Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Speedy Close

See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) § Frivolous_filings_at_DRV

I proposed at Village pump (policy) that DRV should have, and state that it has, closures of Speedy Endorse for a Deletion Review when the appellant has failed to state a case. On further thinking, I think that what is needed is Speedy Close, similar to the administrative closes sometimes used at XFD, and that the instructions for DRV should list the reasons for Speedy Close. The reason for changing the phrase is that some of the Deletion Reviews to which this should apply are not really appeals of deletion decisions.

I suggest, in particular, that the instruction should say, below "Deletion review may be used" and "Deletion review may not be used", there should be a paragraph beginning "A Deletion Review request may be Speedily Closed if:" followed by:

• 1. The filing does not appear to involve a deletion action in the English Wikipedia.
• 2. The filing does not address any of the reasons for requesting Deletion Review, either an error or new information.
• 3a. The filer is a banned or blocked user.
• 3b. The filer does not have permission to edit in the area, e.g., not extended-confirmed when the area is subject to an extended-confirmed restriction.
• 4. The filing is completely erroneous, e.g., it misstates the number of !votes in the XFD.

We see such requests for Deletion Review from time to time, and they are often administratively closed, but it would be useful to list them as bases for speedy closes, similar to Speedy Keeps at XFD.

I would like to send this provision for Speedy Closes at DRV forward to an RFC to add it to the DRV instructions, after discussion and any changes to the rationales. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. While I occasionally procedurally-close disruptive or pointless DRVs, I always feel like I'm treading the gray boundary of policy-sanctioned process. Clear wording will make this more consistent and save us all time. I do, however, have qualms about C#1, which seems to exclude appeals to turn a Keep into a No-consensus or vice versa. While some dismiss such appeals as pointless, they do impact renomination delays, and also act as important feedback, especially in cases of BADNAC. I believe we also need clearer language for a speedy overturn for out-of-process speedy deletions. If any editor in good standing contests a G6, it is no longer uncontroversial maintenance. Owen× ☎ 10:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • You can already do that last bit if you feel strongly enough about it. From WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care. —Cryptic 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

    Admins who routinely delete out of process are the worst ones with whom to get into a wheel war. While policy allows us to revert them, the caveat it spells out should be heeded. A speedy overturn supported by two or three participants is more effective and less prone to prompting a wheel war. This usually happens within a few hours of the DRV being listed, so I don't think we're adding unnecessary wonkery here. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

    So wait until it racks up those two or three overturns. I don't think that "immediately" language means "only if you do it right after it happens" so much as "without further discussion". —Cryptic 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• With this proposal, we need to be mindful of two things.

Firstly, DRV is a backstop against various kinds of abuse: things that don't usually happen on en.wiki, but theoretically could -- such as a bad faith user gaining control of a sysop account and using that account to delete inconvenient articles or speedy-keep inconvenient AfDs. As a guard against that, I'd suggest an explicit rule that any sysop can overturn or revert a speedy close of a DRV, on their own authority, with or without giving a reason. (Sysops can revert each other's administrative actions but are usually hesitant to do it. We want wording that empowers and encourages them to use that power here.)

Secondly, DRV has another purpose as well as reviewing decisions. We also explain decisions. An inexperienced user ought to be able to bring a DRV and come away with a clear understanding of all the reasons for a deletion decision, and that occasionally happens. So we want a rule that says that when speedy closing a DRV brought by an inexperienced user, the closer should pop over to their talk page and start a discussion explaining all the reasons why the deletion decision was correct.

I wouldn't want to pass this without those provisions.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose codifying how to run this review process. It should be run by humans, not algorithms. The problem being fixed has not been explained. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• This is instruction creep, and the worst sort of instruction creep in that it's mostly redundant and the remainder is actively harmful.
  #1 is already covered by the speedy close criteria we already have. #2 and #4 are frequently accompanied by the sort of accusations for which we could invoke the other speedy close criterion we have at WP:DRVPURPOSE NOT#8, but for reasons incomprehensible to me we usually don't. #3 is covered by the combination of WP:BANREVERT and WP:ARBECR, doesn't need repeating here, and is already the usual practice if nobody who's permitted to edit has agreed with them yet.
  When somebody has agreed, and for the remaining, milder cases of #2 and #4, speedy closing is harmful because deletion reviews are essentially never reviewed or overturned - the buck stops here - and have zero effect on content namespaces while in progress. Even when it's a kept page that's being reviewed and {{delrev}} is supposed to be put on the mainspace page (or category or template or whatever), it's usually forgotten, even by the people who clean up broken and incomplete drv nominations. —Cryptic 13:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• With the exception of 4, I IAR close all of these. I'm not sure I need a rule telling me I can't, as I don't think any have even been challenged, never mind overturned. Just my .02 Star Mississippi 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Language improvement, here & Refund

from @SmokeyJoe's comment here, @Robert McClenon's thread above and note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Margaret_Nichols_DRV and my fairly regular "We're not doing 7 days of bureaucracy", it appears there's a start to consensus on how to improve and streamline DRV to allow it to focus on the discussions where it's needed vs. where there's another solution. Thoughts, suggestions on where else this should be? Star Mississippi 13:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a proposal about just this a while back at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 56#Split WP:DRV into two pages? Mach61 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s no good reason to split DRV.

Uncontroversial REFUNDS should be advised to go to REFUND to ask.

REFUNDS to draftspace are almost always uncontroversial.

REFUND should plainly distinguish between whether the REFUND is to draftspace or to mainspace, and give simple advice on both. REFUNDS to mainspace are rarely uncontroversial, except for late disputed PRODs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Natural history - partially deleted category tree

Not sure where to ask about these two:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 11#Natural history - result was delete

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history - result was no consensus

As a result the category tree is partially deleted and partially extant. Would it be possible to revert the first deletion (as mentioned would be appropriate by a couple people in the second discussion)? I will note that the second nomination got more attention, I think because it included lower-level subcategories that get more "circulation".

jengod (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Neha Harsora

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to Neha Harsora, you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, Explicit (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I want my article back

The article I wrote was deleted around 2 years ago because 6 months passed without activity and now they wont undelete it because they think there's a conflict of interest. I am writing an article for Dr. Zouhair Amarin because I was his student. There is no conflict of interest as we are not colleagues, friends or family. I have maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. Zamarin (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zamarin: This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at User talk:Zamarin#Concern regarding Draft:Zouhair Amarin directs you as follows:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days

Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Pawn (scripting language)

I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria.

I intend to move the Pawn (programming language) draft to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article.

I hope to gain support from the Wikipedia community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language.

Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)