Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

NOTE: This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc.

Archives
Pre October 2003 December 2003 – May 2005 February 2004 – August 2005 August 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – December 2008

Stats

I don't really follow the actual DRV closes, but my sense is that it is not often that DRV results in an outcome different from what the closing admin posted. The rare overturn outcome of List of bow tie wearers got me thinking. Are there statistics somewhere that indicate how often DRV's outcome is different from the XfD reviewed? I think such stats would help give those desiring to post a DRV request a better sense of what they are up against. DRV does seem to be a very good educational tool for the nominators since most participants provide suggestions, so the stats should be presented in a way that does not discourage posting DRV requests. -- Suntag ☼ 02:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any recent statistics. I know Badlydrawnjeff made some at one point, but those would be pretty old by now. It shouldn;t be too hard to get a month or two of statistics; it just depends on someone being interested and willing. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest I know of that evaluated the overturn rate are at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 9#December 2006 Deletion Statistics. Those are almost two years old. Badlydrawnjeff's are at User:Bdj/DRV is Broken and were instead an attempt to answer the question of whether or not DRV was producing the "right" outcome - and that made his data highly contentious. GRBerry 04:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This could be me!

I have just, for the first time, used this process.

I can see a pair of problems, technical ones, not process problems:

1. The Namespace in the thing we have to Subst: - it really is not clear what to put in when it is in the Article space. I got it wrong.
2. Unless it is some form of cache, when you place a review request in today's page, it only appears to get transcluded when the new date is opened and today becomes yesterday. I tried this in a browser I almost never use as well as my normal one to see if it was a local cache issue, and it is not.

So, unless it's me, which is always a possibility, it is not entirely working. Happy to be shown how wrong I am :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the template, and haven't had time to finally get around to fixing it properly. I guess now's as good a time as ever. It should be done in not too long (meaning up to a week).

I'm not sure what's going on with the latter. Like you said, it shows up fine now. It's possible there was an issue with the server cache. I don't visit the actual WP:DRV page often (I usually navigate directly to the log pages), so I don't know if this is a recurring issue. If it looks like it's happening again, try this link. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. Only slightly longer, now just using a #switch. Should be nearly bug-free now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you've tried this check for #2: Put a temporary piece of text on the current day's paage; See if that is transcluded in a normal way; see if the turning of midnight (presumably "server time"?) changes that. I don't want to try this because I'm "nothing to do with the page" and have no skills in the rather arcane templating language.

Kudos for sorting the other out at a technical level. I've not looked at the instructions, they were pretty "huh?" too. Mind you it does no harm frightening the unwashed off! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When someebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

• I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

• OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really something that this talk page can help with. Supposing that either of your suggestions are implemented, DRV will still be where they're reviewed. If you haven't yet, try hitting up WT:DEL and WT:DELPRO. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. If we nip this in the bud, perhaps you won't have so many things ending up here because they were (or were not) judged by the proper criteria for deletion to begin with. SBHarris 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble adding

I'm trying to get That Guy with the Glasses added to the log. It shows up as a subpage, and you can see the entry if you click today's date in the log, but the discussion is not visible like others in the log, and the link from the article doesn't work either. Never done one of these before, and I can't tell what I'm doing wrong. Help please. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence Illustrated

Talk:Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

My extensive work on this Article was intended to assist professors of law evaluate this useful caselaw textbook for their use in the exercise of their profession as academic lawyers. I myself--as it would have become clear to the reader had he or she chose to investigate the available ancillary article information--inserted the "

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template, in an attempt at rule compliance.

It remains a travesty of justice that this Article was summarily deleted. Its inclusion would have done honor and justice to the great endeavor that is Wikipedia. I challenge the Wikipedian--if he or she has the courage--to identify himself or herself to me, on this Wikipedia talkpage or otherwise, ex gratia to paul.gill@usa.com--to answer as to why this important Article was destroyed.

I am not interested in the citation of the Wikipedia rules--with which I clearly was in the process of compliance, as each Wikipedian has reasonable latitude--but I am instead interested in being told, in and with preciseness of exactitude--again, if you have the courage--without passion or prejudice, why this was done.

Small-minded and closed-minded obfuscatory attempts to explain yourself are not acceptable and do no justice to the academic freedom that Wikipedia stands for. Although it is a universal and absolute axiom that actions always "speak louder" than words, I require you to explain yourself and the context of this destructive act. The Article was about the application of rules of law; your response should, in turn, cite the application of your destructive, even desecratory, act, without caprice.

I cannot see the redeeming worth of your despicable act. That does not necessarily mean one does not exist; simply, that I assert that unwarrranted caprice was inflicted here, in this precise and specific instance.

Professor Scott's work and academic freedom were compromised given your choice to take this unwarranted and reprehensible action. The Thomas M. Cooley Law School that Prof. Scott represents was similarly harassed in your actions. However, as Wikipedian and author of the work that would have comprised this descriptive and helpful Wikipedia article, I require your response be given to me. I am a graduate and alumnus of Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

John Paul Nelson Gill, D.Jur.

Hahbie 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the article in question is at Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work, and the above is a duplicate of what's posted to the article talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how anybody was "harassed" by anything that happened here, and Wikipedia is not responsible for anybody's academic freedom. Nobody has the "right" to post anything on Wikipedia. We, as Wikipedia contributors, are responsible to the encyclopedia, and therefore to the consensus of the community of Wikipedia editors on how to run the encyclopedia. Should you wish to contest the deletion, you may file a request at WP:DRV, by following the directions there. Otherwise, letters such as the one above will get you nowhere, and will in fact hurt your cause amongst Wikipedians. Please refrain from repeating such counterproductive actions. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do you appeal a DRV decision?

For example, I closed a DRV decision as "no consensus to overturn deletion". The nominator, in good faith, thinks that I evaluated the debate incorrectly. Can a WP:DRV debate be started about whether the previous DRV debate was closed incorrectly? Or do they have to take it to WP:AN?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but generally DRV is the end of the line. Unless there was blatant wrongdoing on the part of the admin, it's not likely to get overturned. They can go to AN if they want, but it'll likely be turned aside. The usual response to someone is to have them examine why the article was deleted, and write a new draft in their Userspace that addresses the problems with the article. Depending on the original article, if you feel it can be salvaged, the deleted version can be copied to their userspace for them to work on. Once they have a draft, they can post a new DRV request to have folks re-evaluate the article and see if it fixed the problems. If the user goes that route, I'd suggest abstaining from the discussion unless asked to explain your decision. Hope that helps! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In practice, if someone has a new draft, or new arguments, they start another DRV. Some articles have gone to several DRVs. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the page in question was actually a userpage, so you can't really userfy it. :) I've already advised the user to go to WP:AN, I was just wondering if I should've advised them that starting another WP:DRV to appeal my closure of the first WP:DRV discussion was also an option.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you did fine. I can only see the need for another DRV if the issues of shortcoming are addressed, and the reposting to DRV specifically addresses how they were taken care of. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

At 21:11, 22 October 2008, I posted above "If someone object to a DRV close, could they list the DRV at DRV?" to which GRBerry replied, "Attempting a DRV of a DRV has happened, though not successfully. From time to time, asking for a more senior DRV hand to review a DRV close has had results, but those cases are once or twice a year type things. ... GRBerry 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)" An additional way to resolve your question, Aervanath, would be to suggest to the editor to look over the past 30 days of DRV closes and ask one or two recent closer whether they thought your close should be change. If some other recent closer thinks it should be change, then you can work with them to address a reclose. If not, that would seem to be the end of the line for process review. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Deletion review review? 140.247.248.104 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Template pile-up

As usual on the happily rare occasions when I want to nominate one of these, I followed the template instuctions carefully, producing a pile-up on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 18 which any attempt on my part to sort out will only make worse. It doesn't appear on the main page & is generally screwed up, though all the information is there. Can anyone kindly sort it out? Obviously some people manage to use the template successfully, though God knows how. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok User:PhilKnight has kindly sorted. I see from the page above I'm far from alone in having difficulties here. Can anything be done to make the instructions clearer? Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for an article - possibly deleted before December 22, 2004.

I see the prior-to-December-22,2004 deletion logs were never restored. I believe there was an Alice Crimmins article, but was unable to find one using the deletion log for the period since that date. I would like an admin with access to to indicate if there was an Alice Crimmins article or not in the Wikipedia. If there was an article, could I obtain a deletion review for it? The process seems to presume that the text is available in the article's deletion history. patsw (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look and personally cannot find a record of such an article. Davewild (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The older deletions are still listed at Wikipedia:Deletion log's subpages. If you knew a specific date for a deletion, you could look it up from those, but manually going through each isn't very practical. Neither google nor wikipedia's search (in the Wikipedia-namespace, which should include the old deletion logs) come up with anything that would indicate there ever was an article with that title. - Bobet 08:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing showing up at Special:Undelete either. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Time limit?

Is there a limit on how long since an article can asked to be reviewed after being deleted? The reason I ask is that the List of ship launches in 1946 was deleted with two delete votes and no support back in 2006. It was commented that the list should be referred to WP:SHIPS but this wasn't done. I have asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and am awaiting his response. I have also informed the nominator that I have done this. What would be the correct procedure here? If the article is restored, then the material that existed then would be restored. If the article has to be recreated from scratch, then the material that was included at deletion would have to be recreated from scratch too. I suspect that a DRV would, on the face of it conclude that the original deletion was correct according to the votes given at the time. However, my opinion is that if the article existed now as it was when listed at AfD, the result of the debate would be to keep it. How do we get round this? One solution would be to restore it and relist at AfD to see what the consensus is now. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article has been restored after a discussion at WP:SHIPS so this case seems closed but the general question is still interesting. The best solution in such cases is often userfication, where the deleted content is restored and then moved to the requestors userspace for improvement before being moved back to mainspace. That way the deleted content is available, with proper atribution, for use in the article, but the concerns of the AfD can be addressed before the result is de facto overturned and the article fully returns. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The article was restored once it was clear that there would be sufficient material to vastly expand from the original deleted version, thus the concerns in the AfD debate were addressed. The deleting admin was happy that discussion was taking place and nobody was rushing to recreate the article until consensus had been gained that it should be recreated. I tagged the talk page with the deletion banner, and the reason it was restored. I'd be interested to hear what others think is best in these cases though. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Eluchi is right; generally a userfication is the best way; most admins will do it for you. A list of them can be found at CAT:RESTORE. Once you're ready to put it back into mainspace, then I would re-read the original Afd. If you're confident the concerns have been addressed, then just be bold and move it back. If you're not that sure, or someone objects, then the guidelines at DRV say you should first discuss it with the deleting admin. If the admin thinks the issues have been resolved, then there's no problem in replacing it into mainspace. You only take it to DRV if the admin doesn't think the original concerns have been addressed. In cases where the deleting admin does not respond to queries, then you should take it to DRV to get more comments. I hope this is clearly written, since it's almost 5am here. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep, makes sense here. I was erring on the side of caution rather than being bold. I'm sure you'll agree that the resurrected article is much better than the one that was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

History merging?

So I was browsing archives and The Well (Church) was approved to restore at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19; but the article (which subsequently survived an AfD) was copy-and-paste recreated at The Well (church), and its old history never properly restored. What's the right course of action here? Should it be treated like a copy-and-paste move? Dcoetzee 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it was restored by the DRV and then kept at the Afd, then there's no problem with treating it like any other cut-and-paste move. I've now merged the histories, so no problems there.--Aervanath (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Javascript slowdown

I don't know what exactly, but there is something on this page (JavaScript most likely) and only this page that brings my browser to a crawl. Please remove whatever it is. SharkD (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not showing up?

I added an entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_2 - but it doesn't seem to be showing up on the main page. Thought I followed all the procedures properly; can someone take a look and tweak, if need be? Thanks .. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)