: It is stated often times here that it is perfectly acceptable to create a new article with substantially different content then the original article that was put through WP:AFD. How then is this handled in the case of articles that have been protected as redirects due to vandalism or recreation. How long should such protection last. Several sources within Wikipedia suggest that Protection is harmful. Yet numerous articles seem to be sitting in permanently protected status. I have established that requests for protection does not apply in this case, but I am having a hard time sourcing any kind of actual procedure for what should be followed. At the time of the initial query I did determine that the article that initially raised my concern had recently gone through deletion review and had not gotten nearly the supermajority required for undeletion, and in fact stalled with a lack of consensus. Following the less then helpful directions which were available to me I relisted the article for review. However, I personally do not believe the original process to be incorrect at all, nor do I beleive the original content of the article in question is at all of value.
The second discussion was quickly closed based on the fact that the article in question had recently gone through deletion review. I was even accused of relisting untill the vote went my way (in spite of the fact that I had no part in the initial review).
My concern is that creation of a substantially different article has been effectively prevented in several cases and there is no apparent mechanism of which I am aware for correcting what protection policy clearly states is not within policy and which other sources show is considered harmful.
Questions then are as follows:
#Does this even belong here? (From all that I can tell it does because it is a review of deletion process question)
#How does one appeal an issue of a protected redirect?
#How long should one wait when requesting review if they wish to be taken seriously? 
If I am totally of topic or location by all means feel free to direct me in the correct direction.
— Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 15:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the correct place if you have new information available about the original subject and would like to seek the overturning of the original deletion. I'm wondering which article we're dancing around here? Clearly it's been on DRV more than once in quick succession and recreated enough to have earnt itself protection. This sounds like a hint that shuld be taken, except that you indicate above that you are happy with the deletion. If you want to write an article on a different topic at the same title, just say so. -Splashtalk 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Leeroy Jenkins, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Leeroy Jenkins. I imagine the deletion review was dismissed because of all the sockpuppetry and shtuff in that debate and the fact that it was an article about a character someone had invented and the fact that it has since been recreated 10 times as nonsense. So the article will stay protected and deleted unless you plan to write about some other Leeroy Jenkins. -Splashtalk 15:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case I actually am not particularly interested in Leeroy Jenkins at all. Though I will concede that it is that article that raised the general concern about process in the first place. However subsequent examination suggests that article is not in a unique position. Essentially the precedent being established is that if a person wants to ensure an issue never be covered all they need do is employ sockpuppets purporting the opposite view. I still firmly believe what is said in m:Protected pages considered harmful. I am happy with the process that occured in the Deletion and believe the correct path was followed. I am unhappy that the page has subsequently been protected indefintely and from all apperances permanently. The substance of my argument in the case of this article is here. However as I stated it is not this article I take issue with it is any indefinite or indeed permanent page protection which I believe is at variance with protection policy and indeed with deletion policy If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Now I openly acknowledge that sockpuppetry is a problem and a consistent recreation of an article immediately after its deletion in order to circumvent the vote is worthy of protection to deal with the sock puppets. However I do not believe such a thing should be in place indefinitely, or untill the article recieves some number of votes validating its existance. The latter is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia as I have come to understand it. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Leeroy Jenkins, since the issue has been raised the reason I care at all, since the subject is not of particular personal interest is that while the contents of the initial article were absolute rubbish, the meme itself however is widespread (exceedingly), has been used in various games outside World of Warcraft to which redirect is now enforced, and has featured on Jeopardy! and I find | 85k hits on the topic. Even those who voted for deletion in the intial discussion noted that if it were still conversed about after a period of time. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  refers to a similar situation. It says that you should raise the issue on the talk page of the article. If you get no reaction, contact the admin who protected the page. Template talk:Deletedpage suggests posting at WP:AN if necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with every point you have made including the fact that such would not mandate the recreation of the article. Realistically, however, I suspect the article would be recreated for the reasons above mentioned. I also felt more or less as you have stated that I had a prima facie argument. However when I attempted to present the case, the argument was not even considered largely because I was directed to deletion review soon after another review had occured, one which was not well argued. Even making the issue has made me liable to being slandered so I am leery of raising the issue on Deletion Review myself. I am trying to become a productive and fruitful member of Wikipedia but I fear being a pest, no matter how convicted I may be, will not aid me. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, after some digging I found the recent deletion review debates, and I can understand why the second request was delisted. It's not uncommon for people (under various guises) to try battering DRV until it gives in, which only results in it not giving in. I don't honestly see the need to recreate the article, however, since all the information you mention is already mentioned in World of Warcraft#Community. I can unprotect it if you like, although I rather fear the result of doing so will be speedy deletion of what gets posted there, given that DRV has only recently considered the matter. Maybe work on the paragraph in the larger article instead? After all, is there any other encyclopedic information that would flesh out an article with more than that paragraph? -Splashtalk 19:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do feel that the article should be unprotected for the original stated reasons. I recognize your reservations as valid concerns. I would expand the World Of Warcraft paragraph but the editors of that article seem VERY possessive of the articles contents. Inclusion of material related to the meme itself but not to WoW may in fact be rather quickly reverted. Perhaps the key here is to wait... but I really wish there was some remotely effective guideline about what the wait period should be.
I'm going to avoid the specific case you mention above and answer only your original theoretical question.  When a page has been deleted, it is not normally protected.  Protection is only applied in response to abusive re-creations.  It is considered an extreme measure.  In general, the protection is applied long enough for the trolls/vandals to get tired and go away.  On some articles, they lose interest in a few hours.  On others, it can take many months.  
If, in the meantime, a well-intentioned user wants to create a valid article at the same title, he/she may request reconsideration of the decision to protect the page.  In general, you would start by making your case on the article's Talk page.  Even though the article page is protected, the Talk page is generally editable.  In your argument, you should acknowledge the history of vandalism and clearly articulate your position that this is a new article on a different topic even though it shares the same title.  You should be fully prepared to cite your sources and maybe even to mock up a first draft of the article for independent review.  Sometimes, that mock-up can be prepared on the article's Talk page but more commonly, it is prepared as a sub-page of your user-space.  For example, User:Falerin/foo.
Yes, these are higher hurdles than we normally apply for contribution of a new article.  Please remember that someone imposed this restriction in response to a demonstrated pattern of vandalism.  We always try to assume good faith but there are limits.  By the way, if no admin finds your comment on the deleted article's Talk page in a reasonable period of time, it is perfectly acceptable to go to the List of administrators and pick an admin at random in order to leave a note on his/her Talk page requesting a review.
Hope that helps.  Rossami (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process questions 

message: I did a spell check from the start and stoped at "Sholom Keller" (this article needs to be done).  --Pat 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, please don't bother.  You've created a huge number of edits which now must be carefully checked to make sure that you didn't accidentally (or intentionally) change the meaning of a comment.  We appreciate spell-checking on article pages, policy pages, etc.  Discussion pages (such as Deletion Review) are focused on the fluid and fact-based discussion.  As long as someone's misspelling doesn't get in the way of understanding their point, please let it be.  By the way, I do appreciate the fact that you already created the link (above) to facilitate our review.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was getting ambitious.  I figured I should start somewhere that was big, with lots of mistakes.  (and I was bored!)  Anyway.  I now realize it's pretty difficult to keep track of things here as is already.  So... unless I'm actually in the conversation, I'll try to keep to fixing spelling mistakes in articles.  Cheers.  --CylePat 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling check/fix 

message: I'm not sure that "User:David Gerard and User:the Epopt are also accepting requests directly" belongs in here either.  Who cares?!?  Many reasonable users will undelete when asked, do we list them all?  The link provided makes it clear that this is part of a wikipolitical campaign against deletion review.  To me, such things properly belong in user space, not on Wikipedia:Deletion review.  However I've not removed it myself since there's already been a slight edit skirmish over it.  Friday (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should say exactly that on the main page? There is no reason to cast widely practised courtesy as policy. Pilatus 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: OH NOES WIKIPOLITICAL!! The skirmish being Splash vs Others. It's now linked to a category of those who've said they will. Note the relevant template warns that if you just use it to recreate the deleted article, it's susceptible to speedying, and if you put 'em in your userspace and just leave them hanging around as a habit, it is ill-favoured behaviour and not recommended - David Gerard 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accepting undeletion requests 

message: Greetings to those of you that work on Deletion Review. I myself have never generally participated here, either when this area was VfU or DRV, nor do I actively watch DRV now. I have a couple things I would like to say. First, I think it would be good to maintain an archive of DRV discussions. At some point a few months ago I became aware that an article that I had speedied had been challenged, and had no access to the debate until someone more active here linked to the discussion. Second, I would prefer if someone would contact the deleting Administrator to let them know a deletion they made had been challenged. In that first case, I had no idea that a deletion I had made had been challenged, and I would have welcomed the review of another user over my deletions. I value any input as to my Administrative actions. I would also have appreciated the opportunity to participate in the deletion review discussion, as the deleting Administrator. As it was, my only clue that a discussion had occured was that I happened to review my Deletion log one day and notice that an article I had deleted had been re-created, and mentioned DRV, but at the time I was not able to find the diff with the discussion in it. I would therefore like to ask that discussions here be archived, and also I would like to invite other users to contact me if any of my deletions are challenged, and ask the participants here to contact and administrators whose deletions are challenged. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be able to search the history of the page for the article name.  It might be good to have a list of all discussions that have been on DRV, so that one can see from the "What links here" page that there has been a DRV discussion. --- Charles Stewart 15:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review protocol 

message: Dear administrator, I wanna write an article on Doosan, but the 'doosan' page informs 'cannot be recreated without a good reason'. But I just want to talk about the Korean top 10~12 company Doosan with other users, and get more information and oppinion of the others. So, please let me create the 'Doosan' page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doosan". Thank you. Sincerely, truism77
: Answered at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Cannot recreat Doosan article for long?.  Please do not post the same question multiple places.  Post it once and post pointers to the main discussion.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannot recreat Doosan article for long?

message: I think it'd be a good idea to encourage people to use the talk pages of Afds for discussion about how to close them, before they're closed.  I only mean on Afds that for whatever reasons are non-obvious closers, of course - I've no desire to slap on an extra layer of bureacracy for no good reason.  A certain amount of this may go on already, but perhaps we could use more.  I'm thinking we could either head off things that may otherwise be destined to show up here, or maybe do better than a simple "no consensus" on tricky things.  Sometimes there are verifiability or other concerns over an article that need to be addressed, and Afd does a poor job of addressing them.  Sometimes merging is a good answer where otherwise we'd have "no consensus".  Maybe we could have a page for listing difficult Afds, to help interested editors find them.  What do you all think?  Friday (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I close these things in situations like that I often message the people involved as often people will just "vote" and not see the afd again, so using the talk pageof afds sometimes doesn't work too well. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - I've noticed a lack of attention to Afd talk pages before.  Perhaps we could make Wikipedia:Deletion review/preview or some similiar page to draw attention to tricky Afds?  (The reason I'm suggesting this here is that I think there are many people who watch this page who would make sound decisions on Afds, and getting them together to decide collectively on closures might be a good thing.)  Friday (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps create :Category:Adept closers so that people who are willing to review a close about to happen can be called upon?  The problem is that there does not currently exist a "limbo" for things that are nearly closed.  If User:Friday has spent 90 minutes working something out on the talk page and conferring with User:Splash about the way forward, nothing stops User:Aaron Brenneman from coming along, looking at it for the 15 seconds it takes to count votes and deleting it.  (Well, actually, not being an admin would stop him, but you get the point.)  Would slapping  on an XfD that was being "digested" be in any way helpful? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slapping a tag seems a better approach than creating a whole new process! And if the closer misses the tag you slapped on there, slap the closer (but may I suggest salmon? it's smellier than trout). ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the  tag be the process (or maybe ), and referring to DRV should be an option at the closing admin's disposal if he/she would welcome policy wonks. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think this is an excellent idea.  But why not just make a new section on the DRV page for tricky closes?  The section need only be a list of signed links, and we can farm it out to a subpage in the unlikely case that the traffic gets too high. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion pre-review 

message: Can the nominator of an article for re-creation vote inline with everyone else?--God of War 07:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Implicitly, they already have. -- SCZenz 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you could - but its more of a discussion rather then a vote, so you can "vote" as many times as you want but it is probably only be counted once :). The nomination generally already counts... WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no votes on Wikipedia, with a few very notable exceptions.  Everything is consensus and discussion. -- SCZenz 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I do it all the time. Heck, I just did it in the debate you are referencing! I agree that there probably needs to be more of it though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another way the arguments matter... The quality of the arguments may considered, at the closing admin's discretion, in the final analysis of the shape of the consensus. -- SCZenz 07:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of "voting" 

message: I'd like to propose that we start transcluding the reviews, similar to the way AfDs are done, due to the size of the DR page. It is currently very difficult to wade through the edit history for the page and pick out a single article being discussesd. Turnstep 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also concur.  I'd completely missed the game-playing being done to the page's instructions (see the section immediately below this) because this page is too busy for history reviews to be effective.  Rossami (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we instead have a subpage-per-day like CfD and (now) TfD? It makes for less work for newbies, of which quite a few come here. -Splashtalk 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Splash. There's not enough activity to warrant per-article transclusion here. Logs per day should be enough. howcheng  {chat} 17:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transclusion

message: Since Tony Sidaway clearly has an absence of any intention to listen to it, as he continues doing as he pleases in the meantime. -Splashtalk
:I don't see where you're taking this, Splash. its only a temporary un-deletion to depict the revelance and content of the article for discussion. -ZeroTalk 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I'm saying that the discussion about changes to the way DRV works, in the above sections are pointless since, despite reasoned suggestions that things be done differently, or  not at all, Sidaway is just routinely ignoring them. -Splashtalk 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not be seeing it but I'm not sure that is a fair or useful characterisation. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand how restoring and blanking the page so we can look in the history is not helping us. Trödeltalk 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see how that's verifiable in the case of a vanity article and spam, but not something clearly legit and contributed to. Why should we blank pages..? It disrupts the point of the un-deletion process. -ZeroTalk 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I support this view. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony's viewpint makes absolutely no sense. It makes so much unsense, in fact, I daresay it makes perfect sense. Deleted articles are meant to be given a second chance. That's why they stay in the histroy. Its also common knowlegde that afd isn't factually correct all the time. This is wikipedia. -ZeroTalk 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Temporary undeletion is often a good thing, and can be done on a case by case basis.  I'd hate to see review create an automatic right to have an article undeleted.  One alternative might be to have a copy of the latest version of an article somewhere not in the main page space - perhaps a sub page of Deletion review?  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it is a good thing, if it is undeleted it if there is a good faith request to see the content. However, in order to address Radiant!'s concerns above, the article should be protected if it is undeleted---why? Because if the article is edited while it is under DRV, then the article that was deleted will not be the same article that is reviewed. For some articles that may benefit from editing, we could allow editors to work in a temporary subpage of the article (like Foo/temp and then do a history merge. My $0.02. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  This doesn't make any sense to me. It's a wiki and on a wiki you're meant to correct problems by editing.  What matters isn't some static snapshot of the "article that is being reviewed" but whatever it ends up as.  We're going to delete the article anyway if review fails, and if it succeeds we're going to get the edited version, so what's the point of keeping them separate? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think some are extending what Tony has offered and what, btw, has been around for some time. That on the request of any user, and review by any admin (Tony included) that the request is reasonable, the article will be undeleted, and, in some cases, blanked, if the article could be viewed as an attack or blanked for any other good reason. Then editors in DRV have the ability to look at the history and see the article in order to make an informed decision. That he has made it easier for editors should be welcomed. Trödeltalk 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Undelete and blank (or replace with a template pointing here) seesm entirely sane. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to do this, are people going to do this, or are people going to carry on doing as they please? Is this discussion going to be listened to, or is it, in fact a waste of time? -Splashtalk 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must concede your point about lone gunmen.  However, in the absence of reasoned discussion, doing whatever one wants is easier to justify.  This is an example of where we'll probably be forced to create a little guideline (e.g. instruction creep) because a very small minority doesn't respond to peer pressure or consensus.  Common sense to me says that in the vast majority of cases that appear on DRV, having access to the deleted content is of marginal value, and having the article available for editing will at best be a distraction and at worst totally derail the continued existance of DRV.  Which is perhaps the point. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion is pointless

message: I've added this instruction to the header template:
:If you are proposing that a page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template  at the top to inform other editors who may not be watching this page.
Is this okay? It's just like AFD, so editors should still be informed. // paroxysm (n) 23:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth does that stand for? -Splashtalk 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wondering that myself. Ashibaka tock 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also. If we are going to undelete durign discusison such a notice seems sensible, but this name makes no sesne to me. How about ?? Or some other name that has mnemonic value? DES (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CamelCase makes baby Jimbo cry.  Why not move it over the rejected ? —Cryptic (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think this template is a bad idea period, because it seems to turn DRV into a copy of AFD, thus making the entire page pointless. Radiant_>|< 14:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:NTSA

message: The problem with DRV is it is rehashing AFD debates in a new forum, which is not what it's suppsoed to do. Sure, it should look at content to an extent, but it's primary purpose should be to look at whether the AFD or CSD was handled correctly (the second obviously has to look at content). It should look at questions like "was the closer out of line in his/her decision?", examining matters of whether sockpuppets were counted, what percentage can reasonably fall within the realm of "rough consensus", was the article rewritten after most of the votes were cast, or whether there is some greater factor that should override an AFD, such as POV, verifibility, libel, etc. I think this would be best handled by a Supreme Court-like group of editors, who know the processes and rules well, have demonstrated ability to think rationally, can make common sense decisions, and whose opinions can be trusted by a large element of the community. They could also make speedy decisions for clearly bad faith or abusive entries, or ones which might fall under WP:SNOW. Now in order for it to not be partisan, there should be a way of making sure it is not weighted to one side of "inclusionism" or "deletionism", giving each "side" its delegates (or whatever) as well as those who are not seen as being part of either. Right now this process of an AFD debate, followed by a 2nd AFD debate here, which often ends in a reposting (3rd AFD debate), is getting silly. But we do need some process for problematical deletions and AFDs. What do people think of this idea? -R. fiend 17:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your summery of what we should be doign hrfe, but not with your solution of limiting DRV to a select group -- just who would be empowerd to select that gorup, anyway? But if this is implementd, I want on. DES (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Shall wew have WP:RfDRV a request to be appointed to teh new DRV board? or perhaps electiosn like the ones for arbcom? DES (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to all sorts of suggestions on how this should be accomplished, but I'm heistant to do something like WP:RfDRV, because I think it has to be kept smallish and managable, or else we'll back where we started. I'm also not sure such a process can keep it balanced, as I really think it has to be. Let's face it, there are basically factions when it comes to deletion (whatever you call them varies) and I think for an issue that is all about deletion, both sides have to be represented and balanced, so they can try to keep the focused on the issues at hand. Maybe there could be recommendations to Jimbo, who could select some? I think we have to make sure we get people who can logically and rationally express their opinions on such a matter (and I can think of several that fit the bill who are generally diametrically opposed to each other). I just don't like to see a well-reasoned, rational explanation citing examples given the same weight as those comments like "I dunno. Seems like it might be ok to me. Whatever." We should try to get the first sort of user on the bench, and not the second. How that happens is certainly open to discussion. And I'm glad you at least agree with my initial summary. I expect some opposition to my proposal, but if you can think of another way to implement a solution to the current problem any other way (other than saying "please do not use this forum to rehash AFD debates" which just isn't working), please let me know. -R. fiend 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the arbcom would impose bans or remove sysop staus for out-of-process undeletions and clearly abusive speedy deletes, i think much of the problem would be removed, frankly. Or if we had WP:RfDeAdmin. I think we had a fairly good consensus on this, that usaully worked pretty well, but soem people didn't and don't like that, and really want this to be a re-run of the AfD to get the "right result", and the current suitation is largely the result of pressures in that direction, IMO -- plus the particually nasty debates over the various userbox deletions. In short it is the result of "Product over process". DES (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well out-of-process undeletions and abusive speedy deletes are s very small proportion of what's debated here. Userboxes are a hot-button issue at the moment, but I think that will die down soon, as the matter gets settled elsewhere (and people stop with the disruptive pointmaking), so I'd be hesitant to put too much emphasis on that. The matter of contested article deletions is not going to go away, however, and I think that is what the main concentration should be. -R. fiend 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting suggestion.  It runs counter to some of our usual bias toward egalitarianism but control mechanisms almost always do.  Something like this may be a necessary step as the community continues to grow.  I don't know how to implement it, though.  Anything based on popular vote will eventually run into the same failings that burden the Request for Adminship process - bias toward people you agree with rather than people who will be good at the job.  Jimbo could select them by decree but he already gets enough flack.  He doesn't need to be dragged into the regular appointment of judicial nominees.  Perhaps something more on the Wikipedia:Mediation model?  I'll have to give some more thought to how that might be implemented, though.  It could be a radical departure from the current approach.  Rossami (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my memory serves me correctly (which would be a first) VfU had sufferage at one point.  Setting the bar high (2000 edits) would decrease the noise a fair bit.  With the caveat that those without sufferage may contribute to the discussion but may note vote, of course. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2000 edits! I protest! It should be lower. No higher than 1720 edits seems about right to me (that I currently have 1720 edits is purely a coincidence I tell you). OK, more seriously, sufferage might not be a bad idea but I'd set it somewhere more in the 300-500 edit range, by then a person has shown some sticktoitiveness... or even 100. IF we even do this. I fear that adding suffrage may mean we are doing the wheel of reincarnation dance here, adding a process that recapitulates the process we are trying to improve.++Lar: t/c 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When last we had specific suffrage requirements, it was 25 non-minor edits in the article namespace and an account at least a week old, both as of the time of the article's listing.  Going straight to 2000 is a big jump. —Cryptic (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the minor edit checkbox is highly subjective (there are I imagine a few folks who never tag any edit as minor, and some who tag all edits as minor). I'd object to using it as a criteria, and I don't suppose you're gonna trawl through someone's edits to see just how minor they really are. --kingboyk 00:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this: anybody who voted on the original AfD should not take part.  We already know what they think. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly an interesting thought, and I'd say it deserves some consideration. The problem with merely raising the minimum contribution history (as suggested elsewhere) is that most admins already have some standards in that regard (though they vary), and merely upping them slightly is unlikely to make much of a difference from the current situation. Newbies and socks are not a great problem at DRV, in general, and an absence of them is unlikely to change the current situation greatly. -R. fiend 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, if none of the original commenters can say anything, how can one of them bring up that maybe the close wasn't quite right? I see DRV being about process so why would they not be able to comment? Their comments would be of a different type. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably they could list and comment, but not vote. I'm not exactly in love with this idea, but it is an interesting thought. -R. fiend 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd have to say I'm not in love with the idea myself, but it does solve the perceived problem of re-running AfD.  And as long as sufferage is > 1720+1 I'll be happy.  - brenneman(t)(c) 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section break 

message: Undeletion has always been about content.  We must never undelete bad content, no matter how imperfect the process by which it was deleted, and we must always undelete good content, no matter how perfect the process by which it was deleted.  Anything else is process for the sake of process and results in a worse encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, sure, that's true. However, I notice this tendency of yours to speak in black and white terms: articles are either good or bad; the good ones stay, the bad ones go. The problem is, there is no empirical formula to tell us what is good and bad. In most cases it's easy to tell which is which. Compare that vanity article I pasted in the above section with today's featured article. Then there are those cases where what is "good" and "bad" is no so cut and dry. What's "a perfectly good article" and "interesting" to some is "subtrivial", "advertizing", or "non-notable" to others. In such cases it is a process that separates the good from the bad. To dismiss the process because it may delete what you see as a good article is an affront to those who do not agree, and think the article is bad, and detrimental to the project. When there is a substantial difference of opinion, you can't just take some attitude that by some decree from the almighty you have been told that this is good and must stay at all costs, or this is bad and must be deleted. It's not that easy, and as imperfect as that process may be at times, it is better than the decree of Tony Sidaway. -R. fiend 06:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section break<sup>2</sup> 

message: Articles should be editable during deletion review
#Arkon 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that I created this straw pole [sic] is that there was a yawning chasm between the discussion that I was seeing, were the majority supported history+blank+protect, and the discussion that others were seeing, which supported open slather.  Voting is evil, but it does provide a nice crisp metric, which is sometimes the clue-bat that needs applied to someone stubborn . - brenneman(t)(c) 04:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the prior discussion, there seemed to be a small majority in support of the articles being editable. Some more people have added their voices to the straw poll since then, and it does seem that this is a popular idea. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw pole [sic], votes are eeevil 

message: Okay Tony, we seem to be bouncing off the walls at each other here a little with no movement, which isn't the best way forward.  Let's try and address the issue at hand.  If someone needs to see the article's content to debate it, is it not acceptable to place the template and protect the page.  This makes the content viewable.  Editing isn't really an issue, is it? Hiding  talk 09:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut to the chase?

message: If an article is restored to make it visible to DRV, why not make the DRV link double: one to the current text (editable or protectable as usual) and one diff to the moment of restoration. (There may be special circumstances,  like Brian Peppers if that were real, which would make this impractical; but as the basic solution. Septentrionalis 06:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To what end?  We'd again be adding a layer of complexity for very little gain: if an article is going to be improved to the point it's keepable, have some fieth that the system will keep it and improve it in five or so days (noting that in very clear cases decisions are closed early).  If it's not going to get good enough to keep, don't waste time on it.  For those very few cases where it's not clear which it is, restore in user space.  Basicly, everything that we do now. - brenneman{T}{L}  06:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind present practice; but this, which would involve one whole extra step, may meet the objections of those who do. Septentrionalis 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: Shouldnt past deletion review decisions be archived the same way afd's are? I see that Teagames was deleted after  it was decided to undelete it from deletion review but theres no record of it except if you look through the history (no.1) which takes a long time to do. They should be at separate pages like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Teagames -- Astrokey44|talk 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can propose such a thing officially if you want, but I'm not sure how much need there is to introduce another element to the deletion review process. I used to be annoyed that entries would just disappear and, unless they were paying very close attention, no one would even know what had happened to the article in question. That's why I started the Recently Concluded section at the bottom, which I'm glad to see has become pretty widely used. It's sort of a compromise gesture, which didn't involve any new templates, policies, or discussions. I'm not sure how much support there is for creating a separate page for each DRV request. -R. fiend 03:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldnt require that much more effort, would just mean instead of removing them from the page you move them to Deletion review/Name. This would be useful for those controversial articles which are often deleted/reviewed etc. and it would mean the talk page link to deletion review would link to the actual discussion, rather than linking to this page (which often has been removed from the page for older articles)  The Recently concluded is better than nothing but I think this would be a good idea. -- Astrokey44|talk 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Is there a way we can move all userbox DRVs to a subpage or something? There's tons of them, they're taking up way too much space, the debates go on and on, and they're all basically the same argument hashed out a hundred times. They're becoming quite disruptive. For a while I thought this was all being settled at a separate discussion on userbox policy, but it appears it's not. Can't we do this somewhere else? -R. fiend 20:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here's what I think we should do. I suggested this at TfD too, but got drowned out in all the level-headed, thoughtful discussions. We should, quickly and mercilessly, move them each to a subpage and provide a nice bold bluelink to it where the debate would formerly have been. Everybody will be able to find it and talk about it, but those who really aren't interested (there are some, yes) can just carry on without having all the carping filling up DRV. -Splashtalk 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. But what about the reversions and cries of "censorship!" that are certain to follow? -R. fiend 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore them, and instruct them to click the link and discover the debate, alive and thriving. It's no censorship to move a debate somewhere else and encourage it to continue. -Splashtalk 23:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully realize there is no censorship, but I've been around here long enough to know that some people will react very strongly to moves/redirects or other actiosn they wrongfully interpret as trying to supress a debate. Maybe I'm wrong in this case, but I'd be surprised if I go ahead with this and don't catch flak. -R. fiend 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah.  This is a slow-motion forest fire, and every attempt to put it out is opposed.  I don't suppose there is any chance of stopping deleting them to keep them from clogging up DRV and TfD with split and repatative discussions?  The damage done by the boxen themselves is dwarfed by the damage done by the efforts to suppress the boxen. - brenneman{T}{L}  01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userboxes

message: Can we all agree that the above discussion indicate that there is no agreement on changing the common practice? - brenneman{T}{L}  22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can agree that there hasn't been an agreement.  Sure.  However, the question is, what is current policy.  I suggest, the routine use of protection, especially full protection, is a violation of policy (and core wiki idea of "you can edit this right now"), even though it seems to be "common practice" for deleted articles.  So, I'm not sure we've got a clearly established default to fall back on here.  --Rob 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, and looking back it was made before but lost in the wider issue regarding editing of articles that had been deleted.  The simplest thing would be alteration of protection policy, as all policies are descriptive not proscriptive.  brenneman{T}{L}  22:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Undeletion of deleted articles by the request of a single user does not seem to be in line with current process either. Isn't recreation of a deleted article to be done only following a successful DRV, not the moment a DRV is opened? Yes, one can, as a default, edit any article in wikiepdia, but these are deleted articles. They are not really wikipedia articles. If I didn't see people abusing the courtesy of allowing non-admins to view the articles in question, I might be less hesitant to go for this. -R. fiend 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus on editing while under review 

message: Am I just a little dim? This process seems Kafkaesque. It's not possible for me to comment intelligently about any of the pages under consideration; they've been deleted. I can't see them; how can I form an opinion? 
Clue me in, please? John Reid 07:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, a little bit.  Just shy or Orwellian, though.  You can request to see deleted content under ==Content review==, near the top of the WP:DRV page, and apparently it's likely that an administrator will show it to you. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you say you need to see the content to make sense of a case, the content will usually be temporarily undeleted. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's because Deletion review is supposed to be about the process the deletion took (i.e. was it an appropriate interpretation of the AfD discussion) rather than just a rehash of the AfD in another forum. The process is still visible, so that's what's being reviewed. Ziggurat 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kafkaesque 

message: The article Below is posted on 'Doosan' page in Wikipedia. 'Doosan' means 'Doosan group' here. But when we search 'Doosan group', a message shows like : This page has been deleted, and should not be re-created without a good reason. If you seek information about this subject, you may search for Doosan group in other articles. If you are looking for a definition, you may look up Doosan group in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project. I think it may make users confused. So please unblock the deletion and make the text concerning 'Doosan group' showed.
When we search 'doosan', the article below shows.
Doosan Group From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Doosan)
The Doosan Group is a large South Korean industrial and construction conglomerate (chaebol). The group owns the Doosan Bears baseball team as well as consumers-oriented businesses such as publishing, food, household goods, magazines and fashion. It also has an advertising subsidiary. In 2005 it won an $850 million contract to build a desalination plant in Saudi Arabia.[1]
History
1896~1946 Doosan began in 1896 as a small store in Baeogae, Seoul, founded by Park Seung-jik. His successor, Park Doo-byung, expanded the store into the Doosan Store in 1946.
1950~1969 Doosan established Oriental Brewery in 1952. In the 1960s, the group set up Doosan construction & Engineering, Doosan Food & Beverage and Doosan Machinery.
1970~1979 After the oil shocks, the group sold off weaker subsidiaries
1980~1995 Doosan started its publishing and advertising businesses.
1996~ The group undertook an intensive business restructuring
2001~2005 Doosan took over Korea Heavy Industries (now Doosan Heavy Industrial & Construction) in 2001 and Daewoo Heavy Industries & Machinery (now Doosan Infracore) in 2005. Doosan Heavy Industrial & Construction products include power plant facilities and desalination plants. Doosan Infracore produces excavators, lift trucks, machine tools, and engines.
Truism77 08:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on 'Doosan group' page 

message: * Addition of section in question
I'm incline to do away with this new section and just handle the requests as they arrive in the normal section of the page. It seems like an additional instruction-like thing for no discernable improvement in anything in particular. Maybe add something to the blurb right at the top about it (at the same time as removing the ever-cryptic NTSA thing). I ask here in case the adding editor has reasons they thing it should stay seperate. -Splashtalk 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a special section, because such undeletions aren't to be handled through the normal section which involve voting (WP:PROD says items are undeleted if contested).  The main body of this page is for AFD'd articles, which refelct community consensus votes, and for speedies where the content was found in violation of CSD policy.  WP:PROD was proposed on the basis, that any proposed deletion could be cancelled before *or* after.  The fact an article has been PROD'd is no reason to beleive its gone against community consensus.  If there's any contesting of WP:PROD, it should be settled in AFD, not DRV.  The beauty of WP:PROD is it bypasses some of the acrimony of AFD.  One way it does this, is by restricting things to obvious/uncontested cases, and making the process "fixable".  If we force PROD to go through normal channels, you'll see the same resitence to PROD'd articles that existed for AFDs.  If undelete "isn't a big deal", then deletion doesn't have to be such a big deal either.  Finally, PROD isn't yet agreed policy, its just an experiment, so the experiment should be undoeable, easily.  --Rob 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even I think that things that are prod-ed should come back easily, but agree that we don't need an extra section for it.  Let's wait until we see one, because there are two options: either the thing is a total lost cause but barely misses CSD, and we call it "WP:SNOW keep deleted" just as we would with an over-enthusiatic speedy, or it's got even a slight hope and we send it to AfD... just as we would with an an over-enthusiatic speedy.  The slight delay in restoring isn't going to hurt anything and it helps keep the rulecruft down.  - brenneman{T}{L}  12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now I'm unclear.  Do you agree that (however/wherever the request is made), that undeletions should happen promptly and without a vote, or do you want to have a vote (obviously any vote means 99% of people should forget about DRV, as it sucks up more time than writing a new article from scratch)?   --Rob 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think brenneman agrees with you, Rob: unless the article is more-or-less speediable it should come back on request – but if that happens, it's basically inevitable that it's going to AFD.  And I agree with both of you. I don't like the idea of putting up a huge obstacle (like DRV) to someone who missed the 120-hour window. ×Meegs 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself completely clear. I agree fully with Rob. We should undelete PRODs on demand, with the invisible proviso that no admin is obligated to undelete something they think is in any case a speedy. There need be no 'vote', they can simply not undelete, and leave it for another admin to do. My only reason for suggesting the aesthetic change was that it's often newbies who ask for DRVs and giving them a new section of the page to trip over doesn't seem to achieve a lot. I wasn't asking for procedural change at all. If someone makes a DRV request anywhere on the page (which already has 3 sections), and it is a PROD, then simply undelete and make a note that you did so. -Splashtalk 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point about complicating the page for newbies.  The benefit of the section, as I see it, is to the narrow segment of users who know the difference between {AFD, speedy, prod} deletion, but don't know that prod deletions are more easily undone than the others.  How small that group is, I don't know, but it's good for them to know that they don't have to prepare an elaborate request and prepare for a debate as in the main DRV section. This all rests on the assumption that users won't read the directions at the top of the page, where you want to move them, but merely follow the pattern they see in the requests below. Actually, I'm fairly warm to your plan. ×Meegs 18:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks for clarifying Spash, and sorry for misunderstanding.  In this case, its not a big deal to me if there is a separate section (I guesse we're mainly talking aesthetics).  --Rob 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, again cryptic to the point of obfuscation.  I'd see it happening like this: something get a prod.  Someone wants it back.  They put a notice in the normal section.  The next admin who comes along and feels the need looks at it, and if they want to they resore it and leave a note saying that they did so.  If they think that it shouldn't be restored, they leave a note as to why, and leave it for the next guy.  I'm not suggesting that we make it as formal as the current system but that I'd like it to stay in the same section and there to be some public overview.  We do occasionally close something early here already, so this is just a "more of the same" option. - brenneman{T}{L}  00:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we've already had one undone  pass through normal channels with no fuss... but I'm having a hard time finding it in the history (see discussion below!).  Can we have some examples of ones that have come across the bow that could have been speedy-restored?  (Or even the un-prodded that I think that I saw.) - brenneman{T}{L}  05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed undeletion 

message: Well, on my original question, I'm persuaded by Meegs's last comment to leave it as a separate section. We can still simply act upon a unPROD wherever it appears, and the new section might provide some people with the pointer that they might need. It seems that we all agree on 'procedure' too: if requested, undelete, unless you think there's no point. In no case is there is a need for a full review — and nor should there be. To stir things up, I think we should extend that to non-G4 speedies contested in good faith: undelete on request unless you don't want to in which case leave it for the next admin, but don't spend 5 days over it. -Splashtalk 05:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've already had one undone  pass through normal channels with no fuss... but I'm having a hard time finding it in the history (see discussion below!).  Can we have some examples of ones that have come across the bow that could have been speedy-restored?  (Or even the un-prodded that I think that I saw.) - brenneman{T}{L}  05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy restoration 

message: Bah.  Stopped in my tracks indeed.  Based upon the only lukewarm support for this idea from someone who is right about things way more often than I am, I'll stop and talk some more.  Stick your thoughts below. - brenneman{T}{L}  05:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of your main objections are easily addressed.  The watchlist problem is solved by creating the subpages by a page move, as at TFD: watch Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Seed (not the page it currently redirects to), and each new daily subpage created from it is automatically watched.  The confusion of tagging-out-of-order is fixed by putting the top tag after the section header, as at WP:CFD.  That it appears above the section header (thus bleeding into the previous section) is a symptom of the abrupt, haphazard way subpaging was sprung on us. —Cryptic (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, lower overhead: make the "recently concluded" a subpage instead, and make it monthly.  Then we'd still get the "what links here" and ease of finding old DRVs as they'd be google-able. - brenneman{T}{L}  06:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the best solution to archiving on rotating pages. The main beef I have with just letting things go into history is that history is more or less unsearchable. I don't close these out, and don't really know how much work it would be, but it seems pretty easy. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, no. Then we have to have the convoluted nomination process for AfDs which takes ages and is easy to get wrong to the point the many people have automated it (including me). It's many newbies that use this page, and expecting them to make it unscathed through the tortuous AfD nomination process is unnecessary on this page (which doens't need subpaging at all). Cryptic comments at WT:TfD that his bot picks up many many broken AfD nominations every day; we don't need that at DRV which currently has a simple, straightforward and functioning system. -Splashtalk 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The nomination process here doesn't need to be that complex.  Frankly, I think that it's such a low volume that we could let people nominate however they like and I'll volunteer to convert the nominations into their own pages.  I don't see that it would be significantly more work than the administrative overhead that creates the page-per-day pages in the other processes.  And if it doesn't happen for a few days, there is no huge loss or burden on the process.  Rossami (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The administrative overhead for page-by-day processes can be completely automated; I wouldn't want to try to write a bot that converts undeletion requests posted directly on the main DRV page into per-article subpages.  I can't imagine that you have nothing better to do with your time than take on this sort of chore to do every day, and I can testify from recent experience that it's extremely disheartening to come back from a week-and-a-half-long wikibreak to find a 200-article backlog staring at you because no one else stepped forward to do the job in the meantime. —Cryptic (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is precisely what Cryptic (and I) have pleaded against in the immediately preceding messages. Please don't do this, it is entirely unnecessary. -Splashtalk 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it just be optional/done where necessary? ie dont make it that it has to be done for every deletion review, but just on those ones where it is likely to be reviewed/afd'd again. Just looking at the page today I see the comment under Patrick Alexander: "Also appears to have had one round of DRV, but I'm not keen to go looking for the diff right now." which shows how useful it could be -- Astrokey44|talk 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just noticed it has been done here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) -- Astrokey44|talk 00:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That discussion was a special case.  It was moved out to a sub-page not because we particularly wanted to preserve the debate but because that discussion was just getting so darned long that it was interferring with the functioning of the rest of the page.  Rossami (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splash, ah-a... he'll save every one of us... 

message: I'm going to again suggest a monthly "recently concluded" to strike a balance between finding the old discussions and low overhead.  It might also be nice if when someone closed something they put the diff into recently concluded? - brenneman{L}  06:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll just keep proposing it until the objectors get tired... 

message: I have come across a strange occurance, and I have no idea what I should do about it or where to report it or if it is a known error or what. Here is the situation: a page that used to have content will show up as Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. However, the article cannot be found in the deletion log. Talk pages and history are intact, and no references to deletion. I found this on the unit page. I went to the last version in the history and saved that edit (as if I was reverting) and the page now comes up. Historical-critical method is another page that is showing this problem (I haven't reverted that one yet). However, this page has been suggested for deletion on another talk page, but like I said, there is no deletion vote or log. Any ideas? --Andrew c 19:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you ran into a server flip. The latter article is a functioning bluelink for me. Try purging the page's cache and your browser's and see if that helps. -Splashtalk 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen this occur at another mediawiki I'm a sysop on.  It occurred at the turn of the year, we couldn't figure out why, but doing what you did fixed it.  I'm not a developer and don't understand code, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pages gone missing

message: Hi I deleted by mistake previous articles on "the GraecoTurkish War", can u please restore it because I will soon be accused for that!! thanks. Panos
: posted by anon user:83.100.176.109 who is apparently only asking to revert to a previous version.  Handling via Talk page.  Rossami (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from main page 

message: I just created template:deletion review and :category:Deletion review pages.  Then I found template:Drv so I speedied template:deletion review and used that instead, linking it to the cat.  Then I found comments above that template:drv is a bad thing, although I didn't understand why.  So at the minute I'm not madly adding it to every article listed here, but also, I fail to see why it's a bad thing. I actually think it's a good thing.  It clarifies what is going on at the page in question and invites discussion.  I don't quite follow the argument that a template makes this process akin to afd?  Afd is a discussion regarding deleting a page, deletion review is a discussion on that pages deletion and how it conforms to process.  In what way does a template change that?  If there is no direct pointer to the review then surely there's some hint of appearing to hide such discussion from all concerned. Comments? Hiding  talk 12:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was consensus on using this, see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Back_to_the_point.  I've used it a few times myself, even.  brenneman{T}{L}  13:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Arggh.  Reading was never my weak point.  Template:Delrev is noted on the damn front page.  How many of these templates have we got? Hiding  talk 13:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: template:drv

message: I've just had a problem with Sean Ripple, which has no deleted history and did not have either the AfD or DRV linked form Talk or "What Links Here" for some reason I haven't yet fathomed.  It would be useful if all completed DRV cases were archived in summary form to a subpage (as they are at the foot, for a while).  One per month or three would be sufficient, I'm sure. Just zis Guy you know? 21:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I was told to list a complaint here. I just made a post about " betty chan" and I don't think it should be deleted, please read the comments on the deleted " betty chan talk page".. The user who deleted my post didnt even click on the links i provided...,, Thanks
Snob 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move your request to the main WP:DRV page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind, looks like you already made the request. Just as a side note, you're only supposed to write about the WP:DRV page itself here on the talk page. DRV requests belong on the main DRV page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: betty Chan

message: I've transcluded a monthly "recently concluded" subpage.  This will mean that locating earlier decisions will be easier by "what links here" or Google.  The overhead is very low at two extra edit a month: One to create the subpage, one to change the transclusion.  brenneman{L}  01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old decisions 

message: I have a suggestion.  Why not undelete pages to a subpage of the Deletion Review page.  This would mean that people new to the discussion (who DRV is meant to attract) can judge the page for themselves.  While I understand that DRV is about process, not substance, substance can often become involved, and being able to see the original article would be very helpful.  Also, I suggest that we make it mandatory for the person filing for deletion review provide a link to the relevant AfD page (if any).  This also would be very helpful.  --David.Mestel 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. This issue is a mess, and the only other thing I'd like to say is that per WP policy this article needs to be stripped down to only what the verifiable sources say about it. The article sites one questionable source and mentions another source. Someone needs to get access to both, and any other additional information needs to have another source. If nothing better than blog posts and geocities pages can be found for a bit of information, that information can't be included. Otherwise I could go create a wepage for myGameTM and use that to verify including an article on it. It seems that's not far from what's going on here, but at least we can apply Wikipedia policy to keep it to a minimum. - Taxman Talk 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quite like this idea, but it must be clear that this should not be just an AfD rerun. OTOH, people here might be able to produce additional evidence if they can see the article. As it happens, I have the option of bringing an article here. One reason it was deleted was for alleged WP:VSCA. Hard to judge if you can't see the article. Stephen B Streater 18:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion