Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2011/June

Proposal to make an addition to the "Principal purpose - challenging deletion discussions" section

I propose we make an addition at Wikipedia:Drv#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions changing it to the following (addition in italics):

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review 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, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
3. Deletion Review may also 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. Deletion Review may be used if an editor believes consensus has changed regarding previously deleted content.
5. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

(suggestions for changes or additions to the wording are welcome)

Basically, this is in response to several editors complaining that there is no real venue to discuss reversing a past decision that is 100% procedurally correct, where no new information has come to light such as the case for #3. An example would be a category being deleted ages ago, only for the trend to actually come back to that naming scheme for similar categories, but not being able to recreate the particular category in question because it would be subject to G4 deletion. In my experience there's generally been confusion when such nominations are brought to DRV, with people saying overturn for completely procedurally correct closures, or endorsing the deletion because it was procedurally correct, without regard to if consensus has changed or not. In theory, the proper responses would be "keep deleted, consensus hasn't changed" or "allow recreation, consensus has changed" (followed by reasons, of course). I would say if we didn't allow this at DRV, it would be ignoring the principle that consensus can change. VegaDark (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd object to the change in wording, though not the principal. I don't think mere "belief" should the threshold, it would need to (a) have a sensible gap since the original discussion (b) present some reasonable evidence that consensus has changed (e.g. subsequent change in guidelines/policy or several similar discussions which have occurred since that ended in a different debate).

So something like Deletion Review may be used for historic deleted content, if there is strong, recent evidence that consensus has changed.

The terms historic, strong and recent are of course a bit loose, but that can be expanded upon in the mass of other text we have.

I don't think that you could have the "consensus has/hasn't changed" responses in general since it's not really for DRV to dictate that it has or hasn't changed, more that sufficent reason has been presented to suggest it has. (I know this is quibbling about wording, I'm just trying to forsee the confusion which arises, when someone lists one of these at xFD and start saying the DRV has said there is consensus to keep). To that end I guess I'd see the standard three responses, Endorse, Overturn and Relist, the first being for no real sign that consensus has changed, the second when there is a particularly strong case and the third for the borderline where pushing it back to xFD to decide immediately seems the best option.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• You make some good points, but I'm not sure I'd make it quite as restrictive as requiring it be historic, there be strong and recent evidence that consensus has changed. For instance, there could be old evidence that nobody ever noticed, or could have come about when interested parties were on an extended Wikibreak and brought it up as soon as they got back. Basically, I'd support a "historic" deletion (although how old? A year?) and strong evidence that consensus has changed (how "strong" the evidence is seems to be more of a decision for the DRV rather than using it as a barrier to even start a DRV, however, so I might simply make this "reasonable evidence" or something along those lines), but to require the evidence be "recent" seems somewhat unneeded. In any case, I highly doubt that even adding this provision as-is in my original wording would cause a flood of DRV nominations or anything. VegaDark (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• As we know there are some people who will look at the wording very literally, and then in the future will use the established wording to push a view point, rather than looking to the real intent. They'll then rely on the conservative "keep the status quo until there is a consensus otherwise" to enforce that. So unforunately (and belive me I really don't like it) spending some time on getting "good" wording is worth the effort. Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't cause a stream of new DRVs - what I was really trying to avoid was it becoming a possible 2nd xFD. We get a few where people just don't like the original outcome and we say not xFD round 2 and send them on their way, if they can just change that to "I belive consensus has changed" then we'd end up doing just that. The recent was more about it being since the original deletion took place - i.e. it's "changed" in the period since the deletion, it's not people dragging up older arguments. I have some thoughts on your other points which I'll think through a bit further and comment later. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Further thoughts. As my original comment I suspect whatever we put in the summary is going to have a level of vagueness about it and experience suggests people don't necessarily read all the supporting stuff, so I favour making a fair indication that a consensus can change argument has to be well founded, not merely an excuse to try and reargue an AFD. The words of Recent, Strong and Historic I chose were to try and suggest some broad principals, I'd define them as "Recent" - essentially stuff since this was last debated, be that an AFD debate or DRV debate. "Strong" - ok this is a harder one to define and of course you are correct that ultimately DRV would debate the strength, I'm not sure "Reasonable" is much better for defining the requirement. What I was really trying to get at is that we wouldn't want something relisted frequently on the basis of any debate which is just vaguely similar turning a different result. maybe "significant"? "Historic" - again for me this is a difficult one, I'm not sure setting a time limit is in and of itself useful, this almost comes back around to the "strong" bit, if there are a lot of very similar discussions going the other way then an earlier rather than later listing would seem reasonable, so saying 1 year in some cases will be far too long. On the other hand we don't want it listed a week after the deletion with weak arguments... All in all I was trying to mirror a bit how I perceive it would be for re-AFDing an article. In that case I'd expect a new debate to be started only if some significant reason to believe the debate will end differently has come to light, I'd expect that has come about since the AFD closed, not someone going and digging back through historical debate and I'd expect the time between listings to be based on the strength i.e. something which closed as no-consensus a month ago and since then a flurry of similar articles have been deleted through AFD, then relisting is probably reasonable, whilst something which was closed as keep where there have been one or two inconsistent results since, should probably not be relisted. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well...I kind of forgot about this discussion. Six months later and I stumble upon it again. I still support making this change in some form, although I don't see an easy way to word this that could satisfy all concerns. Perhaps "If an editor has an objectively reasonable belief that consensus has changed regarding previously deleted content and an objectively reasonable amount of time has passed since the last discussion." - Sure, there are plenty of people that might assert that their belief is subjectively reasonable, but the community will have to agree for it to be objective. This will allow for speedy closes for stuff that obviously doesn't fit. This would also account for unique situations where perhaps an immediate DRV is justified based on new info coming to light. Once again I'm not liking the wording 100% but suggestions are welcome. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How could one know?

Quoting the article: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly".

If the entire "report" by the closer is "The result was no consensus", how could one possibly know if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself two questions. First, could the closer have reasonably closed as keep? Second, could the closer have reasonably closed as delete? If the answer to both of these is "no," then the closer was right. If the answer to both of these was "yes," then the closer was right. If the answer to either or both of these was "maybe," then the closer was probably right. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In a particular case I wonder about, I think a keep would be reasonable. I don't think a delete would be.

But I argued for the keep side so I can't think I'm totally impartial. Also I have no prior experience of these debates. I understand that keeps and deletes are not votes to be counted. This means the closer must weigh the points made on each side. But how high is the bar set before it is a consensus? For example, if there are twice as many deletes as keeps and the delete side has generally stronger arguments, is that a consensus? If there are 3 times as many deletes? Or 4 times?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Large numerical differences are usually closed in that direction, barring things like sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing. It really depends on the specifics. There's a wide allowance for "admin discretion". Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a quotation from item 2. Go back to item 1 and ask the closer directly. Many closers will explain their thought process if asked. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Creating an entry

What did I do wrong? My entry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 16 isn't being transcluded onto the main DRV page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you did everything correctly - it's showing up on the main page now. Patience is often rewarded in these matters :) Thparkth (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I kept refreshing the page, but nothing happened. Oh, well. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely showing up for me, but you might be seeing an old cached version. Does it show up if you purge the server's cache of the page? Thparkth (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's there now. <shrug> The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)