Jump to content

User:Polarscribe/DRV is not broken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a rebuttal to the argument, made by badlydrawnjeff at this page that deletion review is somehow "broken," or that the error rate is anything like has been argued.

My commentary is in italics.

March[edit]

A borderline case, which I'd actually invite a reopening of, or a merge to the college page.
  • 4 March - 10 reviews, 1 error
    • Re:sound - a proper A7 deletion, even if the show is notable.
How is this a failure? The subject is encyclopedic and has been turned into an appropriate redirect. I'm mystified at this definition of failure.
  • 6 March - 6 reviews, 1 error.
    • EGullet - AfD demonstrated necessary sources, DRV mentioned more. Still remains a redlink.
Is that the fault of the DRV? The close was clearly made without compromising the ability to recreate... it's waiting for someone to do so.
  • 7 March - 11 reviews, 1 error.
    • Jewdar - AfD showed new sources, no relist anyway. Still a redlink.
Well, there's no relist because the expressed consensus in the AFD was that the sources presented were not enough, and nothing new was presented in the DRV to suggest that the close was wrong.
So what? The article was an unsourced pile of piffle about something made up in school one day which had 23 Google hits and zero sources. It had no hope of being kept on AfD and thus deletion, whether in process or out of process, was entirely warranted.
No reliable sources provided, and the notability amounted to publication in three books with sales rankings in the seven digit range.
  • 16 March - 5 reviews, 1 error.
    • Rickey Smith - Verifiably met standards, improper AfD closure endorsed anyway.
A reality show loser with no known career or biographical information available. DRV participants suggested recreation if article subject has any substantial post-reality show career. Consensus said AfD closure was proper. Purely opinion that it was improper - another disagreement failure.
Kind of hard to call this a failure, given that it wasn't a deletion review to begin with, but a bizarrely malformed request to salt. The recreation has now been deleted for G4, and examining the subject, I'd support an overturn/relist should this be put back on WP:DRV in an understandable fashion I've put it back on DRV myself.
  • 19 March - 9 reviews, 2 errors.
    • Matrixism - Reliable sources provided, speedy still endorsed and article remains salted.
Consensus was that the sources were trivial and/or unreliable, as there has been no published third-party look at the article subject. All information available about it is self-published on an anonymous Web site. Yet another example of disagreement equaling failure. The closing admin did not accept the arguments of those who wanted the article kept. That doesn't make it a failure.
The article was actually Red wings (Sexual Act) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AfD had been running for over 5 days when the article was transwiki'd to Wiktionary as a slang dictionary definition and deleted as a transwiki'd article under WP:CSD#A5 and per the consensus to delete from Wikipedia as expressed on the AfD. Deletion review endorsed this, and the fact that the supposed process irregularity did not exist was pointed out to Jeff at DRV; the AfD had been open for over five days and showed a clear consensus not to retain on Wikipedia, Jeff's objection is apparently based on an esoteric interpretation of process. Incidentally, Wiktionary removed the content, presumably because it was attested only in one book by Hunter S. Thompson; that is not our problem.
  • 24 March - 2 reviews, 1 error.
    • File:Airforce-ti.jpg - faulty deletion of public domain image based on poor OTRS request that was granted. Erring on the side of caution is good if no one else cares, maybe, but not a discussion for DRV, and the deletion was improper.
Opinion masquerading as fact. The image was not of an air force training instructor, but of a woman who was sacked as a training instructor after posing in Playboy, which tells you everything you need to know about why this image was being used.
  • 25 March - 1 review, 1 error.
    • Brian Peppers in popular culture - No violations, no policy issues, and banks on the mistake deletion from a month earlier. Making the same mistake twice is still a mistake.
This article was a blatant attempt to end-run consensus and re-run the entire Brian Peppers debacle. The close was consistent with consensus, and calling it a mistake or failure is entirely badlydrawnjeff's opinion.
The article's own title consisted of original research - see the Google results, and it goes downhill from there, with all sorts of assumptions, accusations and wild speculation asserted as fact. As visible in userspace, the article baldly states as undisputed fact in its opening graf that the Interwebs are monitored by teams of goons from the Russian state security services who intimidate and attack people. It's a collection of original research written in a wildly biased tone, and the closing administrators correctly perceived that to be entirely unacceptable on Wikipedia. The article is not salted and presumably a sourced, encyclopedically-toned rewrite, if possible, could be reconsidered.
    • Hadouken! - Did not meet speedy criterion at the time of deletion. Still a redlink.
  • 27 March - 4 reviews, 1 error.
    • Fighting Words - Speedied out of process during improper webcomic purge, endorsed anyway, now a nonsensical redirect to a book it was mentioned in.
  • 30 March - 7 reviews, 1 error.
    • Subcategories of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football), Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling) - a mess of categorization, nom was 100% correct.

March totals[edit]

146 reviews, 24 errors = 16% fail rate.

April[edit]

  • 3 April - 3 reviews, 1 error.
    • Userpages - Who knows how many this encompassed at this point, but WP:DENY, a rejected concept, is not a speedy reason.
WP:DENY as an essay and quoted as a rationale is not rejected and cannot be rejected, many deletions have succeeded on the rationale encompassed by it, even if other have failed. Regardless the practice of deleting pages tagged as temporary has been ongoing and is covered by CSD G6, review was raised obviously as a WP:POINT by someone who similarly dislike the fact that some support the rationale behind WP:DENY. Retaining the pages served no purpose other than to clog WP:MFD with obvious deletes. "failure" if wikipedia is a bureaucracy.
  • 4 April - Not listed in original list
    • Scary Movie 5 - Jeff's "there's plenty to make a valid article with now", closed noting "Since DRV concludes that new sources have emerged". Nearly 2 months on no additional sources have been found and article regularly has fan based art etc. added. Presumably as not on the original list, Jeff doesn't consider this to be a failure.
  • 8 April - 5 reviews, 1 error.
    • Doba (company) - No consensus for deletion or redirect, but DRV decided to delete anyway.
  • 10 April - 3 reviews, 2 errors.
    • MySpace Events - Met standards for inclusion, was endorsed anyway.
    • Darvon cocktail - Did not meet any speedy criteria, speedy was endorsed. One of the worst DRVs I've seen.
See below.
  • 12 April - 3 reviews, 1 error.
    • PNMsoft - Asserted notability, was not spammy, improperly speedy deleted.
  • 15 April - 3 reviews, 1 error.
    • Darvon cocktail - Same as above, abusive speedy closure (plus abusive threat to myself) of a review of the review.
The previous review determined that the article content was unverifiable, and no new information was brought to light in the review of the review - only the same rehashed arguments which had previously been rejected.
Absolutely true, and this case was a failure from that perspective. It should have been undeleted... but the end result is correct, as the article now exists.
  • 24 April - 4 reviews, 1 error.
    • Cole Hunter - review closed early based on percieved consensus even though evidence of notability was presented.
What evidence was presented? From reading the review, the claim to encyclopedicity came from being 40th in the cast list of an uncompleted and apparently distributor-less independent film. If that meets WP:BIO, I'll eat my PUMAs.
  • 27 April - 5 reviews, 2 errors.
    • Jason Kaplan - notability associated with show, should have been relisted given the AfD participation.
    • RoboImport - software isn't A7 compatable, improper speedy endorsed.
    • GFDL template became complicated with userfication.
  • 30 April - 6 reviews, 1 error.
    • Libricide - AfD debate did not weigh arguments properly, endorsed anyway.
Review nominator's proffered opinion that the AfD debate was "biased" was rejected all but unanimously - badlydrawnjeff's !vote being the only dissent. Once again, failure is defined as a consensus which disagrees with badlydrawnjeff's opinion.

April results[edit]

111 reviews, 17 errors = 15% fail rate.

May[edit]

  • 3 May - 1 review, 1 error.
    • Deletion of category endorsed, may have been complex due to vote-stacking allegations at DRV.
review request raised no process or policy issue with deletion, merely a don't agree with the outcome. As such there was nothing to review and closure is not a failure
  • 6 May - 3 reviews, 1 error.
    • Matrixism - invalid speedy endorsed. Previous DRVs have endorsed as well.
      This article, again.

May results[edit]

22 reviews, 3 errors = 13.6% fail rate

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Polarscribe/DRV_is_not_broken&oldid=521712062"