Wikipedia:DRV
 |
Tɛmplet:Deletion debates Tɛmplet:Review forum Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
mali niŋDeletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
mali niŋBefore listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
mali niŋ | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
mali niŋAny editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
| Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted |
| *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~ |
| *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~ |
| *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~ |
| *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~ |
| *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~ |
| *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~ |
| *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~ |
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
mali niŋAdmins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
mali niŋA nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
mali niŋ- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
not a notable personality Thegodfathero (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This location is notable, and is frequently referenced by locals, news sources, and even the local government in official documents as the "Starburst Intersection", and not by the roads that feed into it. While the article could be improved, it should not have been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EVeracite (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Incorrect deletion under G8, under the exception of plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets of two redirects: MathematicsAndStatistics and Mathematics and Statistics. Propose to undelete these two pages. Note the discussion with the RfD closer where the redirects not being deleted if the dab page was deleted at AfD was specified as the action that should be taken, due to the lack of consensus between keep and delete at the RfD. Deleting admin declined to undelete, request at WP:UNDELETE was let to archive, but no actual reason has yet been given as to why these redirects shouldn't be undeleted? J947 † edits 23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Restore, probably start new RfD In May, these redirects were re-targeted to a brand new page created specifically for the retargeting which was then sent to AfD and deleted, and then were G8'd as redirects to a deleted page. The closer noted no consensus for keeping or deleting after the retarget, even though specific mention of G8 was made in the discussion. These were long-standing redirects before the re-target and the re-targeting was done for a brand new page, so I think restoring to where things were in say April and then starting a new discussion makes the most sense, even though I'm fine keeping them deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse - MathematicsAndStatistics was retargeted to Mathematics and Statistics in June. Then Mathematics and Statistics was deleted as per AFD, so that deleting MathematicsAndStatistics was a valid G8 (as well as being a silly search phrase). I see no reason to undelete anything. Maybe something hasn't been explained, or maybe somebody is goofing around. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse - who is going to be searching for MathematicsAndStatistics? Anyone who starts typing either Mathematics or Statistics is going to be offered a range of relevant pages. Secondly, as discussed at the recent AfD, Statistics is clearly a separate field of study from Mathematics albeit obviously related. So what would the target be? JMWt (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not to relitigate the discussion, but these redirects are special in that they have history from February 2001. I'm not a great fan of the broad range of {{R with old history}}s, but generally any history from at least 2002 or beforehand is kept automatically and within that cohort Feb 2001 is in the top 1% at least, I imagine. J947 † edits 08:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand the relevance of your reply. Are you telling me we need to keep a redirect because it is old? JMWt (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes (K4). Doesn't matter much, agreed. But I'm surprised an extremely straightforward case (follow the consensus of the RfD) has been met with so much resistance. J947 † edits 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:J947 - Yes, we are straightforwardly following the consensus of the RFD, which was to redirect it to Mathematics And Statistics. So we should straightforwardly also follow the consensus of the AFD, and the policy that redirects to deleted pages are deleted. Yes, all straightforward. Restoring it is not straightforward. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well because the target has been deleted as non-notable and it is just a redirect. There is no consensus or rational for a redirect anywhere. So what's the point in keeping it? JMWt (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- The target was only created as a result of that RfD and had been around only a couple weeks before being deleted. We've deleted a 20-year-old redirect because someone thought creating a page specifically for the redirect was a good idea, and it quickly became apparent it wasn't. I'm not sure I'm in favour of keeping the redirect around, but I don't see any harm in undoing things to the way they were in April, with whatever this was targeted at, and then having another RfD, considering there was no consensus to keep or delete the redirect (in part because the new now deleted page was created half-way through the discussion.)
- Of course, we could also just agree here that the redirect is pointless, but it's an odd situation. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- its bizarre to me that you appear prepared to agree that it is pointless and that there is no sensible target but seem to be swayed by the age of the redirect. JMWt (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- There would have been a "sensible" target for 20 years. I don't know what that target is myself, but it's enough to discuss again. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I also don't feel like anyone is engaging with how odd this situation was? SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- There would have been a "sensible" target for 20 years. I don't know what that target is myself, but it's enough to discuss again. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- its bizarre to me that you appear prepared to agree that it is pointless and that there is no sensible target but seem to be swayed by the age of the redirect. JMWt (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes (K4). Doesn't matter much, agreed. But I'm surprised an extremely straightforward case (follow the consensus of the RfD) has been met with so much resistance. J947 † edits 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand the relevance of your reply. Are you telling me we need to keep a redirect because it is old? JMWt (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not to relitigate the discussion, but these redirects are special in that they have history from February 2001. I'm not a great fan of the broad range of {{R with old history}}s, but generally any history from at least 2002 or beforehand is kept automatically and within that cohort Feb 2001 is in the top 1% at least, I imagine. J947 † edits 08:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse. No failure to follow deletion process has been identified. Neither MathematicsAndStatistics nor Mathematics and Statistics are plausible search terms. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse per Stifle.—Alalch E. 22:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse. Well participated AfD that was correctly closed. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse this was only kept in the RfD because of the existence of the Mathematics and statistics disambiguation page (note: I was one of the people who supported that outcome). Now that disambiguation page has been deleted it doesn't make sense to keep the redirect any more. It is fine to delete a redirect under G8 which has survived an RfD, see the CSD policy. Hut 8.5 11:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
this was only kept in the RfD because of the existence of the Mathematics and statistics disambiguation page
– that's factually incorrect. Even if the disambiguation page didn't exist, there was no consensus to delete. J947 † edits 22:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)- Quite a few RfD participants (including me) supported keeping purely because the disambiguation page existed and whether it should exist was beyond the scope of the discussion. That rationale is clearly no longer valid, and I strongly suspect several of the Retarget comments would have supported deletion if the disambiguation page had not existed. I certainly would have. Hut 8.5 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Restore both, as Mathematical statistics is a reasonable target, and as others have stated above, MathematicsAndStatistics has history from the era of WP:CAMEL, so it would be preferable to restore and target them somewhere rather than recreating them. RedPanda25 21:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Mathematical statistics would be the least unreasonable target of these redirects which are not reasonable search terms, given that such redirects exists, and as such, maybe it cold be called a "reasonable target", but that doesn't solve the prior problem that the redirects should not exist, because, irrespective of exact target, they are, as said, not plausible search terms. Indeed, some redirects which are not plausible search terms but have other reasons to exist, have reasonable targets. But these redirects do not have a reason to exist. It appears that you allude to a historical reason with respect to MathematicsAndStatistics, so as to preserve an instance of camel style, but that is not something that needs to be preserved in this manner.—Alalch E. 13:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- endorse and allow recreation Policy and guidelines were followed. It's not clear to me that the redirect will see any use (certainly not enough to justify all the editor time used here), but per WP:CHEAP I think having a redirect here is reasonable if not needed. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Restore. As the RfD closer, I'm suprised I was never informed of this DRV, but WP:CSD § Pages that have survived deletion discussions states,
These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion.
The messy RfD and this DRV certainly constitute controversy. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) - Restore 1) as ineligible for CSD per the above, and 2) per our 'reasonable editor' standard: If a speedy is reasonably contested by multiple editors in good standing, our default expectation is to restore and send to the appropriate XfD process. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- IAR-ish endorse. My eyes are glazing over with the word salad of CSD categories, exceptions, etc being invoked above. So I am ignoring it in IAR fashion and merely asking - is this a plausibly useful redirect to have? I agree with people above that it is not. I paused a bit at the rationale (I hope I have this right) that it's an old CamelCase redirect and we shouldn't delete those in case there are external links from 20+ years ago that use it that would break - but I've done a cursory google search for any such links and failed to find any. I also understand and accept Jclemens' and others' 'multiple reasonable editors are objecting so let's discuss rather than speedy' argument, so I wouldn't object to a ```Discuss at RFD``` close, but I'd love for that to be in response to objections that go beyond process. Personally, happy to endorse and just move on. Martinp (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse per why would we advocate wasting more time on this? If I'm following this correctly, the RfD ended with no consensus for keeping or deleting these redirects in isolation, but during the RfD a setindex/DAB was created for them to point to and there was consensus to retarget them there. Before the redirect target was made there was the nom, a delete !vote, a weak delete !vote that also supported keeping and setindexifying, and a handful of comments supporting retargeting. After the retarget was made, we had 5 !votes to retarget, 2 to delete, and then a question that suggested support of G14'ing the DAB without commenting on the redirects. Of the retarget !votes, 3 appeared dependent on the existence of the target (and 1 !vote is confirmed as such).
The DAB was then deleted, putting us back to the no consensus for deletion or keeping as redirects to mathematics. But the redirects don't point there anymore, they now point to nothing, so would need to be retargeted again to reach the same no-consensus outcome. My opinion is that the CAMEL redirect especially was a useless redirect at the time it was created and remains useless now, with the added disutility of being in a format no reader is ever going to use, and apparently doesn't even have any external links married to it that would break, so why would we intentionally recreate the same pointless situation when we could instead just wash our hands of it and leave it deleted? JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't believe that a consensus to merge the article was reached in the last deletion discussion. Considering the result of the first deletion discussion was keep, I believe there should be an unambiguous consensus to merge if this is to remain merged. Willbb234 23:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 July 8 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 July 4