Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 10

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is both a reminder that we currently still have to manually archive finished days into Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February (soon Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March) and a plea for anyone with bot/script knowledge to get in touch with me if you're willing to help in automatizing the process. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't do it myself, but I've made a request for it at the

GRBerry

23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way I can find out why a prodded article was deleted? Specifically the Fazal Mohammed article. - Jwillbur 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was prodded and deleted, it was because no one took the prod tag off. Ask any admin to undelete it, and they will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking for the prod nomination reason? If so, then:

Unsourced for more than a year; Google finds no sources for "Fazal Mohammed" Trinidad ghazal. [1]"

And since it was uncontested and the deleting admin found the nomination reason to be valid, it was deleted per

WP:PROD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was looking for, thanks. Jwillbur 14:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have any sources, it would be helpful to add them to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored it and sent it to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the wake of a number of absolutely puzzling decisions combined with the recent Daniel Brandt ArbCom case where even the arbitrators couldn't come up with a conclusion regarding what the role of Deletion Review is...what is the role of deletion review?

No, really.

Is it about deletion process? Is it about overturning bad decisions? If so, how are we actually weighting arguments? Should we be doing a head count, as GRBerry has implied is happening, or should we be doing strength of argument, an assumption that may have been premature.

My perception of what DRV is supposed to be is that it was an appeals process to the community to fix the incorrect decisions. If an article was speedy deleted that shouldn't have been, we could overturn it. If an article was kept at AfD, but didn't meet our standards, we could overturn it. In reality, it seems like none of those things matter - it's more the whim of who shows up, and rarely does an argument make a difference. Consistency is nonexistent.

Do we need to revamp the whole thing, or is it really, truly, working? Are we handling more controversial situations properly? Are we really matching our results up with actual policy on a consistent basis? If not, why is DRV even here? If it's not working, what do we do to make it work? What should we do? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pointers to relevant prior discussion or expression:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision#Role of Deletion Review - ArbComm unable to articulate the proper role of deletion review
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop#Role of Deletion Review - input given to ArbComm
3. Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Switch to consensus - slow moving conversation about whether we should switch to consensus or messed up by doing so
4. Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8#Fundamental change - original suggestion about switching to consensus
5. Here is my thinking on Feb 5, of how it was working when we were using consensus. I still like the metaphor in the second to last paragraph, and regardless of the mechanics we ought to live to that metaphor.
6. User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Review closings - my thinking as of yesterday on what we are doing currently

Frankly, I think we don't have a working system right now. One, we don't have enough regular participants. Two, we don't have a clear enough statement of the purpose of deletion review, and what sorts of arguments are relevant here, so that the appearance of irregulars generates a large random factor. Improving either area would increase the consistency of results.

GRBerry

22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A question for you, as someone who closes - what's more important, the first or second aspect? As a regular contributor (and someone who'd likely give more input if I could trust the system more), I think the second is the more important area - if we only have three participants in a discussion, but we can clearly come to a conclusion based in policy and in our guidelines, the appeal process worked. Am I out of line in saying that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I think it is the small number of regular participants. If I try to think about who I can expect to see an opinion from in a large fraction of the discussions, it would be Guy, DGG, Amarkov and Cordesaat right now. There are probably two to three times that many editors that I can expect to see often enough to recognize their handles solely from participation here. Other than Guy, nobody really has a more than 50% opine rate. So in a typical discussion, I see around 1-3 opinions from regulars, not in agreement a significant fraction of the time.

I feel like I'm relisting about a fifth to a quarter of the reviews lately because they don't have a clear enough basis to close them. I personally don't like closing on a N+1/N basis. There is no deadline, so I don't mind relisting, but a lot of the relisted ones aren't collecting more opinions, so what do I do after a 10-14 day run when only the nominator, the deleting admin, and one or two other people have opined, and they don't agree? Endorse deletion because nobody cares? Overturn because nobody cares? Make it AFDs problem and hope somebody there cares? None of those options seem right. I wouldn't mind closing a case with a few opiners that had reached agreement. But that doesn't help me with the actual situations of only a few opiners that aren't in agreement. Unless the nom is withdrawn or the closing admin overturns themself, I think that is the most common result right now.

If we could double the number of frequent opiners, then I would say that having a clear statement on the purpose/role of deletion review and the relevant sorts of arguments would become more important than growing the frequent opiner list further. We generally agree that DRV is not AFD phase 2, but what does that really mean to someone who isn't a regular here, and how do we explain it to them?

As an aside, one thing that might help with most of the really contentious cases we have seen recently was if we made the policy clearly state that for articles with a prior keep AFD that have been speedily deleted, the consensus level needed to keep them deleted here is the same consensus level that would have been needed to delete in an AFD - that would at least eliminate the forum shopping issue. Trialsanderrors has been saying this, but hasn't edited the undeletion policy to include it yet.

GRBerry

00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that the arguments don't even play into your decisions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that the biggest reason I think it is broken is that it feels like a random number generator would be an equivalent quality replacement right now. This wasn't true when T&E was still closing, but since then I've moved from opining to closing, you've left, and Doug Bell has left. I don't feel like DGG understands the policies and guidelines yet, and we don't have enough active participants that do to educate new people. So the discussions I'm closing are being made predominantly by new editors, the admins whose actions are under review, and drive by opiners who don't have a vision for deletion review.

Let's look at the log for March 3^rd, which I should be closing now. 1) "The Everybodyfields" is here from a G4, with a nomination claiming new evidence but no independent sourcing, and a single endorse opinion that says "endorse close but allow recreation" - a 1-1 tie with no arguments worth evaluating. 2) "Rites of Ash" has a nomination from an SPA with a serious case of COI, a question about sources, and a no thanks comment; again a 1-1 tie but with discussion that is meaningful enough to know how I would opine. 3) "Joey Boland", which has a clear consensus to overturn, but somebody has already recreated the article... 4) "Jeopardy! in popular culture" has enough opinions that I'll close it, but it is a 6-7 endorse before I start whacking opinions (this is a bare vote, that and that are AFD round 2, ...). 5) "University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)" has a nomination and seven comments (total of four opiners), but nobody bold enough to express an opinion on what to do. #1, #2, and #5 will be relisted for another round of deletion review. #3 will be closed with the history restored under the new article. #4 will be closed somehow, probably relisted as a tie after I whack the one bare vote. It might be possible to find a non-tie result by weighing arguments more finely, but before I get there I reach Xoloz's headache test (below).

That said, I believe that it would be a mistake to give me, or any other closer, a large amount of discretion to evaluate arguments. If deletion review is to be a forum for establishing cloture, we can't give DRV closers anywhere near the freedom that we give to XfD closers. If we had published guidelines for how to evaluate arguments, and at least some evidence of community consensus for those guidelines, I wouldn't mind using them. But right now, the only discretion I feel I have is to ignore bare votes, IP editors and new single purpose accounts unless they make a compelling and novel argument.

GRBerry

04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list of admins by number of overturns in DRV. I have my guesses as to who is in the top five. I can say that unilateral admin speedy deletion of articles coupled with a DRV heavily weighted in favor of deletion has been the source of considerable frustration. Jokestress 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... we're not heavily weighted in favor of deletions. A good number of speedy deletions have been overturned, just to be redeleted after an AfD next week. For that matter, even though I don't agree with this, some AfD closures have been overturned on technicalities, which were extremely unlikely to matter, and turned out not to. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not been here for a while, but I find it curious that there's so much disagreement on ArbCom about the role of process in DRV. It was my impression that there was general agreement that DRV is not a place to correct procedural mistakes; that is, if an article is supposed to be deleted, it will not be undeleted at DRV. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind an opposition to that statement? Xiner (talk, email) 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because DRV was traditionally about the process. How it came to be something else, I'm trying to figure out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Process" has become a dirty word among Wikipedia admins - and that basically disenfranchises the peon editor, just like everything else around here. -- Jay Maynard 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone posting here might also want to see the posts below. Xiner (talk, email) 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One point of order before I begin: I've seen some newbies wonder "What happens if DRV ends in a no consensus"? Lack of consensus is impossible at DRV. An absolute tie is a consensus to relist. Why?

DRV is a forum for cloture, as I've said elsewhere before. Its role as a forum of appeal is primarily to determine whether a matter has been firmly decided, or should be referred to another forum for further discussion. Process is its primary concern, mainly because process in often overlooked in other XfD fora, and especially by speedy deletions. Since DRV is the place of last practical appeal, a process-weighted argument should ideally be favored: denial of process suggests that all points in a discussion have not been heard. If there is much more to said, cloture is inappropriate. Reviewers should ask themselves, "Was debate thorough?", "Were all relevant questions of fact and policy addressed?", and, lastly, "Was justice served?"

The last of these questions is fairly broad, obviously. As the final step in deletion process before a matter is pushed aside, DRV is specially positioned to consider fundamental fairness. This means that, while process is often the first place reviewers look for mistakes, other matters are relevant. Is new information available, relevant to the topic, that was unknown or unconsidered in the XfD? Has a new party come forward to present a perspective or argument unmentioned in the XfD? Is there some mitigating factor, beyond the strict letter of policy, that demands to be addressed in new debate?

Wikipedia trusts its admins, and its XfD fora. In general, they get things right -- or at least, we presume they do. That said, because DRV is just a forum for cloture, "consensus" has its weakest meaning anywhere in Wikipedia -- and that's a good thing. In order for a deletion to be endorsed, a majority must support it. Any other outcome results in referral back to an XfD, except in very limited cases. If a debate ends in a tie, we relist; a "keep closure" may be brought for DRV to review, but -- absent a very strong consensus of 80% -- any overturn simply sends the matter back to XfD. The (positive) biases of DRV are in favor of more discussion (call it, "if in doubt, relist") as well as the traditional Wikipedia content retention bias ("If in doubt, don't delete.")

My esteemed colleague, badlydrawnjeff, is one of the most dedicated content-saviors we have at Wikipedia. I do not always agree with Jeff, and others like him -- is the noble Kappa still with us? -- but I respect that folks like Jeff are really the key to DRV. Advocates for content bring disputed cases of deletion to DRV: ultimately, the job of the closer is to decide if the advocate has made enough headway to indicate that more discussion is in order. DRV is also a meta-analytic forum: "strength of argument" is often very hard to weigh, and any closer is apt to be swayed by any personal inclusionist/deletionist tendencies. To avoid killing each in arguments over whether we have even a "consensus" to stop discussing a thing, DRV is best left to head-counting. The range of closer's discretion is limited.

Having said that, DRV's positive biases insist that a closer scrutinize arguments for irrelevancies. As always, newer users, hopeless POV-warriors, anons, and the truly "out-of-touch" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) can be discounted. In my day, closers didn't sign their closes; the reasoning on DRV close is rarely given, unless the case is monumental or very long -- this is to avoid rule-creep, but also to keep us from (again) the great sin of arguing over whether we should argue over whether people want to keep discussing a thing. The process of meta-analysis has to stop before we go mad. In general, if a case is close enough that it is giving you a headache, relist it to the appropriate XfD. Those cases are really the only time "strength of argument" can outweigh a head-count.

It is absolutely essential that the DRV closer be humble about this. A sophist could devise any number of reasons to weigh "strength of argument" and relist virtually every case. That would lead to process-insanity, and incredible acrimony. In almost every case, the headcount is right. Only cite "strength of argument" to overturn and relist in very limited cases.

Citing "strength of argument" to support deletion is -- except in the case of a newbie flood, where numbers can be grossly distorted -- really an awful idea. If at least half of the Wikipedians present want to continue discussing something, a relist is in order. The closer should never let personal opinion obscure the fact that DRV is just about cloture -- the merits of the article are relevant, but the central question is "Are we, or are we not, done talking about topic X?" Even if you, Mr. Closer, think article X is putrid, you must respect your fellows if a large number of them believe the discussion is not yet finished, and relist.

Thanks to GR for dragging me over here. :) Xoloz 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xiner raised a point I want to address. If DRV is about "process", does that mean that we overturn debates on mere technicalities? No. DRV is about process fairness -- it is okay, right, and normal for a debate to conclude that, while some tiny mistake of process was made, it is too inconsequential to affect fundamental fairness. On the other hand, process foul-ups often do affect fundamental fairness -- if a debate lasts only one day, instead of five, many opinions were wrongly silenced, and the debate was unfair. Where is line between "inconsequential process tweak" and "grossly unfair process foul up"? The community decides that, basically by headcount, on a case-by-case basis. The community, as a whole, is really very smart. Trust it not to be concerned over tiny things, but to care about justice in every case. Xoloz 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In that sense, I've no argument. Xiner (talk, email) 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading all of this and nodding my head all the way through...Xoloz's explanation makes perfect sense to me. So why do so many people not get it? And the further you get up Wikipedia's hierarchy - from peon editor to admin to senior admin to Arbcom - the worse it gets in terms of people calling us process wonks for trying to make DRV work. I have a feeling that merging the Deletion, Deletion Review, and Undeletion policies might help. It helps to see them all together to understand why DRV needs to be different from AfD. Kla'quot 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't add much what Xoloz hasn't said already (and I paraphrased earlier at

WP:IAR) decisions, where too many editors use their opportunity to weigh in on the subject rather than the decision (although I'm at a loss to say which forum might do a better job). This mish-mash of roles obviously creates a lot of confusion, but we should keep in mind that we're not an admin conduct forum, even though the original purpose implies it. Our mission is primarily to decide what to do with the article, not whether the admin deserves a barnstar or a troutslap. So, and even if I'm not a fan of the current setup, DRV makes sure that contested speedies get a five-day discussion. Obviously, by force of habit, those speedy reviews have started to usurp the role of a regular AfD, with a status quo bias against the article (which is what I believe accounts for a lot of Jeff's frustration). The problem for me as closer is more that I have people weighing in on two different issues, which certainly doesn't make closing easier and increases the error rate. ~ trialsanderrors

10:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the closer does need to make a decision. And in the Rites of Ash example, no one contributed with any other comments or sources that met policy or that could be interpreted as justifying the overturn of the speedy-deletion. It would have been nice if Coredesat had returned to the discussion to affirm his/her position about the quality of the provided sources but that's still a "delete" opinion. So was mine. Two endorsements of a speedy against the page creator's request for reconsideration seems like a closable discussion to me. I expect someone experienced enough to be closing DRV discussions to be experienced enough to read the comments and to interpret them appropriately. Depending on uniform "endorse" or "overturn" votes at the front of every comment is a crutch - useful but you can't depend on it alone. Xoloz is dead-on with the comments about humility and respecting the will of the participants. At the same time, it's a wiki. We trust you to be bold, even in the act of interpreting comments when closing DRV discussions. Rossami (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... no we don't. DRV closures are rather hard to overturn, so we want to be sure that the decision is correct. I've done quite a few reversions of closures like that. Like any rule, this is sometimes appropriate to ignore, but such cases are very rare. It doesn't hurt to extend a discussion, after all. -Amarkov moo! 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is where I think you've missed the point, however. The article was speedied, and there's nothing I can see to indicate it was an A7 - no one was charging as such at the AfD, and only two people gave input. If it ran two more days and actual input was involved instead of what may be an invalid speedy, we wouldn't have to "drill down" to begin with, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I said above that it was clear how I would opine on that one. I did interpret Rossami's comment as a deletion endorse. If Cordesaat had come back and said what he felt about the sources, I might have been bold enough to close it, with clear consensus visible. He hasn't been active enough here for me to have had confidence that he had looked at them, however. I'm normally willing to interpret comments. (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 2, the opportunity rover discussion contains an example of the kind I won't interpret. T&E left me with a "undelete, but if X endorse" comment for half a day, and that comment was the tiebreaker. Determining X would have taken more work than I was willing to do, so I waited him out until he decided it. I'm not going to put a half hour into a single person's comment on a single discussion.) Otherwise, I'm happy to evaluate what people have said, but prefer to avoid trying to evaluate what people haven't said, because "not said" doesn't distinguish between "didn't look" and "didn't care to comment".

Xoloz has encouraged me to consider a total of three opinions enough to close a discussion. Are others comfortable with closing 2-1 or 1-2 discussions as a clear decision? Since the undeletion policy currently says "if at least three people and a qualified majority of voters have voted for undeletion", that would mean that a 2-1 majority for overturning endorses deletion... although these could just be left open to see if they become 3-1 before ten days are up. If people are comfortable with that practice, a lot more of these can close without relisting. The 1-1 discussions would still need to be relisted.

GRBerry

18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, honestly, I'm comfortable with 1-0 if the merits of the argument are intact. I'm not comfortable with 3-1 in favor of endorsing an invalid speedy. I think this is what's disturbing me about what I'm reading here right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

God in heaven, some evil person rewrote that. If the decision is 2-1 in favor of overturning, overturn. Simple. Edit the policy to conform to sanity -- that's what it read in May, 2005, when I last read every policy. Xoloz 18:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have returned the policy to sanity. Don't know who muffed it up, but it looks like they -- cleverly -- just moved a comma or two. Xoloz 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GRBerry, thanks for the explanation. I was concerned from your comments above that we might have been getting lost in the mechanics of the process at the expense of robust discussion. Your comments here reassure me.
Like Jeff, I am comfortable with low levels of participation. Frankly, I'd even be comfortable with a 1:1 closure in most circumstances. If a nominator proposes an overturn, a single experienced editor provides a solid policy-based reason to endorse the close and nobody else comments (despite the many who watch and selectively participate on the page), that's sufficient evidence to close the review as an endorsement of the prior decision.
We have always been told not to participate in every debate. I try to limit my participation to only those discussions where I have something significant to add. "Me, too" comments don't help the discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What to opine when

Jeff has a legitimate concern, that has been lost above in other discussion, about what should we overturn and what should we endorse. And whether we are doing what we should be doing. Let's talk about that more.

I view DRV as the second line of defense against bad deletion decisions. (Or the backup safety valve on the pressure cooker.) Discussion with the deleting admin should be the first line of defense.

We are looking for mistaken deletions, trying to find material that is either useful as is, just needs minor patching, or is at least recyclable - or that might be and should be sent to XfD for an evaluation. If I think it should have been thrown out in the

Keep in mind that the same ArbCom decision that caused this discussion also showed some disadain toward snowball closes, which is important to note. The garbage can/disposal discussion is one thing, but to not give an article a full hearing when it may benefit from one, even if initial discussion trends otherwise, seems to invalidate this concept of a second line of defense.

I guess where I'm going is that if we're going to treat it as a second line of defense, let's do it. If we're going to treat it as a way to make sure process is followed, let's do it. If we're going to be a combo of the two, or if we're going to be neither, let's do it. Frankly, we're none of those four things right now, which is incredibly frustrating unless you're in the business of removing rather than preserving content.

What the end result is going to be, I can live with. But I'd like there to be a result, so DRV actually has a calling as opposed to being a secondary avenue to rubber-stamp poor decisions, as it is prone to be on more and more occasions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't count the loads of times I've seen something that got speedy deleted on soft grounds, didn't look like it had a snowball's chance, be redeemed in a five day AfD when wider input was solicited. I admire Jeff and Kappa because I've seen them save things. They need a fair opportunity to do that. Don't worry about taking too long to discuss things. The pleasant surprises of redeemed good content make up for the wee inconvenience of a five day window on AfD. Xoloz 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I've noticed that has been a concern is community involvement. With the closings of several Wiki-orgs such as esperanza and concordia, and from what I've seen many WikiProjects that have become fairly inactive, it should be no surprise that the XfD system (of which DRV is a part) has issues of lack of community involvement.

Perhaps we should start a new discussion about how to "advertise" the processes in some way. It just seems that those involved are typically only those who are directly involved with the article/template/category/etc in question, and a few of those then leave a few other votes on other discussions on the page. The Cent template is nice, but I think if we don't have an XfD template, we should. Awhile back we were discussing some changes to the sidebar. Perhaps a link to a page like: "Content for discussion" - which would act as a page with some links to the various XfD discussions. One thing is fairly certain, Something needs to happen, and soon. - jc37 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We reached the point long ago when the community is simply too large; you're still only going to get the people who are marginally involved, because nobody else sees anything related. We're going to have to trust that XfD regulars combined with people involved with the subject can determine the coorect answer, because if they can't, then there's nothing we can do about it. -Amarkov moo! 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As part of turning the archiving over to a bot I'm also trying to strip the discussions fom the transclusions of the daily logs. This has become necessary because the monthly logs (which serve as archives beyond the eleven days we have on the

1. Should we strip the discussions from the transclusions as soon as the daily log is closed, or when it drops off the front page? The latter alternative makes for slower load times but quicker access to fairly recent discussions.
2. I created two different ways of creating those archives, one retains the beige box while the other one turns the log into a simple bulleted list, see March 1 and March 2 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March.

Happy to indulge any proposals as long as a bot can perform them... ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should shed them when the daily log is closed. (The bot can check via simple logic: 1) older than today and 2) all discussion headers gone.) The main page takes a noticable time to load, and I'm always on a DSL or better connection. The easier the working page is to laod, the easier it is for people to participate.
  GRBerry
  00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• How about just converting from monthly pages to weekly pages? Keep everything else about the process the same. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The archives are primarily used to check if articles have been reviewed before. Such a search is much easier with monthly than with weekly logs. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • True. And today we can (with some limits) use the search engine to help find them. If you "shed" the discussions, that won't be true anymore. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean in the proposal above? Rossami (talk)
      • Search doesn't really work for DRV, see e.g. Search for "Bambenek". "Shedding" in this case means the full discussions will be preserved on the daily log pages, but only the top line with the result will be transcluded onto the main page/monthly logs. ~ trialsanderrors 01:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Several related articles have been deleted and, although most were poor quality, it's important that we cover the topic in some form or other. One or two of the article titles should be undeleted, but I'm not sure which. How would I put this up for review? — Omegatron 08:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Which ones are you talking about? >Radiant< 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HHO Gas, Aquygen

, and so on.

I've already written up a rationale, but I don't know how to format it, since six or so related articles have been deleted, and I'm not sure which would be the best place for the content. — Omegatron 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, just put it on DRV (===[[Article1]], [[Article2]] and [[Article3]]===) and we'll talk about it. At first glance it appears to be a non-notable hoax with a strong consensus towards deleting it. But good luck. >Radiant< 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's

WP:HOAX is for articles that are hoaxes, not for articles about hoaxes. — Omegatron

13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Proof by assertion isn't. At any rate, you should list this on the main page to get wider input. >Radiant< 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof by assertion of what? It explains right at the top of the page: Articles about notable hoaxes are okay, if the hoax is recognized as such.

I listed it. — Omegatron 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is no concensus after 5 days, can deletion review be reopened at a later date despite no new information having come to light? --Oldak Quill 00:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See the discussions above. A deletion review discussion can't close as a "no consensus". Any such decision would default to "relist to AFD" (or RfD, etc.). Rossami (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The article is similar to other articles which my friends made . I tried to add references and some sources. everyday I studied the wiki and beforehand I tried on sandbox. Now when I was getting successful to put some photos with correct copyright way , you've just deleted my page. there are several websites about Pooya Mirzaee Rad . and I was trying to make a integrated link referenced to each claim on the page. anyway I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Even I don't have the content to make it better... what you are doing is not HELP! it's destroying and I'm so unhappy about it. in the article pooya mirzaee rad there was no advertisement. a user introducing web page or something like that. it was all about kharizmi festival which is an important event and winners are most important topics to follow. please advice... —The preceding

You should follow the steps for nomination at

WP:DRV. I can't even guess from this what article is supposed to be undeleted. ~ trialsanderrors

05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if an administrator can let me see the text that was deleted from Lengths of fantasy film and television series. I would like to merge its material into Lengths of science fiction film and television series, which survived the AFD nomination. Thanks. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not with that reasoning. You can't copy content from a deleted article into another article, because according to gfdl you have to attribute edits to those people who actually made them. Furthermore, if the afd result is a delete, that means the content will be deleted, not put into another place. If you think the afd should've been closed as a merge instead of a delete (which actually would've made a lot more sense than deleting this one and keeping another just like it), you'll have to ask the afd closer (User:TigerShark) or propose this article for undeletion on the project page. - Bobet 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

one quick question. I forgot to save the content on the article called "RadioGreen" that has been removed today. I wanted to place it on the "about" page on the RadioGreen site. I was wondering if i can get the content of the article. Thank You.

--Josh Hubi 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. TomTheHand 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As close to a perennial proposal as DRV gets, but seeing how we're kind of up in the air regarding what DRV is, I think it's time to trot the idea out again.

We should be undeleting the history of DRVs in most cases.

I recognize that copyvios have no need, want, or desire to have their histories exposed, and I grudgingly understand the desire for allegedly defamatory material unavailable for review, but for the rest, what's the logic behind holding it back? It's very difficult to accurately judge many deletions, including A7s/G11s/A1s/A3s in particular, without that necessary context, so why shouldn't this be automatic? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From my pre-admin times I'd say for 80% of the reviews restoring is unnecessary. But if there's a reasoned request I usually restore behind the DRV screen, as long as the number of requests by the same editor is within reason. You can contact me on my talk page or e-mail me if I don't see it. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... why not restore everything under a DRV screen by default, like he suggested? The problem with only restoring when it's necessary is that it's hard after having the information to judge if you needed it to come to an opinion. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What he said. I mean, I could simply request history undeletion on everything, but if it were simply understood that it should occur for most of these, it would cut out the middle man. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And usually the request and sometimes discussion are much more trouble, because once it is simply visible everyone generally just agrees. DGG 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some more clarity in the system, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It also often depends on the reason for the deletion. If it's simply alleged non-notability of a local band or a high school or a webcomic, there's often no harm at all to allowing the article to be visible again for 5 days. If the deletion reason is a more serious problem that is often different. Newyorkbrad 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my initial statement... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the burden were spread equally I wouldn't have a problem with it, but as it is,

User:Mangojuice/Slave applies. When I was still the sole regular closer keeping up with formatting fixes and other was a fulltime job. I already made 8 edits to today's log and only one of them was an editorial comment. I can see that a restoration be necessary for a number of contested cases, but I have little interst to add this to my diet for all the cases where the outcome is clear anyway. ~ trialsanderrors

00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism, I suppose. Of course, trying to get one or two admins who only do the history undeletions shouldn't be that much of a problem either, I'd hope. Makes me wish I was a palatable enough candidate for promotion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

*mumbles a complaint about needing more admins* -Amarkov moo! 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the about a month and a half that I was an admin but not a closer, I was quite busy with gnoming other aspects of deletion review (fix malformed nominations, link all AFDs, link all prior DRVs, etc...), plus opining myself. I'd like to see a wikignome doing all those links again, which mostly can be done via reading the "What links here" page for each nominated article, and doesn't need an admin.

I did restore history on a bunch of articles. Because it takes admin time and effort (some, not a lot) to restore the history, I usually did it when I thought both the article deserved a restoration and that the history was needed to show it. I still do some, but I also skip over many requests.

If an admin or two wanted to adopt restoring (appropriate) histories (or citing relevant evidence) as their personal project, I'd have no problem with the idea. But I don't have time for it myself. In the meantime, if someone could find a way to put the google cache search into the nomination template, that might help. At least the cache, if it exists, would always be linked.

I'm bad with templates and stuff, but I help out with the malformed noms when I can, and try to put up the new day headers if it's getting close. I think most of us who are big on the DRV thing can certainly step up better if that's a need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Google cache added to the template, by the way. -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone should contact them to make sure it's okay, I suppose, but I can't figure it out, so if someone else could it would be nice. I'm not sure whether or not their terms of use would prohibit this. -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why? Good idea btw. ~ trialsanderrors 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose automatic history-restores. I understand the logic behind the request but it is unnecessary and inappropriate in the majority of reviews. Where it would be helpful, it can be requested by the editors in the discussion. But where there is not a good-faith need, we should not be feeding the trolls and other abusive editors who are petitioning for their patently inappropriate page to have a few more days of life. Rossami (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So we need to buckle to the occasional troll and keep well-meaning editors from making sound decisions? I really can't get behind that line of thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My informal count of recent review requests shows more where it would be inappropriate or unnecessary (76%) than where it could be appropriate or helpful (24%). That more than "the occasional troll". Rossami (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What definitions are you using here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This page claims it "considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". It makes no sense to have the page handle deletions where someone wants to overturn the deletion, Keep decisions where someone wants the article to have been deleted, but then NOT to handle redirect decisions, especially as redirection is essentially a form of deletion. If this page is supposed to handle potential improper deletion discussion results, then all of them should be handled, including redirects. If anyone attempts to remove a redirect which was following the conclusion of an AfD debate, someone who notices will put it back and claim that the will of the AfD partipants/closing admin should be followed.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of this page is merely to allow non-admins to get deleted pages back, if such a thing is appropriate, then there is no purpose behind having this page be used to get Keep decisions overturned. Anyone who wants to overturn a Keep decision can simply AfD the article a second time.

So, what is the purpose of this page? --Xyzzyplugh 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects, unless they're performed as "delete and redirect", don't delete the page history. If you get consensus on the talk page or if you have substantial new informetion that fixes the problems brought up in the AfD discussion, you can revert the redirect yourself. You don't need admin help for it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, and Keep results from an AfD don't require this page either, as anyone who disagrees can simply run the article through AfD again. (and, heh, getting consensus on a redirect's talk page wouldn't be too hard, who ever reads talk pages for redirects? A group of 1 can always reach a consensus) --Xyzzyplugh 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trials is correct. Redirect decisions are solved on the respective article Talk pages. They do not need to be discussed here since the page's history was never deleted. New consensus can be found and carried out without the use of special admin powers. Undeleting a page or re-deciding a Keep decision and then deleting the page both do require admin intervention.
Could you ask for a reconsideration of a Keep decision by simply nominating the article again? Yes. And that's how it works out in most cases. The keep decisions nominated here are by far the exception, not the rule.
By the way, the place to get consensus on the redirect is generally not the redirect's Talk page. That discussion is normally held on the target article's Talk page for just the reason you describe - to find enough interested editors to actually reach a meaningful consensus. Rossami (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what you're implying is that AfD's which result in redirect decisions essentially carry no weight whatsoever. The vast majority of the edits I make on Wikipedia, probably 99%, I don't discuss them on the talk page before I make them, and almost all of them "stick" and aren't immediately reverted. From Wikipedia:Consensus: " "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it". If I come across a redirect which looks to me like it should be restored, or a low traffic stub of an article which I think should be redirected, I do it without discussing it with anyone first every time. The fact that I am rarely reverted means I end up having consensus. If I undo a redirect, and leave a note on the redirect target's talk page saying I have done so, I guarantee you there is a 98% chance no one will object, rarely will anyone care what redirects to some article they're interested in, unless it's a massively high traffic page with thousands of editors paying attention to it and interfering in every decision everyone tries to make. So I can pretty much alone undo any deletion debate decision resulting in redirect. --Xyzzyplugh 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, if an AfD gets closed as "redirect" and an edit war breaks out over it, and you believe the closure was out of process it's ok to have it reviewed here (make note of the edit war). Just to get the ok to revert the redirect you don't have to bring it here. I generally agree that AfD decisions carry some weight even if they don't involve deletions, but DRV should be the last resort if editors can't come to an agreement otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that the AFD discussion carries no weight. It was, after all, a discussion among editors who presumably took the time to educate themselves on the issues and to offer thoughtful opinions. But that part of the decision is no more decisive than an equally thoughtful discussion held on the article's Talk page. Subsequent editors simply have to be ready to defend their assessment that

consensus has changed (or stand ready to be reverted when someone finds it in the Recent Changes patrol).
The only time you'd bring a "redirect closure" here is if you think the closure itself was out-of-process. Rossami (talk)

23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the general principles of cooperative editing, and particularly the WP:BOLD guidelines, major changes are absolutely to be discussed on the talk page before making them. Except in trivial cases, I think changing an article to a redirect or back should not be done without prior discussion on the talk page. If after a week or so nobody objects, then I think the right to use the argument from silence. When I first came here, I did make a few bold deletions of sections on some pages, though never amounting to redirecting an entire article, and the reaction made it clear to me the utter inadvisability of doing so again on an actively worked on article. I think there is one good place to do it, and that is on an article which seems to be entirely ignored--usually someone wakes up, but if not, then its reasonable to go ahead as best one can. DGG 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at (assuming you haven't, before), Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. An essay only, but one which has had strong support. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a bit of discussion on it when someone tried to delete it. Although, yes, changing a major popular page into a redirect without discussion first is not likely something I would do. --Xyzzyplugh 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. ~ trialsanderrors 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On this passage in section 5.1: "Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." Just wondering what actions at the WP:Guide to Deletion page this is referring to? I see no section called 'actions', and no list of obvious actions at that page. I see examples of shorthand, discussion guidelines and the like. Any assistance in directing to a list of common actions is appreciated. Thanks. --Keefer4 | Talk 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Osomosis and time at the page have answered this.--Keefer4 | Talk 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a subpage of mine to be deleted, but now I want it back. I'm guessing that this is the incorrect place to do so.. Where would I bring my request?

Probably on the front page under the Content Review section. Or you could just drop a note to any admin who's on line at the time. As long as it's a good-faith request, it sounds pretty straight-forward. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if an AfD closure is overturned at DRV and sent back to DRVAfD, the ("nth nomination") number does not increment. Is that correct? I ask because if it is, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) should be considered a second nomination. Kla'quot 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule on that, but why does it matter anyway? -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually it does increment. Not sure how we would implement it without incrementing. Erase the prior discussion? ~ trialsanderrors 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. The cases I saw where we didn't increment were probably ones where the title changed between nominations. I do think it matters though, because having a high nomination number tends to bias the discussion towards keep. Kla'quot 05:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The system is a complete mess, and I can see that AfD's that already went through (third nomination) are later listed as (2nd nomination). On bias, people are more likely to vote for candidates who appear first on the ballot, I don't think we have a chance to remove bias from the process. ~ trialsanderrors 05:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And, once again, DRV shows how it's generally becoming useless. Darvon cocktail was an obviously improper speedy deletion. There's no denying this. Unfortunately, since I didn't think to canvass anyone or draw attention to the problem, a simple majority vote upheld an abusive deletion.

How the hell do we fix DRV? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've listed it as a review of the deletion review as a test at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_15. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And I see Sam has decided to go the route of abuse again and close it. So, while I consider reversing him, how do we fix DRV? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue here isn't DRV. It's that, despite the fact that any efforts to actually make it policy are defeated, many people seem to think that unsourced articles should be speedily deleted if there is any concievable way in which they could be harmful to anyone or anything. You can't only fix it in one spot. -Amarkov moo! 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, nor do I think it's only one issue, there's a wider-scale issue. However, that doesn't excuse the point that DRV does this more often than it should - endorsing poor decisions, wrong decisions, or abusive decisions. Any fixing of the greater culture still needs a fix here if it's meant to be a proper appeals process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, any fix here must involve either changing the opinions of those who participate, or changing who participates; the process fixes that get constantly suggested to solve problems like this don't work. And I'm not entirely convinced either of those things are possible to do. -Amarkov moo! 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's a way to hold them accoutnable. Blanning has disruptively closed it again, and non one's going to hold him accountable, so it's impossible to get traction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Shoudl I RfC Blanning? --MalcolmGin 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It'll be worthless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, is every single problem on Wikipedia going to end up somehow linked to our horribly unscalable final step in dispute resolution? -Amarkov moo! 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, if Blanning gets blocked, so too will Jeff for the same sorts of

WP:POINTy disruptive edits and quasi-personal attacks... I would say tread very carefully here. The last thing I think we all want to see is two editors who, arguably, have contributed positively to Wikipedia, get blocked. I sure don't. Rockstar (^T/_C

) 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. I've, after all, shown no continual abuse of process and policy. But that's beside the point - at this stage, let's figure out a) how to fix DRV so these issues don't crop up, and b) how to hold administrators accountable for poor decisions when it comes to figuring out the appeals. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping to not bring it to that point, although the option has to be on the table. Given that there is no possible place to appeal the appeal... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, the place to appeal the appeal. But I just don't think it's worth it. You might. But I don't, and I'd bet that the ArbCom won't either. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thus the reason why it's time to figure out the next step so we don't have to go that far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you're inferring that there should be some sort of community arbitration, no? I can see why, assuming we want to strengthen Wikipedia's bureaucracy, you would want that. But don't think we need it -- I think the process works fine here. Plus, we're too bogged down in processes as is. Why create more? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the answer is, perhaps a larger-scale community arbitration is in order. But the process isn't working fine if we're seeing errors like what we saw today, that's the problem. I'm working on a larger-scale DRV project to try and see exactly how broken it is, but it's not good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason that conflict resolution and policy design/writing are both professions. Folks in the world in those fields know/agree that large organizations, volunteer or not, require consistent, reliable policy and enforcement in order to continue to function in a consensus-driven way. This is how non-profits in the world work, especially those that have existed in civil rights social reform and other extremely liberal political causes. Without reliable policy and enforcement of policy, what you instead get is faction-driven progress, which can be a whole lot less unified, but, yes, quicker. My suggestion for you who want to have less process is to redesign the policy to fit the kind of process you want to utilize, but for the love of G-d and man, please, please, please don't practice process in contravention of standing policy, because then every decision will seem to be and actually be prurient and random. --MalcolmGin 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I still have yet to be convinced that the current process is either broken, prurient or random. I think it works just fine, and furthermore, I think the Darvon cocktail ordeal shows that Wikipedians have their heads in the right places, namely to remove unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially dangerous articles from Wikipedia. Maybe the process was bent in this case (

but not without good reason), but it sure wasn't broken as the correct decision was made in the end. Rockstar (^T/_C

) 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

FCYTravis

00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's just as much about the content as the improper use of the tools and the improper deletion. I don't care to run an AfD at DRV, nor should I have to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Still not getting this. The article was deleted without prejudice to a properly sourced and written recreation. Can that be done? If it can, there's no need for a DRV at all - just do it and ask anyone to unsalt. If it can't then there's no need for a DRV (AfD) or anything. I don't see the need for any debate here. Why did this ever come to DRV? What's the point? There is no honest dispute to ask the community to resolve. Seems to be a waste of everyone's time.--

Doc

^g 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is an reason to get to the bottom of this, and this is the perfect article for it: 1) It was apparently speedied on censorship grounds (it was "dangerous"), which is a really firm no-no among the community, 2) It was upheld due to lack of sources (which was a proposal not too long ago and soundly rejected, 3) the same group of editors who think the rules don't apply were some of the most vocal in terms of keeping (an ongoing problem), and 4) It outlined in a perfect way how broken DRV is. I can't think of another article that can intersect so many of the issues this project is facing than this one. If you think making sure our basic process works and that community consensus is upheld is a waste of time, I'm not sure what to tell you - I reject that completely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reject what? It was a simple question both germane and genuine - can a decent well-sourced article be written here or not? If it can, then let's sort it. If not, then.....--

Doc

^g 12:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reject your assertion that an article that highlights so many of our problems can be considered a waste of time. I bet a well-sourced article could be written - that's not what the DRV was for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit pointless saying 'process is broken' when you have an obvious remedy. {{sofix it}}! Write the well-sourced article - I'll be happy to unsalt and move it into place. Then if anyone wants it deleted they can go to afd. The DRV didn't rule out a properly written recreation. Why plonk the process when you can fix the content?--

Doc

^g 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that doesn't address the issue. If the process is broken, we need to fix it - it's not like Darvon cocktail is the first article to be closed incorrectly at DRV, it just demonstrates a larger amount of our problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But process is only broken where it ends up with the wrong result in terms of improving the encyclopedia. If this is the wrong result, then the remedy to right it lies open. I see no fundamental problem in terms of content improvement.--

Doc

^g 12:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At no point does the allowance of individual administrators to buck the widely supported consensus on a) what can be speedily deleted, and b) censorship, both of which are policies, improve the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Side comment: I think the general idea of allowing a deletion review of a deletion review is a good one. While I support the obvious concensus of established users in the instant case (

Regardless of if that's a good idea, there has to be some point where we just say "this is FINAL, no more discussion", because courts of infinite appeals do not work. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely; that's why I said that the threshold for speedy-close should be very low. For instance, Jeff argued that the first review should have come to a different conclusion because of improper process, but everyone at that review was aware of the improper process and took it into consideration when forming their opinions, so I think the speedy-close of Jeff's review review was completely justified. We could also limit it to one level (no review review reviews), because if you get two reviews closed against you in a row, it should be obvious that there's an

rouge admins plotting against you, and it's time to email Jimbo take your complaints elsewhere.  :) Xtifr _tälk

12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I wouldn't have tried to review the review of the review anyway, because I would have figured out that it wasn't going to change at that stage here. But just because people endorsed using improper rationales does not mean they should have been weighted more heavily than those with proper rationales. We generally wouldn't keep an article that fails policy at AfD if 5 people said keep and two said delete, yet we do that here. It's nonsensical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I, for one, am willing to stand up for the idea that overly specific details of a suicide method do not belong on a top-ten website, even if sourced to the hilt. Newyorkbrad 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm very willing to stand up against censorship of that type. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The stupid thing is that

Suicide method has been up for deletion three times with a Keep result (I voted Delete). It has the same problems Darvon cocktail had, and in some ways it's worse. Sometimes an article barely squeaks by at DRV only to get a solid Keep consensus at AfD, and having seen this a few times I believe that the crowd at AfD is more sympathetic to inclusion, less sympathetic to IAR, and less likely to run the debate as an admin popularity contest. I've seen it argued (especially in the Brandt fiasco) that having AfD debates here is a shortcut to the same result; it isn't because the participant list at AfD is a wider cross-section of the community. Kla'quot

14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never noted that article before and am extremely troubled by it as well, although most of the information in it is common knowledge. I've never been closer to a sua sponte IAR deletion: "article creates an imminent danger to human life". At a minimum, I would certainly suggest that some drastic pruning, with deletion of prior revisions, is in order, although I am probably not the right person to do it. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For the particular issue of descriptions of suicide methods, I would be in favour of having deletion policy (but not speedy deletion policy) specifically advocate deletion. Kla'quot 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the Wikipedia editors' irrationalities and superstitions about death, euthanasia, free will, and censorship completely disabled their ability to deal with the situation intelligently. However, that so many good intellects on Wikipedia have that difficulty in dealing with reality is a good indication that the average reader would have even more problems in dealing with reality. So therefore the page should probably stay deleted--simply because civilized people generally have not progressed to where they are able to deal intelligently with death, euthanasia, free will, and censorship. Hence, I am not sure it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to have even a well cited page on Darvon cocktail, notwithstanding its ready availability on the mirror sites with an advertisement for enough pills to do the job for under $25 USD. And I think your campaign against censorship, irrationality, and superstition is admirable, even though I think you should lose your battle in this case over this particular page. --Rednblu 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Rednblu on this one. If the process is broken and there have been numerous cases like the Daron cocktail (or so it has been implied), then there must be a better example than the Darvon cocktail, right? Because I guarantee it's not gonna win at ArbCom or anywhere else. If, however, there aren't any better examples, then I very much doubt that the process is indeed broken. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Darvon cocktail is hardly the only mistake made, but it has more facets to it than most. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other cases. So long as wikipedia editors are human, mistakes will be made and no process will be perfect. The interesting question is the rate of errors, and whether some other process would be likely to have a better error rate.

There are plenty, I'm slowly working on a more recent list. Of course, the question remains - as closers, why do you close discussions that come to completely improper conclusions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One, because I am human, and when I judge that an error has occurred the error might be mine in reaching that judgement! Two, because many of the issues require judgment instead of an objective checklist approach, and as a servant of the participating community, I decline to substitute my judgment for theirs. If I feel strongly about a particular case, I'll opine rather than close.

GRBerry

16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So how do you feel we should deal with these errors? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the type of the error. Because

GRBerry

18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to restate - if the closer makes an error in judgement such as what occurred yesterday, what do you suggest to rectify it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and recreate the article to conform with WP standards. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

...and solve nothing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Create a good well-referenced article and re-creating it will not be prohibited. I'd say the means of 'rectifying' this are pretty obvious.--

Doc

^g 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're still misunderstanding - recreation of the article does not address long-term trust in the review process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endless nitpicking and namecalling doesn't address long-term trust in the review process either. Friday (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where the nitpicking comes in, but

if it quacks like a duck in this case... --badlydrawnjeff talk

21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The only case I saw where someone clearly "endorsed using (an) improper rationale" was the guy who was afraid of potential lawsuits.

WP:POINT would be inappropriate. Xtifr _tälk

22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per

common sense) about what is arguably inappropriate content. Rockstar (^T/_C

) 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If it was as obvious as all that, the DRV wouldn't have turned into a de-facto AfD, which is effectively what happened. Nor do I agree that the content was "inappropriate". It was unsourced and it ultimately proved unsourceable and non-notable, but it was a long, long way from being the usual "CRIS SUX MUNKY BALLZ!!1!" vandalism which is indisputably inappropriate. Xtifr _tälk 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar, the way you edited that particular quote from

WP:NOT#CENSORED seems to me to be particularly misleading. You left out the parenthetical clarification and a clarifying sentence that, for me, make the context read particularly differently from how you present it. To me, the same quote you made, if provided with the context you chose to leave out, reads in a way that leaves reasonable doubt as to the inappropriateness of the content of Darvon cocktail --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts

13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The point was that an admin made a judgment call when deleting the article as inappropriate. Then there was a DRV, and the community made a judgment call to keep the article deleted. The judgment calls just happened to align. I was just explaining why the article was deleted in the first place. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood your intent. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My intent was to show that the original speedy could have been construed as appropriate. The DRV confirmed that. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a sensible outcome to me. I don't understand what the fuss is about. This does not in any way suggest that DRV is "broken". It looks to me as if the system is working well. Metamagician3000 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, if the process for listing a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review is followed the only person who is notified that this has occurred is the closing administrator. This seems rather unfair, as those who participated in the discussion and do not agree with the closing opinion are at a disadvantage. They may not realize that the listing has occurred or have difficulty finding the discussion, deciding to just accept a decision with which they disagree.

I realize that maintaining an unedited archive of a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion is crucial. I propose the creation of a template that goes at the very top of the page, before the archived material, stating that the discussion has been listed at Deletion Review and providing a link to the relevant discussion. This would in no way alter the discussion that has been closed, and provide a more friendly link to the discussion that is then current.

Thoughts?—Chidom ^talk  19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just discovered that the {{

Delrev

}} template exists for use at the top of a page that has received a Keep closure and has been listed at DRV. This really seems unfair, as it basically says that continuing the discussion about a Keep decision is more important than a Delete decision. I also note that the template links directly to the discussion.

I also find that the {{

Deletion under review

}} directs to the DRV but is only appropriate when the subject page has been temporarily undeleted.

One possible solution here is to undelete and protect every deleted page that is listed at DRV as a matter of course and use the {{

Deletion under review}} template on the article page as a reference. I would think that a template for the AfD page before the archived material would be much easier; often the article being discussed doesn't need to be undeleted.—Chidom ^talk

  20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV is not AfD round 2. Nothing is gained from notifying those who argued to delete or argued to keep in earlier discussions when DRV's main raison d'etre is to review the outcome of those discussions. It just makes it more likely that the DRV will be filled with people repeating what they said already. And there's certainly nothing to be gained by only notifying those who argued a certain way as you suggest - that would be votestacking. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote stacking has nothing to do with it. There's no guarantee that only the participants in the previous discussion will participate in the deletion review or that any of them will; some might and some might not. There most likely will be new voices heard, which is as it should be.

However, I think you've completely misunderstood what I was saying; let me try to be clearer.

Currently, the procedure for listing a deletion review for an outcome of "Keep" is different than the procedure for listing a deletion review for an outcome of "Delete".

The first three steps for listing an article at Wikipedia:Deletion review are the same regardless of what outcome is being disputed (see Steps to list a new deletion review):

1. Copy the wikicode for the {{Newdelrev}} template
2. Paste the code on the current day's log and provide specific information for the listing—the page name, the reason for listing the outcome for review, and the signature of the nominator
3. Inform the administrator who closed the discussion by adding the {{
   DRVNote
   }} template to their talk page

   That's all well and good. The article has been listed and the closing administrator informed, regardless of the outcome of the AfD.

   Now the process differs—there's another step only if to dispute an AfD outcome of Keep. In that instance:

4. "Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{subst:Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

   (For an example, see G. V. Loganathan.)

If there's any "vote stacking" going on, it's for review of retention outcomes, not deletions. Editors are well-informed that a discussion is occurring and have the opportunity to participate in that discussion.

In a disputed retention, the article page still exists, and the {{

Delrev

}} tag is placed at the top of the article page, notifying those who participated in the AfD discussion and any additional editors who visit the page of the deletion review.

In the case of a disputed deletion, there is no longer an article page to tag; neither the participants in the initial discussion nor any new editors have been notified that further discussion is occurring. They have to do some investigating by returning to the AfD discussion page and clicking on the deletion review link in the header and then search to see if the outcome has been disputed and, if so, where the discussion is.

I'm suggesting that to be fair, either a tag should be placed at the top of the AfD discussion page or that the deleted article should be undeleted and tagged in the same fashion that a retained article is tagged until the deletion review is over. Most likely the latter would be the most fair; as notice would be available to people who weren't aware of the AfD discussion. That's certainly the case at pages such as the one for G. V. Loganathan.

I'm not advocating "AfD round 2". But aren't the people who participated in that discussion allowed to discuss the outcome of the discussion? To discuss whether the closing administrator was in line with consensus? To ask for additional clarification on the decision? Those are things that can't come up at the AfD unless someone brings their crystal ball to the table. (Mine's been in the shop for years; they keep telling me they're waiting for replacement parts.)

Will prior arguments get repeated? Sure—many of the arguments to overturn the decision will parrot the arguments in the AfD discussion. That's not inappropriate. The reasoning in the Deletion review should deal with why the closing administrator's decision was incorrect. Reiterating points from the AfD is appropriate if the goal is to identify which arguments—from the perspective of the person who made the arguments—were apparently misunderstood, discounted, ignored, considered unimportant, or otherwise dismissed (or any combination of the above) by the closer. Otherwise, new participants here won't have that information unless they're painstaking about following the link to the previous discussion.

Another possibility is that a participant in the AfD discussion may be able to state what their reasoning is more clearly and clear up misconceptions. They may also communicate their ability to support having conditions placed on overturning the outcome, even if those conditions aren't to their liking and the possibility of complying with them wasn't included in their original arguments.

So, what am I missing? Why the distinction between the two outcomes? Why a notice of a listing at Deletion review for a disputed outcome where the outcome is retention, but no notice of a listing at Deletion review where the disputed outcome is deletion?—Chidom ^talk  00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Update The deletion review for the G. V. Loganathan article has closed; the page with the template as it was when I referenced it is here.—Chidom ^talk  04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed the language under the Purpose that explains that this process is to be used only after discussions with the closing editor/administrator to try and overturn their decision have failed. I completely missed it; I looked at the Contents and immediately clicked on Steps to list a new deletion review. Mea culpa.

So, I'd suggest that the first line of that section be something along the lines of:

"Please do not list a new deletion review without first discussing the outcome with the closing administrator or editor. (See Purpose, above.)"

Have good days.—Chidom ^talk  00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

i would like Tiffany Adler reviewed and possibly undeleted but i dont understand how, i have a learning disability and in previous tryings to do things like this i have gotten yelled at and others have removed my attempts can someone do this for me or halp me?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So following the discussions in

If you have reason to believe that it was closed incorrectly, then you can bring it here after it's closed. If the only issue you have is that it's two weeks after the last AfD, it doesn't need to be challenged. Comment in the AfD if you want. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

and if you think we ought to have a rule about this sort of thing (as I do), bring it up at the Village Pump, because the community has rejected it in the past. maybe this time around the community will see some sense in the proposal. consensus can be gradually changed. people do learn.DGG 10:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Purpose from the project page:

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion.
1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator 
   (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second 
   look.
2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly.
3. Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and 
   the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid 
   correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

I find that a number of deleting admins, DRV opinion-givers and DRV-closing admins seem to be interpreting point 3. in reverse as well, and using DRV as a de facto court from which to determine in hindsight (i.e. after the speedy) whether a speedy delete would have been validated by AfD as a valid delete and going ahead and endorsing the speedy delete on AfD grounds, sometimes when there never was any AfD to begin with.

Is this OK or is this not OK? Certainly it is not OK as the purpose of DRV is written. Does DRV need to change or do the admins need to change their ways? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are cases where there technically does not exist an appropriate CSD tag, but an AfD would have a

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's completely unacceptable for any number of reasons - for one, there's expectations that come with the use of speedy deletion, especially for ones involving notability and spam. For another, DRV is not AfD, and it's a poor expectation to run an AfD here when it should be run elsewhere in the first place. For third, there are many more eyes at AfD than at DRV - to expect the relatively few people here to be able to possibly fix the problem when there are more capable eyes in the correct forum that do so often means that we're already stacking things ahead. DRV should remain about the process issues in improper deletions, and the review of XfD closures in which issues are presented. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree wholeheartedly. But I also think it's time to have this conversation, for the record, with as many DRV-opinion-giving editors, speedy-closing admins and DRV-closing admins as possible, to try to actually achieve something like consensus. I think the worst situation we can have is the one we have now where lots of people feel comfortable defying stated purpose and policy because they think it's broken. I'm told that this kind of discussion and being bold making actual edits to the DRV project page are the best ways to try to create consensus here, so it's time to start being bold. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem, though - we already have a consensus that a) DRV is meant as a place for appeals, that b) speedy deletion is meant to be interpreted narrowly, that c) AfD is where people discuss the deletion of an article. I don't know if the actions of administrators who act contrary to these three facts are what should be driving a change in DRV as much as what's best for the project. Do we want to be bold? Perhaps the first bold move is to hold those making these improper and incorrect deletions and decisions more responsible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How? ANI? They don't seem to be responding well to simple reason. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, given how completely worthless RfC is. Perhaps WP:CN. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think WP:CN is widely underused and should be used more often as ANI is pretty useless when it comes to complaining about admins. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be hard-pressed to demonstrate bad faith in speedy deletions, especially bad faith to the extend that community sanction is necessary. Even misguided good faith is still good faith. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it would be that difficult at all. A demonstrated complete disdain for consensus is not too hard to prove. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disdain for consensus is not the same thing as bad faith, of course. If one believes that improving the encyclopedia requires overruling a lot of voices at once, then one may certainly ignore a large crowd of voices in misguided good faith. There's really no reason to make claims about other users' motives, IMO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. Especially when those who are challenging those people who are acting contrary to consensus are told they are "trolling" and threatened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, bad faith is about motivations. You can't tell from somebody calling you a troll that their motivation is to disrupt. Maybe they sincerely and misguidedly believe you're a troll. Unless you can see into the hearts of men, you cannot "conclude bad faith". You can conclude boorishness, bad judgment, bad communication skills, and even bad breath, but you cannot conclude bad faith. Everyone works towards the Good; disagreement is over where it lies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that, too. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. I just wonder by what power you're able to divine others' motivations. I can't do it, but maybe you've got a trick you use. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Jeff, but I can usually tell what a person's probable motivations are based on what they say and long-term watching them for their patterns of behavior. Occasionally, even without stated motivations, you can divine what folks are feeling/thinking by how they behave. You may have seen this principle in action on Wikipedia, even in more rapid situations, when admins turn bad, or when repeat or apparently determined vandals are prevented by admin action from doing more damage to the Wikipedia. I think it may just be a straw man for you to claim you can't do this, as it's usually considered by sociologists and psychologists as one of those core skills required for basic social function. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "straw man", because I'm not characterizing anybody else's arguments, but rather making my own. I block vandals regularly without concluding bad faith. It's entirely unnecessary. As for "usually considered by psychologists and sociologists," I would question that statement. How do you know what most psychologists and sociologists think? Meanwhile I would point out that there is no preventative measure that I can take against somebody damaging the Wiki that requires that I determine anything about their motivations.

Jeff seems (to me) to be claiming that disdain for consensus is proof of bad faith. That's incorrect, and I can explain why it's incorrect. Now, have you got a question about that, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you baiting me? One determines what psychologists and sociologists are considering by reading the publications they make. If you'd like me to come up with academic sources for developmental psychology, I suppose I can do that, or you may be able to find similar assertions about basic psychosocial skills on Wikipedia itself. Please go ahead and explain why disdain (specifically refusal to follow it) for consensus is bad faith without invoking WP:IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Baiting you? Absolutely not. Why on Earth would I do that? I know that psychologists write things down, and that I can read them. I've studied a bit of that, in fact, enough that I'm able to say with confidence that it's not all about "divining others' motives".

You want to know why disdain for consensus isn't necessarily bad faith? That's easy. Somebody could have pretty bad social skills, or just be kind of clueless, and think that they're obviously right, so they can ignore a lot of contrary voices, and that people will figure it out eventually. I've certainly seen that happen, and it's not "proof of bad faith". The person doing that can very easily think they're doing the best thing, and that a lot of other people are wrong, so there's no need to listen to them. It's a foolish way to proceed, but that doesn't mean it's done with bad intentions. The road to fool-town is paved with good intentions.

As far as "invoking IAR", I'm not sure I know what you mean by that, nor why I would "invoke" it. A policy stating that Wikipedia is not a rules-game doesn't prove anything one way or another about anybody's motives.

Not everybody demonstrates their good faith by following every rule, and not everybody following every rule is acting in good faith. The two are independent of each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The rhetoric on this thread is getting a bit thick. Discussions about knowing versus inferring motivation and ways of thinking have long been proven to never have a conclusive end, and they go straight into the discussions of philosophy that have also never ended. Suffice to say that it's clear you and I have different opinions about what's possible to know about others, and how it's possible to know it. Since by tradition, it appears that folks from your camp and folks from my camp have enough skill at our approaches to get along in life, I suggest we agree to disagree about this aspect of our discussion.

The reason I'm replying, though, is different, I think, from the rest of the discussion. The pattern here on Wikipedia and especially here on this thread is that when one party or another appears to make a telling point (or insane assertion), it's left up without response. I believe that this is not in the spirit of seeking consensus or meaningful communication, so consider this an effort to reach out to the "other side" and really try to build common understanding/consensus/interpretation.

So, well played. I agree. There are ways to not follow consensus while not being in bad faith. Thanks for explaining how you came at that thinking. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• What's relevant is also: If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. Such articles aren't really worth the discussion time on DRV, because arguing actually takes more time than rewriting. >Radiant< 08:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What's relevant is the inappropriate moving of the bar, and the preservation of the edit history, even if there's not much there. Of course, if administrators would simply undelete those instead of getting self-important with their defense of the indefensible, we wouldn't have to worry about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't the point. If an article is deleted for lack of content, then undeleting said lack of content is (1) not useful by itself, because the end result is an article with no content; (2) not useful (and therefore not necessary) for creating an article with actual content; and (3) not important for edit history, since there isn't anything meaningful there. >Radiant< 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If an article with content is being deleted, then there's a problem. Maybe you don't see it that way, but there's a bigger problem if that's the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I was talking about articles lacking content, not articles with content. >Radiant< 12:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Right. The problem we're currently having is with the speedying of articles with content as lacking content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
            • And perhaps also the sliding of the definition of "lacking in content", because some admins see that as translating to literally no text in the article, and others see it as text that is lacking in "useful" content, or some other adjective they find lacking. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• You have not in fact demonstrated that a problem exists here, other than "process not being followed" which
  doesn't count. It is quite possible that some admin exists that regularly deletes pages that should not be deleted; if so, perhaps you could point out evidence for that? I would suggest that indeed AN or CN is a better board for this. >Radiant<
  14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it actually does count - WP:BURO has nothing to do with situations like this, where the letter nor the spirit of A3 is being followed, and disruptive deletions are being endorsed. If you don't see a problem in unilateral moving of the speedy deletion bar, I'm not sure what to say - the intent of speedy deletion is narrow, unquestionable interpretation. Perhaps it's time that we start putting restrictions on people who consistently misuse those tools. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • By all means propose restrictions on people who consistently misuse those tools. I reiterate that I'd like to see evidence of someone who consistently misuses tools, so that we can talk about something not as abstract. >Radiant< 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll start the fires up, then. Thanks for the backup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't find this type of sniping helpful. Using WP:NOT, WP:BURO and other policies and guidelines to demonstrate why you shouldn't care isn't really toward building any kind of meaningful consensus. Because of how complicated and wordy the processes/policies already are, It's likely that if I were determined, I could find just as meaningful policies to point at the refuted your assertions. How about actually talking instead of just being dismissive? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I see several possible problems here. One is if speedy deletions are being endorsed that should not have occurred, because the articles in question had potential and should have been kept. Another is if speedy deletions are being endorsed of articles that would probably have been deleted at AfD, but are too risky, too borderline, for that judgment to be made reliably by a single tagger and a single deleting admin. A third is if from this, admins are learning to delete things well outside the intentionally narrow
  criteria, meaning that many of these deletions are too risky, and in all probability some are mistaken. I am willing to assume good faith in that the taggers and admins involved intend to improve the project, not harm it, but i conclude that by violating the consensus that speedy delete is only available for a narrowly limited set of cases, and by therefore deleting overly risky or borderline cases without more eyes on them, they wind up harming the project. i am not arguing for process for process sake. it is more like arguing for a speed-limit. The speeder may say "the road was dry, the traffic was low, and I'm a good driver". But by going well over the limit, the safety margin that everyone depends on is encroached, and we don't need to wait for a crash to say that this is wrong. Like anything such limits can be abuse or made overly onerous. But they do exist for good reasons (at least in this case). DES ^(talk)
  16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is a matter of content, and what people mean by that word. Obviously all articles have some form of content, even if it's just the word "poop". But I've had long drawn-out arguments in the past about this sort of thing, often with emphasis placed on the distinction between undeletion (or not deleting in the first place) and starting a new article (as stated: "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted"). I've seen people whine about edit history being lost, when there was no meaningful edit history to restore. In fact, I'd say it's beneficial not to have subliterate crap in the edit history, even if few will ever read it.

For example, if someone were to write an article "Lou Killen sings on records go buy them he sounds great. 'blackleg Miner', 'dreadnought' and others too!" I would not hesitate to speedy it. Lou Killen is notable, and really should have an article. And someone who objected to such a deletion could write one, if they were so inclined. Does the article meet speedy deletion criteria? It probably depends on who you ask. It basically asserts notability, indicating he released some records. It's not patent nonsense, but it is subliterate. But it certainly can't stay as is. If people were to work on a new article instead of wasting time at DRV it would be to everyone's advantage. What I really hate to see is arguments at DRV that an article should have been deleted, but not as a speedy. There's no sense in bringing something back to life just so you can kill it properly, except for overstrict adherence to policy. Starting something from scratch is often the better way to go. -R. fiend 22:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's inadequate context. No one's legitimately complaining about that. But people stretch that "little" part a bit too far - "The Berenstain Bears is a series of children's books" is not "little context," and it's not empty. That's the problem, and I don't think enough critical thought is being put into those. And yes, one could simply remake the stub, but if an administrator's already got it in their sights, and is already predisposed to deleting them, you're still going to run into problems - I ran into that with A Week in the Woods. The issue is, simply, that DRV is escaping away from what it intended to do - if the stub wasn't no context, and admins think it's a "waste of time," then undelete the damn thing and close the discussion instead of preaching about how much of a waste it is and escalating the situation further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. Salvaging stubs has value becauase some editors, includng myself, find it much easier to expand a stub than to start a new article. DESiegel also mades an excellent analogy between CSDs and speed limits. Kla'quot 16:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Week in the woods is a good example of the problem. It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between ignorance and deliberate obstruction. But there are cases of pages with absolutely no conceivable merit where the author is trying to game the system as far as it will go, and we don't need 5 days to decide on that. DGG 10:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion in