Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 12

Should there be userbox deletion reviews

Should there be reviews on userbox deletions? I am not sure if there are any example of such. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, there were lots. The default action shouldn't be to review. We don't need that. If a specific case is likely incorrect, and the nominator believes that Wikipedia is better off with that deletion overturned, they can be nominated. But please don't restart the userbox wars. Please read Wikipedia:Userbox migration for how we mostly ended the wars. GRBerry 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus formation - worth reading

The New York Times has today an article on how scientists came to a consensus that low fat diets were healthy, while getting the science completely wrong. It is worthwhile for Wikipedians to consider the thinking in the article Points it makes are that 1) whatever position is taken first is more likely to be the outcome than if a different position was taken first, 2) social pressures on dissenters don't help get the right answer, and 3) if a group is given data leading to the right/wrong outcome in a 60/40 ratio, there is still a 1/3 chance of the group coming to the wrong decision. All of us should take care with regard to these issues. (This was also posted to Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Follow-up discussion should probably be there.) GRBerry 14:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G4, AfD, DRV, and recreated articles

I added a discussion thread here that address a loophole in our application of CSD G4 and DRV when it comes to recreating deleted articles. Please consider commenting here. -- Jreferee t/c 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect deletion policy?

What, we haven't had any new entry at the DRV for 3 days already? That must indicate that we got the deletion policy and practice brushed to perfection :-). Duja► 08:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there were 2 yesterday, both closed in under 24 hours. We'll get busy again, never fear. GRBerry 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

My apollogies I'm abit new to this area but I was wondering how does one go about retoring a previous post. (If soneone can do it. That would be greatly appreciated as well!)

My concern is the ===Asatru=== article. Inparticular the 'Politics & Controversies' section. Information form there has been cherry pick removed to slant the article. In particular a study done by Professor Mattias Gardell that showed a high percentage of Odnist to hold racist views. It was dileberatly cherry picked removed.

Bill- Oct 20, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.191.43 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs over "keep" vs. "no consensus" wording

It's seems every day lately there's a DRV where the nominator seems to be mostly annoyed that an AFD was closed with the words "keep" bolded, but the DRV nominator apparently would have been more comfortable with the words "no consensus" bolded. This speaks to a broader problem that's quite nebulous, but ultimately, as I said in the Child/adult sex DRV, the difference in bolded wording doesn't actually mean anything.

However, DRVs on this issue can be problematic... since invariably it digs up an already-contentious debate. As someone pointed out in one of these DRVs, there's apparently no example of a DRV actually just changing the bolded wording... it always leads to some other sort of result, like a relisting, or endorsement of the original decision.

So what I'm getting at is that such DRVs are as they say "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". A lot of people have another venue to repeat their AFD arguments, but ultimately because the bolded-words aren't as all-powerful as the nominator things, nothing really can be accomplished, or a bleary-eyed DRV closer just relists the thing at AFD, seeing it as the path of least resistance. And it is, as far as he's concerned... but it just continues the drama elsewhere, with probably the same ultimate result.

At any rate, do we really need DRVs over "keep" vs. "no consensus"? Once it's unraveled that the nominator doesn't actually want the article deleted, I think we should consider closing these DRVs. Also, it might be good to add a warning to the DRV instructions that such DRVs are not that great of an idea. Thoughts? --W.marsh 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, in principle, that DRVs often turn into second AfDs, which really shouldn't be. I would not have opened a DRV for the child/adult sex article, but I was frustrated by the fact that the people defending the article seemed to take the way the closure was worded (and I do think the closure was correct, in principle) as an endorsement of the article, which was why I registered my opinion as I did. Just my two cents. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't show up anywhere

I added "

Talk:Dan Jacobson (Taiwan)

for discussing proposed page! This was for discussion of my proposed page. Restore the page and see what links to it. Jidanni 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC) " according to the directions and it doesn't show up anywhere. It's like I made a blank edit. Jidanni 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the --> comment end had fallen off and I restored it. I didn't check who was to blame. Jidanni 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation (psychology) - this process seems over complicated

Please review Elevation (psychology). It is a published theory of a specific emotion. It is taught in universities. Search .edu sites in Google. It seems like it meets notability standards. --Emesee 16:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a dictionary definition, and as such was transwikied to Wiktionary & deleted from Wikipedia. — iridescent 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Mother is a punk/hardcore/metal band consisting of Mike Vallely vocals, Jason Hampton guitar, Colin Buis bass, Brendan Murphy drums, Mike vallely was previously from Mike V And The Rats. Jason Hampton was previously from The Third Degree. Colin Buis was previously from Mean season and Twilight Transmission. Bredan Murphy was previously from Twilight Transmission as well. Revolution Mother began late 2005 by original members Mike Vallely and Jason Hampton, Revolution Mother picked up where Mike v and The Rats had ended. Revolution Mother's debut album was brought out in 2006 enjoy the ride.

Revolution Mother added two new band members Colin Buis and Brendan Murphy and with their help and a reputable manager began to write and record tracks for Glory bound After recording nearly 20 tracks from which the band chose for its album, Glory Bound is a fine-tuned, carefully selected set, highlighting all facets of the incredibly diverse Revolution Mother songbook.

Revolution Mother also tightened its live set for the Vans Warped Tour, performing on its own stage and garnering a few main stage opportunities courtesy of the tour’s founder and longtime skateboarding advocate Kevin Lyman. The act supported the release of Glory Bound on the entire 2007 installment, performing two sets each day for 45 cities.

Mike vallely is a sponsored skater by Element skateboard and Revolution Mother’s recored label is cement shoes

relevant websites

http://www.mikevallely.com/

http://apps.facebook.com/ilike/artist/Revolution+Mother

http://www.elementskateboards.com/team/thisismyelement/mike-vallely/

http://www.ilike.com/artist/Revolution+Mother

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=258240940&s=143441

http://www.reverbnation.com/revolutionmother

http://www.purevolume.com/revolutionmother

http://www.myspace.com/revolutionmother

http://www.revolutionmother.com/

http://www.myspace.com/driveskateboarding

http://www.driveskateboarding.com/

http://www.youtube.com/mikevallely

http://www.myspace.com/mikevallely

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=143835944 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.192.239 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horst Mahler

I'm not 100% sure if this is the right place to ask this, but ...

Was the article Horst Mahler prod'ed or db'ed? Google has an article in its cache for Mahler, and WP:TERRORISM has an article assessment for it, but I see no AfD page for it.

If it was prod'ed/db'ed, can someone tell me why?

Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can check this yourself. Click on the redlink, and you'll see an edit page with the deletion log in a box with a blue border that is above the edit box. GRBerry 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Duh. I completely forgot about that. Because I was searching the term, I hadn't actually clicked a redlink. Thanks for the reminder. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure if I've overstepped the mark here or not but the reason for deletion seemed to be a lack of references so I have created a new version where everything of note has been referenced. Personally I think it was deletion was very harsh to begin with so I feel re-creation is acceptable, especially as I have attempted to satisfy the previous problem.Keresaspa 15:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Proposed deletions should be changed to "Proposed undeletions". It is very confusing as written. There are links to this section which need to be changed as well. WP:PROD has the same problem. 199.125.109.138 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the page

I just rationalised some of the minor sections at the top of the page, to de-bloat and make sensical, without changing what they actually 'do'([1], [2]). However, it's been on my mind for a long time that these sections are routinely pot-luck as to which one a particular request goes in. Basically, the arcana of the different shades of undeletion are almost 100% opaque to most people who've the misfortune to find themselves fathoming out this page. On the other hand, there is basically no benefit to the admin processing a request in terms of which section it lands in, because what they really wanted (and what you will do) is usually plainly obvious. So it is just bureaucracy, really, for no-one's genuine benefit.

I should like therefore to suggest a wholesale refactor of those sections. I should like in particular to suggest their wholesale abolition, and simply make all requests part of the main body of the page. This has two main benefits:

It reduces to the minimum the puzzling-out new users must do on arriving here. They are, after all, the bulk of the people who populate these sections.
It will hopefully improve response times on these requests which can oftentimes languish for lengthy periods.

I can see nothing that is lost procedurally or practically by this proposal. To carry forward the instructions for the individual sections, I would propose merging them into a single "What can I do on this page?" section which briefly summarises all the options. (We would retain the important 'Purpose' section for obvious reasons). People can then just add their request to the main part of the page. Thoughts? Splash - tk 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we will have to do is to have the instruction say something like "clearly state which of the following you are requesting: an review copy of the page, a userspace copy to improve, or a review and possible reversal of a decision that you believe incorrect". I know that Trialsanderrors had previously suggested consolidating the three special case pages into one; that proposal got fairly soundly ignored. GRBerry 14:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed; though let's stay away from the 'coding' scheme used at WP:RFCU. It's overly officious (imo) and not good at permitting exceptional cases. That, and what someone 'really' wants here at DRV is often not what they actually decide to ask for - my main reason for ditching the individual sections. Admins will still have to exercise their legendary skills in processing such requests. I'm planning on taking the easy route to not getting ignored :) . Splash - tk 15:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Splash - tk 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to closed discussions

I was wondering why there are no headers to closed discussions. - jc37 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once a day is fully closed, the headers are removed for archive. It is a visual aid to page regulars and closers to know where discussion and review still needs to be done. Until the day is fully closed, we need the closed discussions in the day to have a header in order to separate them from older discussions. In part, doing it this way is a carry over from the 2006 and earlier method of closing by completely removing the discussion from the page in the closing edit; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November). GRBerry 14:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it makes it tough to link to (and the "old" way was obviously worse). Is there another way that we could deal with this? (I'm looking at how WP:CFD does it - or even how that page did it in the past - for example...) - jc37 14:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 12

Could these comments be transferred to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 11? Rudget _zŋ 11:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, er, yes. How come you didn't? —Cryptic 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already involved with ongoing discussions, and didn't want to cause any more bad feeling by doing something incorrectly :S – Thanks, anyway. Rudget _zŋ 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I have deleted the "speedy deletion" wording from the "process" section. Speedy deleted articles, can be re-created by any one if the recreated article addresses the reasons or the deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead on this page is unequivocal: Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In checking the history, I see that the "speedy" issue was added early 2007. I challenge that addition: DVR process is to challenge a deletion-related discussion. I do not see any discussions about this addition in the month in which this was added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a place to discuss speedy deletions, or it will lead to wheel warring among administrators. DRV is regularly used to contest speedy deleted articles. DRV looks at whether the outcome of a deletion was correct, what can be contested at DRV is whether or not the article was correctly deleted under relevant criteria. Yeah, recreate an article if you're going to alter it, if not and you simply disagree with the deletion then it should come to DRV. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss a speedy deletion with the admin that deleted it. DRV is for discussion of outcomes of deletion debates. As said above, I do not know who added this wording, and why, and found no record of a discussion on the subject in the archives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not speak with the closing admin of a deletion discussion rather than taking it here? I'm merely stating why I believe it's an ideal place to discuss a deletion. After all it's supposed to be a review of a deletion (or discussion). There are plenty of speedy deletions discussed here. Removing the ability to discuss speedy deletions will lead to these deletions being discussed on WP:AN/I, which already has more than enough traffic. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead on this page is unequivocal larr; Actually the way I read it is that considers disputed deletions allows for discussions on speedy deletions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Diff] when that wording was changed. I cannot find any discussion about this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions have been subject of DRV for much longer than that diff. I'm sure it's been discussed, either on WT:DRV or on WT:UNDEL, but even if not it's just making established procedure explicit. There is also a provision in WP:DP (carried over from WP:UNDEL that allows for immediate undeletion in obvious cases. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still puzzled by this "established procedure" to bring to DRV challenges to speedy deletions. Can you point me to some examples of such DRV discussions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several. I don't know where else one would go to challenge a speedy if discussion failed to resolve the issue; recreation would be G4. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To challenge a speedy, talk to the admin that did the speedy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.....and if that fails? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harass him on his talk page until you get blocked? —Cryptic 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harass other admins on their talk pages until you manage to manipulate one into wheel-warring on your behalf? —Cryptic 19:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I closed more than 500 deletion reviews, and at least half of them were about speedy deletions. There have been discussions about how to proceed with them, but nobody so far has contested that this is the right forum. ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's make this clear in the lead. As it stands now, it is confusing as the lead only speaks of "deletion debates". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added appropriate wording to make this clear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-deletions are allowed to be disputed and discussed here but this is not the only recourse. Speedy-deletions which are clearly out-of-process may be overturned immediately by any admin acting in good faith as long as an XfD discussion is immediately opened and the community has a chance to discuss the page. This was an essential control which the community insisted upon when the speedy-deletion process was first approved.
We have traditionally left the definition of "clearly out-of-process" to the judgment of the admins who do, after all, know that they are staking their reputations on the decision when they take the extraordinary step to overturn such a speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV archives first begin giving a good link to the DRV discussion in May 2006. (A small sample in April had links, but generally not). Speedy deletions were regularly being reviewed in May 2006, the first month for which we have functional archives. The old wording of "disputed deletions" meant "pages deleted for any reason by any process"; the wording "and disputed decisions made..." meant that DRV also reviews disputed keep (and equivalent) results from discussion. We don't have any reason to review keeps after PROD (impossible to dispute successfully, given that anyone can remove the tag for any or no reason) or speedy tagging (can be sent to XFD). GRBerry 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions should be reviewable... it's true anyone can re-create the article, but that loses the history. One bad speedy deletion shouldn't nuke what could be years of work. --W.marsh 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper speedies - Universal Savings Bank

The top of WP:DRV says : "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions." This appears to be incomplete; I believe it also supposed to be used to request review of speedy deletions, such as [[Universal Savings Bank. Also "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." further implies this is not the process for requesting review of undisputed speedy deletions (there is no "closer" of a speedy, etc). I think this needs to be remedied. Any comments before I bother proposing replacement language?--Elvey 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal speedy deletions here as well, see the above thread, it was only removed a few hours ago and looks set to be re-added very soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See recent changes, in which this has been made clearer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Thanks. Yeah, I didn't notice the discussion 'till I'd opened the topic. My bad. --Elvey 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent changes to the top of the Wikipedia:Deletion review page seemed a little odd at first, but now I think we need to make it more user friendly by streamlining the instructions. -- Jreferee t/c 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the Beesley DRV

Would an uninvolved DRV regular closer please take this in hand. We had two speedy closes earlier JC37, which were reverted. The same person, who is obviously far from neutral swooped in to close it again. I reverted him, and he's edit warring. I'm willing to support any rational close by any uninvolved person - even if it is the "wrong" closure. But having edit warring over a close is bad.--Doc^g 13:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing in the Jc37 closure objectionable. "Hving edit warring over a closure is bad" seems to apply to your behavior. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are missing something. He speedy closed the DRV in the first hours. He was reverted (not by me). He reverted the reversion and was reverted again (not by me). Then he swoops in again a few hours before the end as a "neutral closer" (doesn't look very neutral). I revert his closure (my sole action here) as inappropriate (because it is him - not because of the result). He reverts me again - his remarks on my talk page show his strong views on the issue. This needs a neutral closer, who is uninvolved. I will accept their decision whatever it may be.--Doc^g 13:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "strong views" are on process, and how I don't feel that the reversion is following that process. - jc37 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to find the incident but I agree. This should not be closed by anyone without a track record in closing deletion reviews (Xoloz, GRBerry, Coredesat, Chick Bowen, Eluchil404...). I haven't checked if they participated in the debate, but maybe one of them steps up and volunteers. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed DRVs before, but I also agree that I wouldn't mind seeing one of the truly "regulars" close it. But that's apparently moot, since someone else seem to be closing the discussion. - jc37 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of Westlake (County Londonderry)

I feel hurt by the fact that someone closed my page. I had made the page very interesting to people who A) need directions B) are nerds C) Live in the area. I made it three times and it was deleted twice by speedy deletion. I made the page as informative as possible and now I am unable to re-make it. I request an ivestigation thankyou very much mspence835