Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 13

Contacting the closing/deleting admin

Notification of the closing/deleting admin is currently a requirement for a proper deletion review. With this edit, I have modified the wording at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions to also require an attempt at discussion. Discussing a deletion or closure with the deleting/closing admin prior to initiating a review request is courteous, avoids the bureaucracy of a formal review, and saves the community's time.

I do not consider the change a controversial one, as it merely reflects current practice: nominators who skip this step and proceed immediately to deletion review are generally mildly scolded. However, to be on the safe side, I am posting a notification of the change here so that it may, if necessary, be discussed.

(Please note that the wording I introduced only requires an attempt at discussion, and not actual discussion. If the admin is on break or fails to respond to a request for clarification, editors are not obligated to wait indefinitely.)

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this. You most certainly should talk to the deleting admin before coming here. Often this can allow for a smaller agreement to move forward instead of adding the bureaucracy of Wikipedia by starting yet another debate. One should always try to handle disagreements in the most direct fashion before moving on to a request for greater consensus. We have so much to discuss that we need to minimize unneeded discussion by simple talking to each other and trying to find common ground.

DRV is often needed, but sometimes a simple discussion between disagreeing parties can solve the problem with far less effort by the busy community. 1 != 2 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Even if a review request is unavoidable, prior discussion with the closing admin can generate agreement on some issues and thereby yield a more focused review. Such an approach also reinforces the idea that the purpose of a review request is to reach a resolution by soliciting third-party comments and oversight. If a resolution can be reached without third-party involvement, then a review request is not needed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that attempting discussion is good. See prior thoughts on this at User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Start with the admin that deleted or closed the discussion. I don't think we should ever let failure to discuss become a reason to close. Procedural hurdles aren't good in general, and we often get nominators who really don't know what they are doing and have a hard time making a nomination. GRBerry 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. The way to encourage this is not to kick a petitioner off DRV to talk to the deleting admin first, it's to emphasize that, when the admin is amenable, he'll get his article back in a matter of hours instead of a week or so. —Cryptic 03:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and that wasn't my intent when I changed the wording of the section. However, I don't expect this to become a problem; for instance, we currently require notification of the closing/deleting admin, but we don't speedy close nominations where proper notification isn't given. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can be insistent that people talk to the blocking admin, but still not close DRVs where this has not happened. The DRV can be marked as the deleting admin not being contacted, and a note can be left to the admin and the DRV filer. 1 != 2 15:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall I added the "suggestion" wording a year ago or so in frustration after people kept opening DRVs based on misunderstandings I could have explained if given the chance. I can't say I'm a big fan of trying to force pre-DRV discussion though... it doesn't always make sense. And even when it would have been a good idea, what are we going to do, close the DRV to spite the guy for not having talked to the admin first? That seems rather bureaucratic. --W.marsh 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay so it was just 5 months ago that I added it. --W.marsh 18:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good addition in general. If there is a misunderstanding (either that the article can be written to be satisfactory, or that the deletion rationale can be explained to the objector's satisfaction), we avoid wasting everyone's time. If after discussion someone still disagrees with the admin's decision, that's the time to seek DRV to get community input. I would, however, say there's a corresponding responsibility on the part of the admin to bother to respond to requests to discuss the matter, rather than just saying "Go take it to DRV if you disagree." This doesn't mean that can never be said (if the exchange has already gone back and forth in circles a few times, there's nothing wrong with saying "Look, I don't think either of us are changing our mind here, take it to DRV if you want the decision reviewed"), but that shouldn't be the immediate response. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This language has finally been cited in a real DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 26. I renew my objection to the language, but it will be interesting to see how this turns out. So far it's just generated confusion. --W.marsh 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go back a little further, it has been cited in several other ones as well. If you want to find some easily, look at just the delrev's of AFD's that I closed. There is a list on User:Jerry/Count#Administrator review processes. They are the ones that have *** beside the article name. There is a widespread lack of discussion with closing admins prior to delrev that makes the venue a complete mess. This new wording gives a clear way forward to eliminate that. I DO say close the Delrev, and come back when the first step has been completed. Wikipedia is not a Bureauracy, true, but it is not complete chaos either. Straw Polls are not a replacement for editor dialogue. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To summarize the above, in 40 days, I have had 12 delrevs. 6 of them were filed with no prior discussion, 1 with no notification at all. 6 of the 12 resulted in closing decision endorsed, 2 overturned (one with my recommendedation for such), and 3 resulted in closing with action taken that did not require delrev (eg. provide a copy of the deleted article, allow a new article to be created in the same unsalted location, etc.). 1 is still in progress. One of them was a delrev for an AFd that already had a delrev. This person didn't know about the first delrev. Isn't it obvious that if these people had just followed the procedure, that more than half of these delrev's would have been avoided? Our procedure should be that the nominator explicitly state "I contacted the closing admin, and I still want this Xfd reviewed." Without this statement, people should let the admin know, and if he or she objects, the DRV should be summarily closed until the discussion has occurred. There is no mad rush to hold a delrev. The deleted article is not going to evaporate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In yet another undiscussed DRV, a user said this:

“ There are lots of admins that I would bypass and go directly to DRV. Some people just can't be reasoned with. ”

This is a sad state of affairs, it is broken, and I demand that it be fixed. We must invoke a policy of summarily and immediately dismissing all DRV's as out-of-process if the requester makes no attempt to contact the closing admin first. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. Some admins, especially the deletion-zeralots whose deletions get to DRV on a fairly regular basis, don't even respond to such notifications. You take something to deletion review because you want more eyes on the deletion of something. Notifying them is one thing. A one-on-one debate with the closer of an AfD isn't going to achieve anything useful. Both people have already made up their minds about what they think should happen, so consensus should be sought rather than having a pointless heated debate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a very terrible suggestion and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Contacting the deleting admin is something that should be done generally. It won't always be done, and this is OK. Friday (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The civility (or lack of it) in this particular case aside, a requirement that DRVs involve a formal notification of the closing admin is a bad idea for Wikipedia and contrary to our principles and processes. Just like no one owns an article, no one "owns" the deletion debate. It is courteous to notify the closer but not required. Closing a good-faith deletion review request solely because the requestor didn't complete some bureaucratic step is worse than the problem you're trying to fix. Rossami (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No. While contacting the closing admin is a more tactful approach, it shouldn't be obligatory at all, since as I understand it many editors may have limited time for Wikipedia, and would prefer to skip the one-to-one discussion with an admin and start a DRV right away. It takes less time to just leave their reasons on the DRV and wait for input from the wider community. Also, the editor may assume that you've given the AFD very careful thought and wouldn't change your verdict in the close easily. :) That said, I'm also confused when a DRV on me is started without prior notification, (it happens to me sometimes too ;)) But it's not a good idea to publicly chastise people for not discussing with you first, as I notice you did many times. It may leave the impression that you are an unfriendly admin and that scare people. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen comments to admins who have deleted an article answered either by no answer at all or by a snotty "That is my decision and if you don't like it take it to deletion review." I have not seen an admin change his mind and change a "Delete" to a "Keep" or vice versa, or reopen an AFD closed before the usual 5 day period. If an admin does not respond at all, how long would the other editor have to wait before taking it to DRV? Edison (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Viewing a deleted page

A while back I created a page which was then deleted. I don't want to try and contest deletion but because I need it for something else I am doing and would save me the time to do the research again, I would like to be able to view the page (I unfortunately didn't save the content at the time). I understand that only admins can view pages. How can I get in touch with one? Thanks --Zefrog (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• What's the article? We can userfy or email the last version. Admins can be found at Category:Administrators. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • either would be good. the article was called Coming Out at Christmas. Many thanks --Zefrog (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • divine philosophy was deleted and I want to have a look at it. Why can I not fine at least a serchable list of what has been deleted, when, and by whom. Wikipedia is less for super restrictions on deletions, the black hole, opposed the the super novae of wikipedia. So who can help me find a copy and history of divine philosophy. ps the loss of it from my contributions history is also upsetting with no reference to where it is, who did the delete and why. RoddyYoung (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A better way to find a willing administrator would be Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to view the history of Ms. menna, which was speedy deleted about 5 times, and either method of messaging is good. Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion Review is the right place to make your request but I recommend declining this particular request. The page in question is an uncomplimentary description of a middle school teacher and her class. The edits were all made by one vandal (who was blocked as a result of the disruptive edits). All versions were made and deleted on the same day (12 April 2007). Rossami (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I get solid evidence?Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What for and what exactly do you mean by "solid evidence"? WP:BLP requires us to be very skeptical of requests to restore material about non-notable living persons and requires us to take appropriate steps to protect their privacy. Rossami (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am talking of something like an archived version of the history of the article, not the article itself. I need to prove to one of my friends the creator of the article.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • What more, exactly, do you want to prove? Rossami has already told you what you'd learn from the deleted history. Uncle G (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I mean like a hyperlink to the archived page of the history, or someplace where the evidence is solidly proven. I can't just rely on witnesses.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Our policies on biographies of living person generally prohibits us from redistributing attack-style material on living persons, even if through email. As a result, we delete the entire page history, so that users may not view it in any manner. If you feel the article deals with yourself, you may contact Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself or if there is some reason you know of that the article shouldn't even be in the deleted database you might try Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. MBisanz ^talk 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Some people seem to need a bit of a reality check here. While certainly unsuitable for Wikipedia the article was clearly not an attack piece. If you think "Many of her [students] belive (sic) that she is too strict" is an attack on the teacher you might want to take a time-out from playing mall security. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin (couldn't see the deleted page), so I was going on Rossami's word that it was "The page in question is an uncomplimentary description of a middle school teacher and her class" in giving my standard advice MBisanz ^talk 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • My apologies then. Fwiw, the article also contained text like "The students at 7-B are influenced by ms. M's wisdom in the IRLA section. Her teaching skills are fascinating and she knows how to work well with students in learning. For example, every week we must learn 10-16 new words in a lesson called Wordly Wise Words of Wisdom. The words are at a seventh grade level and some words include: icon, agile, surmise, apt, gore, derive, fascinating, loath, loathe and many more words that will enable us to pass the sat." I'm pretty sure the article was meant as a tribute to the teacher. We also should automatically assume that 7th graders immediately understand the mechanisms, policies and jargon of Wikipedia. I don't see anything here that warrants this out-of-control response by some. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There's more in the history than just that. Granted, it's not enough to make a federal case over but it's still not something that we should restore without a reason. So far, the requester has made no credible explanation beyond "I want it." The threshold in this case may be low but it's not that low. Especially if, as this comment and other of the user's edits seemed to imply, the requestor is a new account for the indef-blocked user who created the deleted pages. WP:AGF has limits. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not a sockpuppet of Rws killer. I am a classmate of him at school, and he is arguing with me constantly that he did not create the article. To prove that he did, I want a solid hyperlink that shows that he did, and the history of that article would be ideal, I thought.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Special:DeletedContributions/Rws_killer should suffice for this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The link doesn't work for me, since I'm not an administrator. It says the link is permitted only for Admins.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, as an admin I can assure you that he did create the page. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes even the history of an article violates WP:BLP, as when the vandal creating an attack article defames the subject in the edit summaries. Not saying that is the case here, but it happens often enough. Edison (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sound factory (band)

I've not quite understanding whats going on here, but could someone move/answer this one? MBisanz ^Talk 10:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The first edit to the Talk page was a request to undelete a page. The request should have been made here at Deletion Review (which a subsequent editor said). The original request, however, ultimately was just purged off because the requestor got the title wrong. No one was able to find the deleted page. (The correct page was at Sound Factory (band) - note the capitalization.)
Any request to undelete that page would have been summarily declined because the deleted versions were clear copyright violations. The page has since been recreated, hopefully from clean sources this time. The request to undelete is moot. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Town Mayor redux

Needless to say that I disagree with W.marsh's early closure per WP:DP because overturning per DP requires a clear "out of process" deletion, which this wasn't. Disagremeent over where exactly the cutting line for "assertion of importance" lies is a matter of interpretation and therefore not a clear policy violation. I am, however, amenable to changing that part of the policy to "speedy deletions per A1, A7 or G11 can be restored and listed at AfD by any admin if there is an indication that the deletion is not uncontroversial". I've proposed this before, but maybe with the recent string of similar discussions we can get the consensus to implement this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk)

I think reasonably challenged A7 deletions should be overturned speedily. After all, the rule does call for AFD if the speedy deletion is controversial. But as you've done in this case, PROD is sometimes acceptable. I'm just not a big fan of nominating things for deletion where I'm not very enthusiastic about deletion... so I leave that to other people. G11 too, sure, I could see those being overturned on a reasonable objection and sent to AFD. The problem is defining what is a "reasonable objection". It's hard to put it in a politically correct way, but I certainly think that once you have one or more uninvolved admins arguing to overturn a deletion, a "reasonable objection" has been raised. --W.marsh 14:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that there was much discussion, but since there was no objection I'm going to send A7/G11 type speedy deletions to AfD as soon as there is an indication of controversy over the decision. This is not supposed to be an implication of wrongdoing on the deleting admin's part, solely an enforcement of the rule that content discussions should be held at the content forums. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you suggest, & I agree with your change in wording here. Doesn't seem to make sense to argue whether a speedy is valid on a user or article talk page. If it needs a discussion, it should go where people see it. People gaming the system are another matter, but we all know how to tell the difference. DGG (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 8th listed twice

The daily log for January 8th is listed twice, once in Active discussions and once in Old ones. If this is a known bug of the automatic moving of daily logs, sorry for the notice, but I haven't seen it before. In any event someone wiser than me about the intricacies of the transcluded DRV subpages should fix it. Thanks. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a bug, an editor added a seventh day to the Active Discussions section. Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing deletion and review discussions

Consensus is often not documented when discussions are closed as is required by Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews: "discussion should be closed with the consensus documented". - User:Hyacinth

Point being? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Clarified above. Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what kind of documentation you feel is lacking? When a review is closed with a bare statement of outcome, such as Deletion endorsed, it is to be understood as "The discussion demonstrates a consensus that deletion [or whatever outcome] is proper". I don't think that requiring any particular wording is helpful since admins only close reviews in line with, their reading, of consensus, and if they don't they could just as easily clothe their opinion in the new formulation as the old. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless the whole point is to argue semantics, I'm not aware of a single discussion that is closed without such a statement. Could you point at cases where the documentation is missing? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

InDepenDance Day

Please recreate so i can fix. Soccermeko (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I will restore it to your user space. Please improve it there and do NOT move it to mainspace until an administrator has approved it. It will be at: User:Soccermeko/InDepenDance Day. Please familiarize yourself with the editor concerns as described at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray Starring in InDepenDance Day; Vol.1 The Takeover. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Review closure: bare minimum

What is the least that one can say and appropriately have closed a review? Hyacinth (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• (shifted this question from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions) --Muchness (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Endorsed". That's two letters less than "Overturned". ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Current guidelines actually require a summary of consensus. Do you believe that the policy should be clarified or changed? Hyacinth (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Endorsed", "Overturned", and "Relisted" (same length as "endorsed") all are summaries of consensus and meet current guidelines. No, the guidelines should not be changed. Anything more than that is over and above the requirements. GRBerry 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In any XfD debate you will find that the summary of the discussion reads "delete", "keep", "no consensus" or somesuch. What you're asking for is the closer's rationale, which is entirely up to the closer to add at that point or later. There was never any other meaning to "summary of the consensus" than this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • not giving a rationale in a contested afd is not helpful, even though permitted. DGG (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's helpful either, but by itself it's not a reason to overturn a closure. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I have removed the words "through a short summary of arguments" added to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions on 5 February 2008 by Hyacinth. As GRBerry and Trialsanderrors noted, a summary of DRV arguments beyond documenting consensus is currently optional and at the closing admin's discretion. Please feel free to revert if this removal was in error. --Muchness (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A summary is not even mentioned as an option. Do you believe that summaries are generally helpful? Hyacinth (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes they are. This is why the closing template has space for them. Sometimes they aren't needed, which is why the template default value in that space is (or at least was, I haven't used the default in a while) "deletion endorsed ~~~~". T&E wrote that closing template, or at the very least introduced its use, so I think the template design is evidence of his opinion as well. GRBerry 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the only place to go to get an image undeleted so I can add a fair use rationale?

This seems a bit bureaucratic for simply getting an image undeleted so I can jump through the proper hoop. --NE2 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You can ask any admin if you have a FUR and the article the picture should be added to. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Abongo (Roy) Obama

Why was this article speedily deleted? The fact that Brarack Obama has a half-brother who self-identifies as a Muslim fundamentalist is drawing a lot of attention, and I believe Investor's Business Daily is a legitimate source! --AJmed (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually placing a Deletion Review is the appropriate way to go for this. Though looking at the deleted article, it would be highly advisable to first find additional sourcing and do have a real discussion in the article of public responses, and recreate a really sound article in user space. The previous one was deleted as a combination of non-notable, which I think questionable, and attack page, which--as written--does have considerable justification. DGG (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement about the exact procedure to be followed; seeking guidance

I've never had a situation like this before. My deletion of Youth United has been put into review, and the page, with full text of the article was restored, with the {{tempundelete}} template on it. Another editor removed everything but the template text (and protected it), and the original author (admittedly a fanatic s.p.a.) protested; so I restored the text, relying on the part of the template text that says "If there seems likely to be a strong consensus to undelete and you wish to improve this article meanwhile, please be bold and do so," (which would be hard to do if the text itself wasn't restored along with the page) and unprotected it. The other editor has chewed me out, relying on the part of the template text which reads, "If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history." Which of us is right? I'm AGF and trying to do the right thing here. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The template isn't used all that often. The sentence about being bold was added in the middle of last year, replacing one about asking for the page to be unprotected. I can confirm that the old practice was to put just the template on top and protect the page against editing. I preferred the sequence: place the template, protect the page, then undelete the history when I was using it. I don't recollect any discussion about the change (there is none on the template's talk page), and hadn't noticed the change until now. I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to give you. GRBerry 02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

{{TempUndelete}} is used when reversing a delete decision; {{Delrev}} is used when reversing a keep decision. In this case a "delete" decision was seeking to be reversed so the procedure outlined in {{TempUndelete}} should've been used. If a newbie adds the wrong template the right thing to do would be to remove the wrong template not to play along with the wrong procedure. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what appears to have happened here is 1) AfD→Delete 2)Recreate→G4 delete. The restoration by Pegasus was (presumably) on the basis that the G4 didn't fit. In which case, leaving the article as it was before deletion seems fair enough as we're not immediately overturning the AfD. If I'm correct on this, I'd say that the DRV is in fact inappropriate in toto as a non-identical recreation escapes the previous AfD and needs a proper reconsideration. Splash - tk 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST REVIEW UNDELETION OF LARRY CUTRONE

Review Board, It seems one of your local administrators isn't willing to accept that our client Larry Cutrone has any degree of notoriety regardless of how much evidence we have given to the contrary! We have provided a plethora of notable references to verify our client Larry Cutrone's celebrity status. All of these (and more) are available in press releases by merely Googling Larry Cutrone where upon page after page (at least 50) will come up asserting and verifying all this and more.

Some of these include: Rock and roll pioneer and legend Clay Cole's Tribute to Larry Cutrone at: www.claycoleshow.com Host of TV series Wonderful World of Wildlife's Endangered Species and Zoo Animals in Winter (see press releases upon Googling and WWOW website) Host and head writer of Manhattan Alive Cable alternative for 2 years to Saturday Night Live (see press release upon Googling) Official guitar endorsee for Ovation Guitars (www.larrycutrone.com) Inducted into the NJ AM History Museum for outstanding contribution to AM radio (see NJ AM Radio History Museum website WPRJ 1310 AM) Author of musical comedy Louie Louie which had world premiere in 2006 (see press release upon Googling) Regular opening act for Rodney Dangerfiled during the early 1970's (www.larrycutrone.com)

Again we feel you have overlooked too many of the corroborating articles. Please undelete Larry Cutrone. If this continues to be a problem we respectfully ask you forward these corrospondances to the proper review board. Thanks in advance Larry Cutrone Management Team [email protected] Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valleyvid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyvid (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was a role account for Valley Video & Entertainment Company, Cutrone's agents, who had been spamming Wikipedia for Cutrone and another of their clients. I have blocked the role account, notified them, and given them COI and spam warnings. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Viewing Deleted Articles

I saw that there was no page for a person linked in an article so I went to add something so at least it wasn't empty but then I noticed the edit page said that it had been previously deleted. I looked at the discussion on whether to delete it. The nominator apparently has since retired from editing WP (the article was deleted 2006-04-26). Although I could find the discussion about deleting it, I could not find the content of what /was/ in the page before-hand. The nominator in the discussion mentions "only one obscure credit" but lists IMDB as that obscure (-blink-) credit. Is there a way I can access that content? I wasn't aware the person in question acted, so the IMDB link from the talk was helpful. Notability was given as a reason for deletion, as far as I know, this person was better known in the Middle East (he's not particularly liked in Iran, for example) so I also wonder: can Arabic or Farsi sources be used as citations? I don't think I will recreate the page at this time as I would prefer to get some feedback first (and at the minimum see what was in the page before). Shouldn't WP have a link to the deleted content of a deleted article (it would seem to be a useful too for someone considering nominating the article reviewed)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Only admins can see copies of deleted articles, however many admins (see Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles) will userfy the article to your user space at your request (this includes me if you let me know what the article is) unless there is a copyright or Biographies of living person issue - which in this case does not sound like it applies. Non-English sources can be used as citations if there is no English language source to use instead. Hope this helps. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Folkspraak has scholarly value and should be undeleted!

About six months or so ago I read a very helpful article on this site about the artificial pan-Germanic language "Folkspraak". The article was helpful, current, and presented comparisons of translations among different languages and this new language which I found fascinating because of the way in which language evolves and related across time and across cultures. This page was directly responsible for my newfound interest in English etymology. It's gone! Why would such a helpful, comprehensive, page whose content is not duplicated or available anywhere else be deleted.

There are individual Pokemon with Wikipedia entries. There are 8-bit Nintendo characters who receive pages and sub-pages. Why would anyone with the slightest notion of or respect for scholarship, intellectualism, or academia delete Volkspraak. I don't speak the language, I don't participate in its construction, but I can clearly see that it is a new and interesting development on older invented languages like Esperanto.

Tonight I wanted to show my girlfriend the Wikipedia entry for Folkspraak because she had thought it was a neat idea and hoped to read the examples of the Lord's Prayer in German, Dutch, English, and Volkspraak. We couldn't do that, because someone thought that the space could be better used for such gems as [1] or [2].

I know that it is difficult for Wikipedians to selflessly expand, prune, edit, and judge articles. I appreciate that I take advantage of their hard work every time I use this service. However, it baffles me that it seems that Wikipedia seems so often to err on the side of stupidity. I cannot imagine who decides that an article about an all new invented language which highlights original techniques for creating intelligibility out of a babel of languages is not worth reading. It is important, it is original, it is of interest to serious students of language, literature, linguistics, and etymology. It clearly has the power to inspire people. Why is it unworthy? And why do we instead have a record of every one of the five General Mills Monster cereals, from the popular Count Chocula to the discontinued Fruit Brute?

I am just writing to express my sadness at the way Wikipedia seems to be heading. I will lose all faith unless it is re-instated within the month and the Brutus' that stabbed it in the back are reprimanded.

   "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity"

-From W.B. Yeats "The Second Coming"

(William Butler Yeats Wikipedia Entry: 7457 words Buffy the Vampire Slayer(TV series):9811 words) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Emo Hobos... how dare you delete my page on them...

Well, people, it appears that my page titled "Emo Hobos" has been deleted. I think that this was an asinine decision, because it was a quite crucial page. Does this mean that we should, then, delete the page on Emos, and the page on Hobos?Is Wikipedia not a group effort, with many different ideas and articles? Is that not what makes it so unique, and famous? Surely you must agree that just because not everyone uses the term "emo hobo", it is still used by some people, and deserves to be on this site. I have received commentary saying that the page was "written by kids". Now that's just idiotic, and derogatory. First of all, it was written by distinguished individuals, and was not intened as a joke, but as a real cotribution to Wikipedia. Second, so what if it had been written by kids? Many of the worlds authorities and geniuses have said that children are the key to our future. Many children are actually smarter and more well educated than adults.I think that is a derogatory comment, and the peron who wrote it should be admonished, just as I have for writing a page about a matter that I find important. So, I beg of you, please put my page on Emo Hobos back up, because it IS a real article, and deserves to be treated like any other important article.

Hobosaver (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)\

Not to sound flippant, but I would be very interested in any outside Secondary Sources regarding emo hobos to validate your claims of Notability on them. Just fascinating. Zidel333 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link

My page was deleted. It is not a book advertisement. It's an information page about a book relating to a theological issue within the Hare Krsna movement. The external links section includes links to various critical perspectives on the book and on the issues it raises.

I missed the Afd process, and found out today, after the fact, that my page was deleted. On March 19th 2008, user "Syama" had written: "Mild Keep Notable, needs a rewrite. I think that the controversy surrounding this book makes it notable, that so many are stirred to action, article should focus on the NPOV of the controversy not just provide links to forum topics."

I'm willing to re-write the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. The book is notable. The controversy surrounding the book is relevant to those within the Hare Krishna Movement and to those observing or studying it from outside. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I'm learning about how to present things so that they are acceptable to Wikipedia.

The previous deletion was the result of the first nomination, but I did not participate in that process. I did not give my input on why the article should be allowed to continue to exist. I was not aware that the process was taking place. I found out about it today. On March 23rd, 2008, user DGG wrote the following in the History section of my page: "books can not be speedied". I've recreated the page. I'm willing to discuss.

Below are some links to articles and spoken word audio, relating to the book, and the associated controversy, from various perspectives:

        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1185/1/Prominent-Issue/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1207/1/Considering-Things-Fully-and-Rationally/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1178/1/Genuine-Dialogue-and-Deeper-Realizations-of-Truth/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html
        o http://www.iskconirm.com/Dhira_Govinda.htm
        o http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/10/danavir.swami.on.dhira.govinda.das/index.html
        o http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1177/1/Concerning-the-Satvatove-Experience/
        o http://gbcsaysdontgohere.com/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/dhira.govinda.on.prominent.link/index.html
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3
        o http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm
        o http://zavestkrisne.org/ritviki_neznanje.htm
        o http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-07/editorials1312.htm

--AlexandreJ (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Commnent This article was deleted as a result of an Afd discussion. The present discussion is located at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What the Buck

I feel What the Buck should be merged with Michael Buckley (Internet celebrity)Dwanyewest (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC) the original article I wrote about it has references and noteworthy

request unprotection of the page PayPay

Please unblock the artcile PayPay. This article was just discribing another payment system like moneybookers, paypal, etc I've prepared it according to moneybookers article to avoid advertising but the page was even though deleted. If moneybookers article wasn't deleted than what is the difference, one article is advertising and the other not??? People should know about other payment system options, it's all about informations and not advertising. You cannot say that some websites(companies)can have their articles and the others not. Thank you. --AndreYoung (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we can say that, and we do say that. To have an article, a subject (be it a company, website, person, or little green man) must be notable; that is, must be covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject in a significant way. If Paypal has been covered in this way, and something else has not, then Paypal will have an article and the other will not. This is not the fairness in advertising department. Of course, if you can show that such sourcing is available, that is a good way to show that the subject is now appropriate for an article. Still, if you are affiliated with or have an interest in the article's subject, it shouldn't be you who writes it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I do understand the notability but could you show me some "multiple reliable sources" on moneybookers article, because i don't see any. I prepared the page according to them and moreover add some references and still it wasn't sufficient. Anyway, please unblock the article to other users that they can write the article in a better way than i did. Thanks --AndreYoung (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Al-kitab (Quran)

deletion policy is , first it should be discussed on discussion page. article Al-kitab ( Quran) has been deleted by an editor without completing the discussion...wikkipedea is truth hider....Farrukh38 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• The deletion discussion was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al-kitab_(Quran). Black Kite 15:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing templates?

Could someone kindly point towards where I'd find the templates for closing discussions here, and proper usage? I'm clueless, and my search-fu is failing me miserably today. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

{{DRV top}} is the top template and has the directions; the default value for the Decision parameter is "Deletion endorsed.". The template will sign for you; you don't need to include your signature. {{drt}} is a handy redirect shortcut. {{DRV bottom}} (shortcut {{drb}}) is the equivalent bottom template. GRBerry 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas, why these templates result in strange line breaks, centering the last line?--Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but I'd look more at the code of DRV top than the code of the bottom one... GRBerry 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I see actually a left align tag at the beginning. Anyways, the content matters more and I'm still tuning that. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on next step to suggest

I'm unclear on the next step to suggest to an editor who is unhappy with my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peaknik (2nd nomination). He !voted "keep", and feels that transwiki and/or redirect are inappropriate outcomes. Since the page wasn't deleted, it doesn't seem like deletion review is the next step for him. Or is it?

Additionally, I'd welcome constructive comments on the close, if anyone has them. Always happy to hear other opinions (and hopefully learn something!)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that deletion review is the appropriate next stage, the instructions on the main page say "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate" so challenging a redirect closure here, would seem to be an appropriate course. That said, having looked at the discussion, I think your closure was appropriate as none of the keep supporters were able to find significant coverage in reliable sources to answer the nomination and one of the keep supporters said a merge would be ok. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- very helpful!--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your closure was fine and that if the user disputes the decision to redirect, he/she should make the case on the respective article Talk pages. This is not an issue that is normally within the scope of the Deletion Review process. Merge, redirect and even transwiki are all flavors of keep in that they do not destroy the pagehistory and can be reverted without the need for special admin powers. To that extent, they are ordinary editor decisions which are decided through consensus. That aspect of the AFD decision is no more binding than an equally well advertised and attended discussion anywhere else.
That said, the AFD discussion got substantial visibility and debate. That previously-demonstrated consensus must be taken into consideration during any subsequent discussions on the Talk pages and should be given substantial weight before being overturned. But once the pagehistory is kept, normal editing resumes. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the helpful comments. I think I'll encourage the editor to read this discussion and let him decide where (if anywhere) he'd like to go next with this.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

April 26th log not displaying properly

The April 26th log is not displaying properly on this page; can someone who is knowledgable fix it? Thanks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Querying a DRV closure

I am unsure the closing admin managed to gauge consensus correctly here.

Following a DRV discussion in which the participants' views were: "overturn deletion", "overturn deletion", "overturn deletion", "overturn and AFD" and "merge", the closing admin decided it should be closed as "Send to AFD and if nobody does in 7 days I'll speedily delete it".

When I queried this (both the gauging of the consensus and the basis on which a speedy deletion could be justified), I was told as I was "disputing the closure", there was "nothing to discuss", and that I should submit the article to AFD (or, presumably, it would get speedily deleted). Why would I send an article to AFD if I don't want it deleted? Is there any kind of procedure to review a DRV closure when the closing admin won't entertain discussion on the topic? Neıl ☎ 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The close makes no sense that I am able to determine. The thing was a crappy stub, now it's a better stub. Surely nobody still wants to delete it, right!? The most that should be done is a merge, which can be done by anyone at any time. But that's a matter for the talk page. Friday (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Even this rampant deletionist (apparently) doesn't understand that one. It's not going to win any prizes but it certainly asserts notability - a position created 165 years ago, for a start - so it can't be speedily deleted (I don't believe a "position" qualifies for A7 anyway). Black Kite 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty weird. If the closer wants to take it to AFD, I think that's fine, but imposing on others who presumably want to keep the article, as a condition against future speedy deletion is a bit off. And it's certainly not a CSD that I'm aware of. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad close, and needs to be revised. AFD nominations are supposed to be done by people who want the article deleted, not by those who want it kept. We do allow DRV closing admins to make an AFD nomination themselves if they feel the consensus is for an AFD, as an exception to that rule. If the closer believed there was a consensus to list at AFD, it is their job to make the nomination. If there is no such consensus, they certainly can't impose a "AFD or speedy delete" requirement. So the close is clearly wrong, regardless of what the consensus is in the DRV. If I was closing it myself, I'd have closed as deletion overturned, as there is a clear consensus that the original deletion was wrong. I'd have commented that AFD nomination and merging remain options for those editors who think that is the better route. Powers was fairly new to DRV, and I suspect his opinion reflected poor wording in the instructions rather than a serious belief that the article actually should be deleted. Merge is a process that should not got through AFD, so I don't believe there is a consensus for an AFD, but if the closing admin read Powers opinion differently he could have decided there was such a consensus and listed it himself. GRBerry 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin self-reverted, and I've reclosed. GRBerry 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. Neıl ☎ 10:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Change to DRV instructions

A deletion review has been opened regarding this discussion. See [link].

This was brought up at VP proposals (here).

In conjunction with a new template for this purpose, such as the example displayed to the right, it might be beneficial to make DRV notifications within XfDs a standard practice. Please state your thoughts on this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem moot since the XfD is closed and archived by the time a DRV is opened. No one would see the template. (I suppose you might get a notice if you watchlisted every deletion discussion that you ever participated in but if you did that, your watchlist would be insanely large. I can't think that very many people do that.)
Our process around deletion is already far more bureaucratic than any of us would like. This extra step feels like instruction creep to insufficient benefit. Rossami (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I watchlist every AfD I participate in. I suspect that many others do, as well. It poses very little burden to my watchlist, since as you note, very little editing happens to the discussion after it is closed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares to do it, it can't hurt much. I don't see it as likely to have significant benefit. It certainly should not be presented or viewed as an obligation on anyone's part to place such a notice. GRBerry 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To Rossami, I think everyone pretty much does watchlist every XfD they participate in. Most people have the default preferences setting of watchlisting every page they edit. To GRBerry, I think it should be part of the instructions for starting a deletion review. As it currently stands, people who participate in deletion discussions have no way of knowing if they ended up at DRV. And they should know -- shouldn't they? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it absolutely should not be part of the instructions. We do not want bureaucratic hurdles that get in the way. Very few AFD opiners actually return to AFDs to follow the discussion; even fewer will want to come to DRV and opine again. If you personally believe everyone who participated in an AFD should be notified when a DRV is raised, I have no objection to you personally notifying every one of them for every DRV nomination. But don't make a requirement for others to do. As far as the benefits of the proposal, I really don't think the proposed notice will actually be beneficial. If the choice is between a requirement and not doing it at all, I definitely prefer not doing it at all. GRBerry 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it would be very beneficial. I myself have found it rather annoying when I find out about a DRV regarding an XfD I participated in only after it's finished, and I've seen other people complain about this too. It seems only logical to me that people who participated in an XfD should be given the opportunity to participate in a discussion on whether or not that XfD was handled correctly. It would also be useful, and again, seems obvious to me, that a record that a DRV took place regarding a closing be stored with the archived XfD discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those who typically watchlists every XfD discussion in which I comment. I support this idea. In response to GRBerry, I think that everyone who starts a repeat XfD of a page that survived a previous deletion attempt should have to notify everyone who participated before, or at least those who didn't favor deletion. In the reverse situation addressed by this proposal, the only question in my mind is whether such individual notification should also be required or whether the requirement of a notice on the XfD page would be adequate. JamesMLane t c 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that it shouldn't be a requirement for a DRV, I don't see the harm in adding it to the instructions simply as an optional/recommended practice. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's call it a "recommended practice" then.

I wouldn't think that a drv would be closed as malformed for not having the tag, but I also think that helpful editors could add the tag if they notice that it hasn't been added. (As they often helpfully aid inexperienced DRV nominators with formatting the template/header.)

And Yes, I've long supported this idea. This should not be seen as a burden, but as an aid to navigation and communication. - jc37 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be required. Its a good idea, and the way to get it done in a standard way is to make it part of the necessary procedure. Surely someone can figure out how to do it programmatically.DGG (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I watchlist most I participate in. Some that get particularly contentious and blow up my watchlist, I may take off and check in but I can't think of more than a handful that filled that. I watchlist all I initiate. I've commented to two, do I need to comment to all on my watchlist.. I'm happy to, but I don't want to spam watchlists either. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

you'll find now that you are an admin, that watchlists grow indefinitely. :) But as for commenting, of course you dont have to comment on afds you've participated in if they go to review, but you should have the opportunity to be aware of them for the ones you want to do so. DGG (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Such a tag also would be valuable for long closed AfDs since there often is an AfD2 without anyone being aware of a prior DVR. -- Suntag ☼ 13:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Testing the hypothesis

During the past week, I ran an informal test of the use of watchlists on closed deletion discussions. I selected 10 closed deletion discussions from Jan-Feb of this year and added a tag at the bottom explicitly asking users who watchlisted the page to return to it and log the fact. Here is an example. I also included an edit summary to make sure that it was clear on the watchlist.
Across the ten deletion discussions, there were 71 unique participants. The tags sat on the deletion discussions for just short of 7 days. (I'd originally proposed 5 days but with the holiday, couldn't get to closing the test until today.) In that time, 7 participants returned to the discussions. Six of the seven returned and logged in within the first day of tagging (and the 7th just barely missed the first day, signing in 26 hours after the page was tagged). Four of the ten discussions had no participants return at all. From the nature of the responses, I am reasonably confident that everyone who had those discussions watchlisted actually participated in the survey (or if they missed it, would also miss the proposed notice of the deletion review discussion).
If this small-scale test holds true, it implies that the notice would be helpful to only about 10% of our participants. Frankly, that's a higher percentage than I'd anticipated but still far below the "pretty much everyone" that was posited above.
With all that in mind, is the benefit to 10% of participants enough to justify the extra bureaucracy and instruction creep of a new template, instruction and process?
Second, if the process is only "recommended", that would presumably reduce the concerns about instruction-creep somewhat but would also reduce the benefit since participants of untagged discussions get no notice. Does making it a voluntary process make the cost/benefit to the community better or worse? Rossami (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I personally only watchlist about 10% of the deletion discussions I participate in, usually the ones I am most interested in. I would certainly like to know if those go to deletion review, but the others I don't feel as much need to know. While I hate instruction creep, it would be nice if there was some way to know. Is this way it? I'm not sure.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off biographies of living persons

A significant amount of DRVs seems to concern biographies of living persons, largely centring around the same arguments or requiring the same kind of judgement. Would it be an idea to split the deletion reviews of these off the main DRV page? It would increase the amount of attention each of these reviews gets from editors who know a lot about this quite intricate area, and at the same time decrease the clutter for those who have no interest there. User:Krator (t c) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need, firstly there are not that many deletion reviews each day, most often less than five. I cannot see that deletion review could be described as getting overly cluttered. I would think that splitting the BLP ones away would lead to some deletion reviews getting less attention due to the split attention between the two areas (some people only focusing on one of the two areas. Secondly those who contribute heavily on BLP issues do get involved in deletion reviews on BLPs and I do not see any lack of attention on BLPs which usually get a high level of discussion compared to other deletion reviews. Lastly those who want to contest deletion decisions have a clear place to come to raise their concerns at the moment and I would not want to make it harder for often new contributors to find the right place to raise the issue. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the past, splitting has resulted in less attention, not more. Until the volume gets unmanagable, the list should probably stay consolidated. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Looks like everything prior to May 16th has dropped off the page. Anyone know what happened? -- Kesh (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been OK. It may have been local to your computer. -- Suntag ☼ 13:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

archive alignments

When browsing closed deletion reviews (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17), I've found the collapsed versions to now be center-aligned. They used to be left-aligned, and I thought it looked much better that way. Was this a specific and conscious decision, or an accident of coding? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific and conscious. —Cryptic 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it's been fixed since. But since those were substituted, they remain center-aligned. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Relist of AfDs

I just closed the DRV of a recent AfD closure (delete) as 'relist'. Now I might understand 'relist' here literally, that is as undoing the previous closure of the AfD (and if necessary restoring the article) and then relist the existing discussion in today's log. Nevertheless it seems to me that often in such cases rather a fresh AfD is opened as if it was a new nomination. Both a approaches have their pros and cons, but it isn't obvious to me whether there is a common understanding.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Relist" to me almost always means "open a new discussion". The only time that I have ever restored an existing discussion was when the only relevant issue in review was the premature closure of the discussion (closed as a speedy-keep or speedy-delete in violation of the rules for that decision). The new discussion should, of course, clearly disclose and provide links to both the prior AfD discussion and the DRV discussion. Rossami (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Relist normally means list again by opening a new discussion. The prior AFD if any and the deletion review should both be linked. I think that now the AFD templates will link the prior AFD, but the nominator needs to link the DRV in their nomination. I did them in the form "Article on a/an X. Prior AFD(link) was closed as Y. Deletion review(link to daily log) discussion determined that relisting was appropriate." Normally I continued with "This is a technical nomination on my part, I offer no opinion.", but sometimes I continued with "The article should be kept/deleted because of Z." Reopening the prior AFD is an exceptional action, that should be only undertaken if the DRV consensus to relist is clear within at most hours of the closing of the AFD. GRBerry 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Note the {{Template:Relist}} which results in a Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached message being placed at the end of the existing AfD. Of course that template is most often used for XfDs in which there hasn't been enough participation to form a consensus. A new deletion discussion looses the discussion thread and arguments already made and starts fresh which probably has both advantages and disadvantages. Checking several old DRV logs, it looks like a relist closure in a DRV results in a new procedural AfD. Of course, that would also require restoring the article. — Becksguy (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with those who commented above a new discussion is best with appropriate links provided to the old AFD and deletion review to inform the new discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a term to distinguish between continue the listing and list it again. I agree that in almost all cases after DRV we'd want a restart, except sometimes for the occasional case of a quickly reversed premature closure. (usually I'd say that such closures were disrupted enough by the closure that it's clearer to start over). Similarly there would be few cases for continuing and not following up on the previous--except when an admin decides, as sometimes is the case, that sockpuppetry or misbehavior has messed things up sufficiently for a new start to be cleaner. Both occurrences are rare, but do happen. DGG (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions

I have proposed a new way of handling XfDs & DRVs - please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. JohnnyMrNinja 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Update {{DRVNote}} to link to logs?

Now that I've got what I think is a workable solution for it, I've updated a discussion at Template talk:DRVNote#Link to log page instead of regular DRV page? about linking directly to log pages in Template:DRVNote. Anyone interested should head over there to register their comments. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Monk's Mound

The information that was added on an external link is being attacked on the Monk's Mound site by a number of disruptive editors including Doug and Trochos. Ronz apparently added an unrealted claim to the removal of this information pertainting to conflict of interest. Wikipedia policies are not being followed here including personal grudges, adding External Links, and removal of pertinant information by these editors may be considered vandalism or disruptive edits. See personal website and talk page for history.Marburg72 (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content from an article is not deletion in the specific way we use that term here on Wikipedia. All the disputed content is still visible to any editor via the article's page history. Content disputes such as this need to be worked out on the article's Talk page or, failing that, through one of Wikipedia's conflict resolution techniques. Deletion Review is not the right forum for this disagreement. Rossami (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict, I was going to write and still will as I've been attacked here:I'm Doug. I have no idea why this is here, but removal of OR and personal websites is not normally called vandalism. I hope I am neither disruptive nor a vandal. Do see Talk:Monk's Mound and Marburg72's talk page. There is no personal grudge, but I will admit to a lot of frustration (shared by others) with this editor (on other articles as well if anyone wants to explore further). The external link mentioned above is the editor's personal website, which is why the COI notice by Ronz. Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Process

Just throwing this out there to see what folks think, but has there ever been any thought given to changing the way DRV is processed, from a technical standpoint? There have been a couple of times when I see a discussion pop up and I get that feeling that I know I've seen this here on DRV before but it takes a ridiculous amount of effort to go through various logs and archives to see if it actually was. The method of transcluding discussions used on AfD (mostly) gets around this limitation, as a subsequent discussion requires a modifier and it is a simple matter of removing the modifier to get to the previous discussions. Having the discussions on their own page also makes it significantly easier to link directly to the discussion and find it after the fact. I'm not proposing a change per se, but I would like to get a feel for whether or not this idea has been discussed before and if it has any merit. Shereth 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not in the last two logs, but I might've missed something. I'm not opposed, but the current system works fine for now. Really, I like the idea, as AfD seems to handle itself pretty well. The current {{newdelrev}} template wouldn't have to be changed to reflect it, but we'd have to make a change to {{DRVNote}} to link to the right place; and the instructions would need updating. How's about we just work on some draft instructions for it now? lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been discussed before and met with ambivalence. The arguments in favor of "page per discussion" are

• as you said, simplicity in finding and linking to the discussion if/when you need it again
• easier to link directly to the discussion either in a deletion comment or on the Talk page of a kept/recreated article
• greater consistency of process across more of our deletion forums

The arguments against "page per discussion" are

• slight increase in complexity when starting a nomination
• anonymous editors won't be able to request a review (since they can't create a new page)
• unlike AfDs, you just don't get that many DRVs a day - they still fit on a single page without too much effort or burdensome pageload delays.

Adding to the prior arguments, I'd also note that many reviews are for deleted pages of slightly different names. This makes it harder to trust that you've found all the prior discussions just because you didn't get that pagename modifier. (See the current discussion on "security as a service" for an example of the fragmentation that can be caused by minor variations in punctuation or capitalization.)

The decision last time seemed to be that it's not a bad idea but was not then worth it. Given the greater depth of history we now have and the increase in repeat or related nominations, the cost/benefit may have changed. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. Rossami (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will help as much as the proposer thinks, given that all the prior history won't be on subpages, pages get title changes, et cetera. What I do when I check is go to the page (or even better its initial XFD), and click on "What links here", filter for the Wikipedia namespace, and then manually scan for DRVs and later XFDs. I used to be disciplined about adding these links by hand quickly for new nominations, but I just got tired of doing it. I continue to think the prevention of new or anonymous editors from opening a review will be a significant issue; we can't have dumbot complete the proposal for them as they won't have anyplace to put it. GRBerry 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversing a merge in DRV?

If editor merges an article although there was no WP:CONSENSUS to do so per merger discussion, would a DRV be appropriate to reverse the mergers? (Reverting the merge has only led to edit-warring.) If not, what would be the appropriate way of doing so? --Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this looks disturbingly like forum-shopping. There is an active discussion ongoing concerning this matter at Talk: WikiProject Harry Potter, and the above editor has been participating in that discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the above user, Arcayne, is one of the parties involved in this dispute and not a 3rd party opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain that DRV is the appropriate forum for "contesting" a merger. I would continue to address the matter on the appropriate article talk page, or if you feel that avenue is not proving to be helpful, try escalating it through the usual dispute resolution processes. Shereth 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing my point, Shereth. I wasnt arguing in favor of one solution or the other; I was simply noting that a discussion was occurring in a more appropriate venue, and that this wasn't really the best place. And I'd point out that I don't care which way the merge discussion goes, only that it is uniformly conducted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• DRV normally only concerns itself about whether or not the delete button is pushed. A merger, if done properly, does not involve the use of the delete button, and reversing one does not involve the use of the button. So normally DRV will not intervene in merge decisions. In the rare situations where someone merges and deletes, we will undelete to preserve the GFDL history. But even then we won't intervene in the merge. I've at times thought a more formal merge decision process than is provided by Wikipedia:Proposed mergers might be useful, but I'm not sure that we have the volume of cases to merit one. If normal talk and proposed mergers don't help, I'd suggest escalating to an article RFC as the next dispute resolution step. GRBerry 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• As GRBerry said, XfD (including DRV) is not the correct forum for decisions about mergers since nothing has been deleted in the narrow way we use that term here. Editors should first attempt to work it out on the respective Talk pages. Failing that, you could consider some of the techniques recommended at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Newdelrev}} fixes

Hi everybody! I've got some proposed changes to {{newdelrev}} over at Template talk:Newdelrev about fixing how it links to non-mainspace pages. Input on it would be helpful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since next to no one commented, and I've got a fairly good version of it now, I've updated the code at {{newdelrev}}. A large part of the fix was the creation of {{drvlinks}} to handle the long and ugly parts of the code. If there are any problems, don't hesitate to fix them or contact me. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Roll On-Kid Rock Single

Why is that up for deletion its the next single off his album. The music video has already been shot in Detroit on August 12th and the radio edit is out for it that runs 3:57. Their is nothing wrong with the article, it shouldn't be deleted. All the information on it is correct. All you gotta do is go to www.extremekidrock.moonfruit.com or www.kidrock.com and its right their in front of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.40.155 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You should comment on the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll On (Kid Rock song) as the article has not yet been deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles are deleted far too quickly

I find it a tad unfair that an article is deleted as soon as a wave of momentum is shifted towards deletion. Why should an article be deleted in less than 4 hours just because those who may oppose it have not logged in yet? Ghost109 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally the only times an article will be deleted within 4 hours is if it either meets speedy deletion criteria or just doesn't stand a chance. In either case, if you feel that it was unjustified you can always bring it up on DRV, but otherwise articles get the full 5 days discussion and that's plenty of time for people to chime in on the issue. Shereth 19:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Articles are only speedied that quickly if, as it stands, the article easily falls into the speedy criterion. Wizardman 20:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The ones closed early as speedies are usually supported but if Ghost109 is talking about WP:SNOW closures, I would agree that I have seen a disturbing increase in alleged SNOW decisions that were nowhere near as clearcut as the closer tried to make them. Far more SNOW closures end up at DRV than other kinds of closures. And even if the SNOW closure is ultimately endorsed, it creates far more dissent, discussion and effort than if the deletion discussion had been allowed to run out it's normal course. I have come to the conclusion that we need to:

1. Severly restrict the application of WP:SNOW in closure decisions and
2. Formally allow any responsible editor (admin?) to overturn a WP:SNOW closure and reopen the deletion discussion if the closure is disputed in good faith. Let's not clog up DRV with these endless debates - just reopen the XfD discussion and keep talking.

Rossami (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be 100% in support of the second. Shereth 15:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certain support the second., and as for the first, we just need to actually apply the existing practice that this is intended to be an exceptional event for limited purposes, not just to clean up things a day or two earlier. It's becoming the case that more things are closed early than at the usual time, and the net result is more trouble than would have been necessary. But this should really be discussed at the AFD talk page also. 15:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for number 2. Number 1 can be acheived through talking to individual editors. Personally, I'm only in favor of WP:SNOW in very few cases -- usually where it's a blizzard of keeps for a nom that was clearly in bad faith or an honest mistake and continuing the AfD would be a massive waste of time. For 99% of AfDs, even under blizzard conditions there is little or no harm in continuing for the full five days.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's closed a couple hundred afds in the past couple weeks, I haven't really seen an increase in snow closures. That being said, I certainly support option 2 as it makes perfect sense to allow discussion to continue upon request. Wizardman 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of us who are AFD regulars occasionally sleep or work more than 4 consecutive hours, and except for clear speedy deletion material, editors should be granted at least a 24 hour window to make their contribution to the AFD. Edison (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pete Draganic

How long do items for deletion review remain open before soemthing is done? I am still awaiting a conclusion to a matter of the same title as this from August 21. This is the 5th day. Not trying to be pushy but I am looking for a resolution. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.199.213 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's generally 5 days as a minimum, sometimes "close calls" may wind up taking another day or two as consensus is sorted out. Shereth 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And sometimes it's really ambiguous or contentious, and it takes longer 'cuz no one wants to close it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The original rules said that discussions here would routinely remain open for 10 days. Since DRVs tend to be more deliberative than most AfD discussions, this was to allow extra time for those editors who only return to Wikipedia weekly. The extra time is not a problem. Be patient and someone will close the discussion in due course. Rossami (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this "Pete Draganic" of which you speak? --Luigifan (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an open deletion review here on Pete Draganic - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 21. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

DRV Instructions - Pages in main (Article) space

I think the instructions on how to list pages in article space need to be clearer as it's not clear what needs to go into the name space parameter for these pages. ALthough still reasonably new to Wikipedia I have considerably more experience than a newbie and yet I've get it wrong both times I've brought an article to DRV. I've seen other get it wrong as well, e.g. use Article as the name space. Can I suggest a specific line is given in the usage instructions for main space pages. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The very next listing is a case in point - See here Dpmuk (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's in a semi-protected subpage nothing from stopping you editting it for clarity, worst that will happen is someone will disagree and revert (or reword it again) --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree that I could edit, however there's one big problem with that idea, namely I've failed to get it right the two times I've done it so still aren't sure what the correct procedure is! Dpmuk (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on {{newdelrev}} and {{drvlinks}} so it doesn't display "Article:" in the headings, but I'm having difficulty with it. Everything else works if you use either |ns=article or leave |ns= blank. If there're any problems drop a line at Template talk:Newdelrev or my talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

HHN Records

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HHN_Records

WP:CORP, states, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:MUSIC states, A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. WP:RS, states, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Music charts were submitted. Mass Record Pool, who are located in Boston Mass. They have no affiliation with the label. Illinois Record Pool is an world reknowed record pool servicing the entire world. The label has no affiliation with them. • Gene93k said without warrant, or obviously never verifying anything that the label published those charts theirselves. Those charts came straight from these entities web site and can be easily searched online and anyone who takes this initiative can easily determine that HHN is not affiliated with them in any way. And according to WP:RS. • Gene93k should have explained why those references were rejected. • GhostDog21 (talk) 21:40:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• And GhostDog21 should explain Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HHNRecordsPR.Kww (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless, That is a valid argument about the label. That wasn't the issue at that time. It was about lack of secondary sources. Nobody did their research or followed procedure, that is my point. This was posted here to show that the so-called Administrators were not doing thier jobs.• GhostDog21 (talk) 12:38:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GhostDog21, if you'd like to file a deletion review for the above page, please place {{subst:newdelrev|pg=HHN Records|reason= < Insert your reason here > }} on today's DRV log page. This talk page is not the place to do it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• At this time, I don't care about the article anymore. I just co-signed HHNRecordsPD's statements, The Administrators are not doing thier jobs right. That is my point. Maybe I should have posted that statement in the form of a question? HHN Records is soon to be considered a major label, sombody will give them a proper article in due time.• GhostDog21 (talk) 15:07:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not likely to make much headway with anything on this backwater talk page. Issues with CORP should go to WT:CORP, issues with MUSIC should go to WT:MUSIC, and most anything else can have a go at one of the village pumps. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV closing script

I've been bothered for a while about how annoying it can sometimes be to close DRVs as far as template addition goes, so I just wrote up a script at User:Lifebaka/closedrv.js which can be used to automate the process. What it does is add a close tab when editing sections of the DRV log pages. Clicking this tab prompts for the closing statement, and then the script does all the formatting fun for you. I promise the script doesn't bite (I've got it imported at my monobook.js right now), so if anyone wants to give it a go, feel free. Cheers, everyone, and please let me know if there's something better on the market already. lifebaka++ 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Deletion review templates

I populated the new category Category:Deletion review templates with DRV templates. Please add others that you may know of to the category. Also, please review the deletion review templates for usefulness and perhaps delete any unuseful or duplicative templates. Thanks -- Suntag ☼ 19:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like we're using Template:KeptDRV, but I dunno'. Rest I'm fairly sure are being used. You might also want to get {{drt}} and {{drb}}, which redirect to the top and bottom templates. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The user who created that one was blocked less than a fortnight later as a sockpuppet. I'm pretty sure that one has never been used significantly. GRBerry 19:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll for "view-deleted activation" now open

In June 2008 the Arbitration Committee announced a request that the English Wikipedia consider allowing some non-administrators the ability to view deleted material. The summary of the announcement was

The activation of the passive "can view deleted" right, and a policy allowing its grant for good cause, would allow non-administrator users to gain wider participation in the English Wikipedia community. For details and discussion, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages

Note that this is a request that the idea be considered, nothing stronger. The announcement led to this proposal. As this conversation has gone on for several months, the proposal has shifted around quite a bit. This makes it very unclear where editors are currently giving their support or opposition. For the sake of clarity, I am attempting to pick out the main proposals, and create a straw poll around them. Please share your opinion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New deletion review template Template:Delrevafd

Template:Delrevafd is a new template to provide a way to link a reviewed, closed discussion to a closed or ongoing deletion review discussion. An example of the use of this template is at AfD example 1 (as an example posting for a close DRV discussion) and at AfD example 2 (as an example posting for a presently open DRV discussion). This new template balances the concerns listed above at to DRV instructions. -- Suntag ☼ 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My deletion review is not showing up under active discussions

I can see it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 30, but not at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Active discussions. Is it time delayed or something? Did I make a mistake with one of the templates? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's got to do with the server cache. I'll go purge it. If the problem persists, try overriding your local cache as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Who participates in a deletion review

Are there guidelines concerning who should and should not participate in a deletion review? Recently, I have seen several DRV's in which the admin who closed the original XfD request was an active discusser in the DRV, along with several of the same editors who commented in the original XfD review. In all such cases, the DRV resulted in an Endorsement of the original decision. One could say that might lead some to think the DRV process is flawed and biased. To overcome that possible perception, and since the purpose of the DRV is to assess the consensus of the Wiki community, I would like to suggest that participants in the original discussion recuse themselves from the DRV discussion so that other Wikipedians can actively comment without being biased by the original discussion. Further, the admin who closes the DRV should not be the same admin who closed the original XfD. Truthanado (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the first point. It'd be horrible not to allow users and/or closers to explain their rationales in the DRV. We're no better at reading minds over the internet than in person (except admins, who can read minds though the internet, of course ). Often times closers would not otherwise have an opportunity to, because most DRV noms don't discuss whatever action was taken with the closer/deleter first.

The second point is sorta' a "no duh" scenario. Conflict of interest much? Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with lifebaka that closers and participants should be able to comment in the DRV, since they can give helpful clarifications of their positions and reasoning. However, I do think it would be wise for the closer of the DRV to take into account who's commenting and what their biases might be--an "endorse because I agree with me" is not all that informative. I'm also in wholehearted agreement with Truthanado's very reasonable point that the original closer should not close the DRV. delldot ∇. 02:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

May I please clarify. I am not in favor of prohibiting anyone from commenting. What I suggest is that they recuse themselves, meaning that those who participated in the original XfD discussion voluntarily decide not to comment on the DRV and see what others in the Wiki community think. That produces a more unbiased community opinion. And it's generally not necessary for one who commented on the XfD to restate an opinion, which is often what happens in the DRV; users can easily read the original XfD comments (if they wish) and draw their own conclusions. Truthanado (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a simpler way to look at it. If the original XfD genuinely reflects consensus of the Wiki community, then the DRV should reflect the same consensus, regardless of who participates in the review. That means there is no reason for original XfD contributors to take part in the DRV. If the DRV does not reflect the same consensus, including original XfD commenters in teh DRV will not change that, and Overturn is the simple result. Truthanado (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

the DRV is normally a review of the Xfd, not a second afd, and the consensus is on a different basis. I have frequently !voted one way on a AfD, the close has been otherwise than my view, and yeti have voted to sustain it if I thought it represented in a fair judgment of a reasonable consensus. The consensus of DRV is not by counting heads--the view of the person listing the review is assumed to be for reversing it, unless he says otherwise, and the closing admin is expected to be for sustaining his close, again, unless he says otherwise. It's the views of everyone else that the DRV is trying to determine. DGG (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. DRV is a different issue from that presented at AfD, so everyone should be welcome to participate at DRV. I think DRV is lucky in how rare that the SPAs from the AfD don't follow up and visit DRV. Also, I don't think I've ever seen anyone question a DRV close, so the system seems to work OK. (Which leads to the thought, If someone object to a DRV close, could they list the DRV at DRV?). -- Suntag ☼ 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Attempting a DRV of a DRV has happened, though not successfully. From time to time, asking for a more senior DRV hand to review a DRV close has had results, but those cases are once or twice a year type things. I like DGG, have opined one way in an AFD and at DRV have endorsed the opposite close, so long as it was within reasonable administrative discretion. GRBerry 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo (agree with) most of what's been said already.

The key thing that I wish we could present in bright flashing lights is that a DRV is a review of of an XfD close. It's not another XfD. - jc37 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare

I recall something on this topic being listed at DRV, but can't find it. It probably was a speedy deleted article under a much different title. That got me thinking. There does not seem to be an easy way to find articles listed at DRV since they are not listed on their own separate page. Perhaps we can have a bot created to create a single DRV archive page having a list of all articles that have been listed at DRV and a link to the DRV discussion. The other deletion pages have their own archive pages. Is this a good idea? Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a bot could use Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive and subpages to create an alphabetical list of titles... but I'm not sure how much value it would add. When a page name is known, then going to the page (or even better the AFD for the page) and using "what links here" will find DRVs. When the page name isn't known, an alphabetical list of page names won't help much. GRBerry 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A search in a complete list of article at DRV for "Obama" likely would reveal the article having the assassination scare topic (if it were actually at DRV). -- Suntag ☼ 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's indexed (it should be if it's older than a few months) Google should work. If not, the easiest way to find it is to locate the article (and what links there), I'm afraid. You can submit a request for something on the toolserver to do it, otherwise (I don't know where, though; I suggest asking User:SQL, who writes a bit there, he'll at least point you in the right direction). Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Old DrV still open.

Hi folks, Wasn't sure if this should go here or AN, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_19 still has an open topic. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Handled. I'd take a guess that people like there to be consensus at DRVs, and there wasn't there. When you run into one of these again, feel free to tag it with {{admin backlog}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Log not displaying properly?

I just filed a DRV for Martino de Judicibus. However, while it's displaying fine on today's log and indeed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active, it's not appearing on the main DRV page for some reason - at the time of writing 3 November shows as blank. I can't figure out what I've done wrong - can someone who knows more about transclusions than me take a look please? Thanks Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be working now. Maybe it was an issue with my cache. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Usually the problem will be fixed if you WP:PURGE the article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen this issue. I've been having the same problem for several days now and had been assuming that it was a problem with the cache but I now have enough data points to say that for some reason purging isn't working. I'm starting to wonder if there's something about the multiple layers of transclusion that is somehow getting in the way of the purge. I don't remember having to purge the individual subpages the last time this started happening. Is anyone else having trouble with purge and refresh? Rossami (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Userfication discussions at DRV should end

This is a request for a formal consensus on whether DRV should continue to accept userfication requests at DRV. Userfication is a process to aid an individual editor in their efforts. The recently concluded Ancientindia DRV was a request to review an admin's decision not to userfy a particular deleted article. That discussion had editors reviewing a user's conduct to determine whether that user should receive a copy of deleted content. I don't think DRV is the place to discuss userfication. From Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. DRV discussions generally serve the encyclopedia, not the desires of individual editors. Since userfication is in service to an individual editor, userfication discussions do not belong at DRV. Userfication decisions by any one admin are within an admin's personal discretion and they should not be dragged to DRV to discuss their decision. While personal conduct issues may be discussed at DRV in deciding whether to permit recreation of an article, discussing personal conduct issues in the context of an admin assisting (or not assisting) an individual editor in their efforts is more the pervue of WP:AN. DRV is for content deletion review and DRV should formally declare userfication requests as not being within the scope of DRV. Please post your views below. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Completely agree. I'm new at commenting on DRV (although I've read them on and off for a couple of years) but my view of the discussion you refer to is that there was no possibility of ever reaching closure. Regardless of the DRV outcome, the deleting admin could not have been compelled to userfy the content, therefore, it was pointless having the discussion at DRV. Suggest the DRV guidance just points editors to CAT:RESTORE Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No admin was being compelled to do anything. It was asked whether it was appropriate to userfy the article. That is all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong agreement. An individual admin should never be forced to userfy, especially when we have a whole category of admins who are willing to do so. If a user requests userfication at DRV, and it's not a legal issue (such as an attack page or copyright violation), simply point them to Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No admin was being forced to do anything. It was asked whether it was appropriate to userfy the article. That is all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know. DRV has been successfully dealing with these requests for several years now. This is the first case that seems to have created any problem. One case doesn't seem like enough to justify the change. I'm also uncomfortable with this recommendation because there is no clear place where those discussions should go. The recommendation to send them to WP:AN seems too vague to implement. DRV might not be ideal but doesn't seem that bad either. Rossami (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• No strong preference. I see only two cases here. Either it's uncontroversial, and if I see a DRV I just userfy and close it, or it's controversial and a DRV is appropriate anyways. So, I don't really think it'd be useful, but it wouldn't bother me to change it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What do we mean by "not accept userfication requests"? I'd hate to see a situation where a user cannot gain a copy of their labours (no matter how CSD-worthy), especially if this could be at the whim of an individual, fallible, admin. In this particular case, I see no merit to the article at all, but that's still no reason to use it to establish a precedent. My understanding is that any admin can userify a page, whether they were the deleting admin or not. In that case (if we must, "save DRV from the scourge of userification debate bloat"), I'd rather see the end result of a "non discussion of userification" policy to become users gaining a right to have their articles back (i.e. userified). In most cases a user will already have the text (by their own saves, or just by caching). To prevent only some users having this access just through the quirks of cache hits and an uncooperative admin seems arbitrary and unfair. We cannot "ban some content from ever being userified" (no matter how heinous), because we just don't have the technical capacity to (we can even kill it from a userspace if needs be in extremis, but that's different). In this situation, we shouldn't be unequally heavy-handed to some users, just because they missed caching. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be a centralized place to discuss, dispassionately, the case for all forms of undoing a deletion, including userfication. That this one, specific, example devolved into a discussion of unrelated matters (such as user behavior) is beside the point. Without places to discuss this, then it becomes forum shopping where an editor simply hunts for an admin to undo the actions of another admin. That is plainly wheel waring, and must be avoided at all costs. Any action that will undo a deletion should be eligible to be handled by WP:DRV. DRV has ruled to userfy articles multiple times in the past; and has refused multiple times in the past; the issue is that userfication is a form of undeletion, which is reversing another admins actions; and such reversals should NOT be done unilaterally, but should only follow careful deliberation. The single, disputed DRV was not about forcing any adminsitrator to do anything. No one asked Gwen to change how she handled this, no one asked that she userfy anything. It was a discussion to determine if consensus existed to userfy this article. It determined that it wasn't. Case closed. Gwen was not asked to reverse her self, and no one said she did anything wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the percieved problem is the userification of deleteworthy articles with the aim of keeping them without the actual desire or ability to improve them to policy and resubmit them to mainspace. Whether it's to "record the Truth(tm)", "against 3vil censorshipz!!!!" or some other objective that lies outside of policy. I don't know how prevalent this is as a problem, but I've certainly seen my share of it in the past and the track record of the requesting user is certainly a strong predictor of what will then happen to the userified article. I would tend to agree that, to a point, undeleting to userspace is strictly admin discretion (to evaluate the article and the requester) and is not a "deletion review" proper (because, conceptually at least, the article stays deleted). — Coren ^(talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Only my thoughts: In listing this here, Jayron was trying to help quell what I guess he saw as a dispute on my talk page. I didn't see it as a dispute at all, but only another back and forth between myself and a COI user who was so targeted on getting a single article back into the mainspace, he had no interest in even acknowledging project policies (many of us have to deal with this kind of thing a lot). Had but a shred of acknowledgement come, I would have been happy to userfy. Unhappily, when Jayron tried to helpfully jump into the thread, the eager user mistook this as having found an ally "against" me and tumbled into name-calling and anger, likely hoping Jayron would at least userfy the article but maybe even restore it and meanwhile get me "punished." Had this not happened, I may have been able to lead the user into a more thorough understanding about why his article had been deleted but then again, likely not. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with requests for userfication at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Keep in mind that the page instructions specifically provide for them at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review. Such discussions should not be couched as a review of any admin's decision not to userfy the page on request, just as discussions of whether the page would be proper to userfy. It should be noted that some users may be more comfortable posting their requests for userfication at WP:DRV rather than having to submit their requests for userfication to administrators individually. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Traditionally DRV has been the place to go if you wanted content undeleted, including undeletion for the purpose of userfication. If a deleting admin refuses a request to userfy it is probably for a good reason, and I would rather have a request made at DRV than individually to every admin until they find one who will userfy. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think DRV would almost always be more helpful than forum shopping and moreover, yield much wider input. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree that DRV is preferable to forum shopping; but I think the rules in the case of a request to userify should be slightly different insofar as even if there would be hypothetically unanimity to userify (presumably from non-admins) there would still be a need for an admin to actively agree that the page should be userified (and whose user space should be the target), and that if no such admin can be found then the page remains unundeleted. — Coren ^(talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but I think that flows from the technical requirements of undeletion and the general understanding of consensus on Wikipedia and doesn't require stating explicitly. I certainly do a quick sanity check before closing any DRV (or AfD) and don't take any actuion I feel is against policy regardless of the numbers. All admins considering DRV requests should do likewise. It doesn't matter how many people want us to restore a copyvio or deeply troubled BLP we simply can't and won't. This is similar the concept of a community ban. If no admin will unblock an accout it is community banned; if no admin will undelete an article it is permanently deleted. The advantage of DRV is that it gives admins more information and hopefully good advice whether or not to undelete, but they are still ultimately resoponsible for their own use of the tools. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Userification should not require Deletion review, and it doesn't. I am one of the dozens of admins who continue to use our own judgment to userify any item asked for that I think not copyvio or libel or blp violation unless i think it will be put to an improper use. (I have several times refused, & several times followed up and insisted on deleting if not worked on.) But for those people who would prefer to come here, there's no reason not to let them. It looks as if it might be the place, and we certainly don't want to put procedural rules in the way of undeleting articles. j There are enough problems with complaints about arbitrary action from admins, and probably ten times as many if people had the courage or didn't go away insulted, that we should not close off opportunities. DGG (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The main difference is that DRV is to review an admin's conclusion about a consensus. Just like an admin's decision to block an editor so they no longer can contribute content, an admin's own judgment concerning userify is not an admin's conclusion about consensus. Also, the choice is not between spamming every admin or posting at DRV. We have a ton of notice boards to review personal decisions by admins. DRV is not a notice board. WP:AN is the place to review admin's decisions, including making requests for userificaiton. -- Suntag ☼ 10:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Much more often than not, I userfy when asked. If I don't, it's overhwelmingly likely because the creating editor is not only a COI SPA but moreover, clearly has either no understanding of Wikipedia's policies or could care less about following them. All told, I guess I'm mostly neutral about userfications being reviewed in DRV or on an admin board somewhere, since I don't see how sending them to DRV would clog it up, but am mostly keen on skirting forum shopping. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vincenzo Antonio Manno and Vincenzo Manno

No copyright problem. Text on site is my own!Please restore page --Arancam (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion review for "loser status confirmed"

Loser status confirmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) loserconfirmed.com I started working on this page early this morning and immediately it was deleted. I tried to recreate it again adding information every time. I followed the guidelines yet it still got deleted and now I'm locked out of it. I would like to continue working on this page until finished while following all rules and guidelines. -- Zerokiller698 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll definitely have an issue showing this meets WP:Notability. However, if you still want to work on it, the best way is as a subpage of your userpage, and then have an experienced editor look it over when you think it's ready. Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles has a list of admins (including myself) who will be willing to userfy it for you.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LEX WOTTON , Page deleted - Lex Wotton Australian Aboriginal activist, convicted for 2004 Palm Island riot

Lex Wotton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Hello, this is my first time here on this page. Apologies for any incorrect placement. This is about a page of a well known Australian Aboriginal figure that has been deleted. The Lex Wotton page was created last week and almost immediatley a member had placed a deletion request on the page with the reason given that Lex Wotton was not notable enough etc. Also he said cover article and not the person as well as saying that Wikipedia is not a soap box and not Lex Wotton's website etc. The page has been wiped and a redirection placed so it goes to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Well for starters my input on the article and creation was for the sole reason of a notable person, well known and controversial was not yet entered into the Wikipedia database. Lex Wotton became more widely known as a result of the Palm Island riots that took place becuause of the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee, a young Palm Island Aboriginal man. Lex Wotton was then on the front page of major Australian news papers as well as a feature in some magazines. He even was on the cover of The National Indigenous Times as well as featured in other issues of the magazine [3] & [4] Wotton has appeared and spoken at various venues around Australia in its major cities about the ongoing problem of Aboriginal deaths in custody. His trial and conviction and imprisonment is well doccumented as well as being a source of controversy and debate. Indigenous activist groups around the globe have expressed their concerns and support for him. Just an example of one other. Unions, Actvists, Politicians both leftwing and right wing, have taken his plight on board. There have been rallies and protests in major cities regarding his conviction. A search via any of the major search engines will bring up many many articles as well as thousands of references. Please have a search of Lex Wotton via the search engines. What do you think ? Is he notable enough ? Is he worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia ?Your views would be greatly apreciated. Thanks. (Electromechanic (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Please read and follow Wikipedia:Deletion review#What is this page for?. This talk page is only for discussion the Deletion Review page, not for the reviews themselves. Regards SoWhy 12:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I copied this over to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 18, where it'll get more attention. Please keep responses there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)