Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion review page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:DRV

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Consulting deleting admin

WP:DRVPURPOSE says: Deletion review should not be used: ... 2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;

However the DRV instructiosn say: Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. ... (emphasis added.) Recently several DRVs have been started without consulting the cloer, and in each case ther has been a suggestyion to speedy close the discussion for this failure. It hasn't been done, but it could have been. So it seems to em that we should:

Decide if consulting the closer before coming to DRV must be attempted or not, and
Revise either the instructions or the purpose item to be consistent with the decision.

I could accept either way, but it is unfair and often bitey to scold people for following the instructions as written. So which is it to be? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The latter statement is both more recent and better reflective of practice (throughout the history of DRV, not just recently). I'd have tried removing the statement in DRVPURPOSE entirely, except that items there have occasionally been referred to by number (um, mostly by me). If we really have to argue the merits of this again:
1. It puts an unnecessary burden on the requesting editor.
2. It allows the admin to improperly act as a gatekeeper to review of their own actions.
3. It can result in lengthy delays if the admin is inactive, contracts the user talk page flu, or just plain fails to reply.
4. DRV is not so overburdened with discussions that we need to artificially limit the number we'll even consider.
5. Most importantly, for discussion-based deletions, the closing admin simply doesn't have the authority to unilaterally reverse himself, and attempts to do so result in orders of magnitude more disruption than a "premature" trip to DRV possibly could. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo (2nd nomination) is particularly illustrative. —Cryptic 01:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd estimate that around half the time editors bringing DRVs don't even notify the closer, and that is specified in the instructions, so it probably wouldn't make any difference anyway. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a real practical advantage in putting Lies-to-children in short instructions to the newcomers. If the instructions are required to be perfectly correct and respectful of competing nuanced philosophies on how the process should be used, then the word count blows out and the newcomers don't read them.

Drop the word "must". Write in simple imperative: Ask the closer about your concern.

Add to the DRV links the WP:MR styled "(Discussion with closer)" link. This provides the good example in existing reviews, and encourages best practice in the future, without the need to write rules and enforce that the rules are read and followed. It works. Newcomers, I believe, pay more attention to preceding examples than to the lengthy instructions. When the "(Discussion with closer)" link is redlinked, regulars should ping the closer, and should not bite the newcomer.

If a good faith DRV nomination is listed, do not close it due to failure to follow a rule. cf WP:IAR.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd drop the "explaine why" clause, which is excessive. I suspect most bad deletions are accidents or oversights, and more easily resolved with the closing admin, so that's usually wise. But if someone has a reason not to, then we should trust they're acting in good faith too, until proven otherwise. Wily D 06:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As with every time this comes up, my main concern is that the closer should not and must not be the gatekeeper for a DRV. Newer editors and people unfamiliar with Wikipedia may well think that the closer is a hostile authority figure, and any requirement to consult them has a significant chilling effect on access to DRV. I feel that people who come to DRV are often bitten very hard by snippy closers who feel entitled to plenty of notice before we discuss them. I absolutely deplore that. We don't consult article creators before we nominate at AfD, do we? Anything you can answer on your talk page is something you can also answer here.
We could improve DRV a lot if we could get consensus to strike that rule completely.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the comments above, I propose that we remove Item #2 completely from the "Do not" part of DRVPURPOSE. If we really want to keep the following numbers the same replace it with to request that a copyright infringement, a blatantly promotional page, or a page clearly violating WP:BLP be restored. Or just replace #2 with (former item #2 deleted, place holder to keeping numbers the same). The instructions that say "consider notifying" can stay unchanged. What do people think? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- If replacing the number, we should use the current "Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content" text from below. Purporting to forbid reviews of "blatantly promotional page"s will eventually result in G11 deletion reviews being speedy-closed, despite that probably being the most frequent speedy deletion criterion to get overturned here. (I wasn't all that strongly bothered by the renumbering; we should be linking to anchors instead of saying "DRVPURPOSE#8" anyway. Especially for #1-5.) —Cryptic 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  - Good catch, Cryptic. I agree. But just how important is it to prederve the exact numbers, anyway? These aren't like the CSD numbers, used all over the lot, in my view. Anyway, do people agree 0on removing the current number 2? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I support removing #2, it's good practice but failure to do so should not be grounds for speedy closure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I have edited Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose to implement the change discussed above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list

Notice: Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

DRV overturn discussion at AN

WP:AN#Towards_closure has a discussion about the various AfDs and DRV of Theresa Greenfield. More-or-less started by Jimbo. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've asked him to revert that close.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
...but he won't hear it from me. Anyone else want to try?—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
...No. I get the urge to worry about process, but the situation has become far to embarrassing for the project for attempts to prioritise process over outcome to end up well. Wily D 05:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Embarrassing? Are the US press in some kind of tizzy, or something? This business of sysops making binding content decisions after a few hours' discussion is terrible and it won't end well.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to initiate a merge discussion for the article and this was reverted as well on the grounds that the discussion was binding on the content, even though the reason unelected candidates fail isn't a WP:GNG argument but rather several different ones, especially WP:BIO1E. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Yeah, maybe it will result in addressing whatever ridiculous process distortion caused such an unacceptable situation in the first place. older ≠ wiser 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not totally clear to me how it got called to Jimbo's attention, but whenever we have colossal failures and lots of people involved, we should be embarrassed. Wily D 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
There's so very often a reason why US politics has got to be a special case, isn't there.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why there's anything special needed. An article for a major party candidate in a general election for a national legislative body in any country where English is the primary language should be presumed notable at least for the period leading up to and immediately following the election. If a losing candidate does nothing else noteworthy for some period of time after the election, they can be considered for merging/redirecting/deletion. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
In the world's largest English-speaking democracy, that idea would fail because it would lead to BLPs without reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
It is perhaps a separate issue whether English is the primary language of India (it is one of the official languages and a second language for most educated Indians, but it's debatable whether English is the primary language for the nation). But regardless, BLP articles without reliable sources are a different kettle of fish. There are clear and bright line rules for such cases. I mean it is somewhat incongruous that we keep articles for elected officials from centuries past where the ONLY notability is a bare mention in some record book that they were elected to the office -- and yet articles for major party candidates to national office in contemporary elections with an abundance of reliable sources are deleted as unnotable. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me started. We have articles on people who're "notable" for playing professional-level football for eight minutes in 1963, and the hamlet of Hick Sticks, Where The Fuck, Iowa (pop. 83), but we delete articles about full professors at major universities because they create the reliable sources instead of being the subject of them. I get that, and it's an issue. But we have a problem now, and it's that we've just demonstrated that political candidates are entitled to repeat the deletion discussion every three weeks in the runup to an election, and that this strategy pays off. From now on, where US elections are concerned, no decision is final unless it's "keep".—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Having an article isn't treating it like a special case, and it isn't relevant that she's American. The process was fixed in an ad-hoc way, but ideally such failures are sufficiently rare a process for fixing the process that fixes the process isn't necessary; we can just act like people who are here to build an encyclopaedia, not a bureaucracy. Wily D 05:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I would argue the nationality is relevant considering these types of issues arise like clockwork every two years with the US election cycle. I just did a cross-check and while I didn't spend much time on it I can't find a single instance of an Australian candidate being deleted (likely due to the difference in the political systems, but just as an example.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess two comments:
- I continue to believe that this article, and a handful of similar articles, easily meet the GNG and related guidelines. Not every candidate, just those with in-depth, independent coverage (generally at the national or international level). I don't know why we'd treat a political candidate differently than an actor, or tennis player or whatever. I think this was an outstanding result.
- Process-wise, we've discussed having AN be the right place for an appeal of DRV. Not sure that's what this was (it was about the underlying issue) but AN isn't a crazy place for that discussion.

Hobit (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm mortified (well, to the extent I can be mortified about things on Wikipedia), so I think there's plenty of room for debate on this, preferably once the US elections finish. This happens every two years. We need more fixed rules. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

While you and I disagree on a lot in this context, on that we are on the same page. I feel like a small group has been overriding both our actual policies/guidelines and the broader consensus. Folks couldn't get an actual guideline change, but it was enforced as if such a rule had been put in place. I've no doubt the people involved are looking for what is best for the encyclopedia (I know a lot of you fairly well and tend to agree with most of you on most other things), but it is one of the worst cases of a small group overriding the broader consensus I've ever seen here. It really pisses me off. But I'll be a lot happier if we settle on exactly what our rules should be (and are...). I care a lot about having these articles, but I care a lot more about the process being fair and the outcome being representative of the broader consensus of our editors. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with you on that, either - I think the consensus is closer to not wanting to turn Wikipedia into a giant Amerocentric campaign brochure than to allow these sorts of articles, and I don't think we're doing anything that's "overriding" any guidelines. But I also respect any proposal generally gets tied up in a "no consensus" outcome. I don't really know what the best solution is - we could workshop something, but considering we seem (respectfully) diametrically opposed on this, I'm not even sure where we'd begin. SportingFlyer T·C 14:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what we could do is workshop a few proposals. I'm loath to have 4 or 5 options out there, but I think that's probably what we need to do. There is the "if there are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering this person in-depth we should have an article" (basically my view and where I think policy/guidelines are at). There is the "a subject cannot be notable just for being a candidate for office", which is where I believe you are (and where you believe policy/guidelines get us). I suspect we need a few middle-ground proposals too. Things that would get folks in the US running competitive national races to have an article (at least in the Senate, but I'd think the house too). There are folks running campaigns that have, according to 538, <1% chance of winning. Most of those folks *really* aren't notable--just folks willing to write their name down and spend 10 hours/week on it, almost as a hobby. But others are massive, $100 Million+ enterprises with massive amounts of coverage and more biographical information than 99% of our BLPs have. So yeah, work-shopping would be good. Ideally we create a well-ordered set of ideas so that if we have ideas (say) 1 to 5 where if a person supports 1, 2 would be their obvious 2nd choice. I'd be willing to work on that with you (and others) but probably not until late December (the joy of being a teacher in Covid times is that I don't have enough free time... Hobit (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just posted on Jimbo's talk page that, if urgently needing to overturn a community decision because the community is wrong, the venue should be the village pump not drama central (because sysops don't make binding content decisions); and the discussion should have a fixed duration (24 hours?) to prevent accusations that the closer picked a moment that favoured their side.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed that after multiple consensuses came up here at DRV against having the article, that its proponents forum shopped a favourable result with a 13-hour discussion on AN. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds procedurally offensive, but it involves the intractible issue of never-elected election candidates. It's hard to think of what should be done. Now that the election is over, things should sort themselves out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Modified DRV instructions

i have modified the DRV instructions, here.

DRV is suitable if recreation prevented by de-SALTing denied; re-creation explicitly prohibited; or AfC decline/reject is disputed.

Otherwise, if the AfD is old, and you have overcome the reasons for deletion, then just re-create, and see if anyone else nominates it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted. There's no need to limit "significant new information:" for instance, we recently overturned an AfD because the nominator was a sock. Your rules would have meant DRV did not apply. I much prefer a wide interpretation of "significant new information." However, we can fix the problem by adding a "not be used for:" something like "11. contesting a stale AfD only to ask permission to create a new article on the same subject, when the article is not protected." The wording could be better, but that solves the problem more gracefully in my opinion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, why don’t you do it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  - We'll get quibbles about the definition of "stale" if we do that. I would prefer for DRV to accept and examine most nominations without telling the nominator they're in the wrong place; we should be careful not to limit access to review with complex processes.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    - My definition was hasty, and I'd prefer to get a little more consensus before being bold. I think this falls under: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead." I think this just needs to be changed to: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. In this instance, use WP:REFUND instead, or simply create a new article with the new sources." SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
      - In the meantime, the instructions are wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
        No, they're not - they're maybe a bit unclear. DRV isn't a high volume business anyway, and any "mistakes" are easily remedied until it's sorted. SportingFlyer T·C 07:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought SmokeyJoe's language was pretty good, but I also agree about having a wide interpretation of "significant new information" and potentially drawing a line between "uncontroversial" re-creation (BOLD) and "controversial" re-creation (DRV). The instructions that are there now should be changed/updated, and I'm hopeful agreeable language can be workshopped, or if not at least on an RFC A/B proposal or something like that. Le v¡v ich 08:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

My problem with SmokeyJoe's language is that it limited DRV, and we want DRV to be as welcoming as possible! I don't really see this as a problem that needs to be solved, as it comes up relatively rarely, and when it does people tend to "get permission" to recreate the article, which is technically welcoming. The problem we're trying to solve here is to make clearer the fact you don't need to use DRV if the AfD you're challenging is old, you rewrite the article, and you now think the article now passes WP:N, as opposed to limiting the scope of DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 08:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we disagree. People SHOULD NOT use DRV if they have not already tried REFUND for a REFUND, or tried RFUP for de-SALTing (and noting the highlighted instruction they’ll find there), and really should be discouraged from coming straight to DRV with new sources after a years old AfD. DRV SHOULD NOT be saccharine sweet, like the old AfC “decline” messages were in giving a plain letter reading that told them to do unproductive time wasting things. Sure, if someone comes to DRV ill-advised but in good faith DRV admins don’t speedy close, we participants give feedback, but this is not an efficient process compared to the recommended path, with is typically REFUND and add new sources to the draft. The problem we are trying to solve here is to limit well meaning Wikipedians like RMcC giving poor advice based on the poor DRV instructions. DRV is a review process, it for for catching errors, in judgement or process, and for providing running community based education where there have been errors. DRV should NOT be routinely used for notability assessments. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we do, I think we're just approaching the problem from a very different angle. DRV isn't saccharine sweet now and works as intended in the vast majority of cases. I am not trying to expand the scope of DRV, but as an appeal of last resort, we do not want to make it harder for someone to use DRV by limiting the instructions. Users will be mistaken sometimes, that's fine, but that's exactly what DRV is there for. I really don't think this is that big of a problem, I don't think the instructions are that unclear, although I think they can be improved slightly to make clear you can work around an old AfD by producing a new article. The proposed instructions limited "significant new information" to three very specific instances, which I do disagree with quite firmly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Good. If only there were a wiki page somewhere where we could interactively edit the text to get it right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe a talk page? SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This page? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be used for 2 purposes: to determine if it's good enough to pass G4 (the alternative being to trust a single admin's judgement), and to deal with a SALTed page. 109.186.211.111 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFUP should be used for desalting, which includes asking the salting admin first, if they are active. DRV should be reserved for a refused de-salting request, and should not be the port of first call. This is not to say that such requests should be speedily rebuffed, but that Wikipedians should be able to easily understand the instructions when advising newcomers on the best course of action. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 we have yet another case where, by following the instructions, an experienced Wikipedian comes to DRV for permission to recreate based on new sources since and old AfD. Everytime, we agree that they could have more easily got a REFUND, optionally drafted, or boldly recreated. Even if it needs to come to DRV, DRV is much better informed if a draft exists, or a G4-ed newer version can be referred to. Does anyone have any substantive reason for the instructions not encouraging the REFUND bold recreation or AfC where they believe that the AfD’s reasons for deletion are overcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

They couldn't necessarily have easily gotten a refund. WP:REFUND states: This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all. While boldly recreating's (almost?) always an option, DRV's purview should allow for discussion about whether REFUND is appropriate. We disagree on that. SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No one ever said anyone should "necessarily have easily gotten a refund".
What the instructions should say, is try asking for a REFUND first. Alternatively, one can ask the deleting admin, or indeed any admin. There are two very big advantages to this: (1) you may get the page undeleted immediately and painlessly; (2) if refused, you should get a reason, and then you have a focused point for discussion at DRV.
Something should be said also, both here and at REFUND, about whether to request REFUND direct to mainspace, to userspace, or to draftspace. There is too much implication that REFUND requests are to undelete back to mainspace, when WP:Userfication or undeletion to draftspace should probably be the default for an AfD-deleted page.
There is no intention from me to restrict DRV's purview to discuss anything. The intention is to inform and advise people of the easier and more efficient alternative path. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The way things currently work though is that you can't REFUND a page to mainspace which was deleted at AfD "controversially," which I interpret as "deleted after discussion/not soft-deleted." For instance, there's no way the United Airlines Flight 1175 page should be restored to mainspace at REFUND, but DRV could conclude that's possible. My only immediate suggestion would be this change, but I'm still not sure about it: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify ~~recreating~~ restoring the deleted page; SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Where restoration in mainspace is obvious, it should be done without a week or more at DRV. Where it is not obvious, it is a very good idea to have a live draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

March, Queen

Would like to list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_March_of_the_Black_Queen.mp3#filelinks for deletion review. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 14#File:The March of the Black Queen.mp3

You’ll need a rationale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

For a reason it improves the information presented. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Howdoesitgo1, I have asked Fastily to contact you and explain their decision. This is the usual first step for a deletion review. If, after talking to Fastily, you still believe that the decision was wrong, please either begin a deletion review by following the steps listed at WP:DELREVD, or else ask me here and I will do it for you.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Where to review non-speedy deletions?

Despite its general name, this page specifies several times that it's only intended for reviewing speedy deletions. Where does one need to go for reviewing other deletions? ◅ Sebastian 12:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Does it? Where? It opens with this "This page is for reviewing speedy deletions and deletions made as the result of a discussion". That really only leaves proposed deletions, which are reversed on request, so there's never anything to review there. WilyD 12:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're right, Wily, my mistake. That already answers my question, and we could close the discussion. But since there are suggestions for how to improve that sentence, I will reply below. ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
WilyD, What about blanking by redirecting? Which is the case I just reported in a new thread below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
If “deletion” was involved, meaning it was deleted and shouldn’t have been, or it should have been deleted but wasn’t, then this is your forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I think part of the problem is the tendency for wiki-instructions to over specify things. So, where we say disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions, we could just say, any disputed deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
How about Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal any disputed deletion. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion, but not articles which have been procedurally deleted, which are eligible for restoration through WP:REFUND. More characters, but I think it's simpler. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the sentence up is certainly an improvement. But now that we're trying to make it simpler, I see more chances for that:

“designed”: The simple word “for” could express the same meaning. In this place, “designed” is puffery, IMHO.
“primarily”: The change from “designed” to “for” would naturally relieve us from having to mention secondary design goals. Or is there is any secondary design goal of this page which the reader needs to know immediately? If so, it should be mentioned explicitly.
“forum”: This could be replaced with “page”, which is the general term we use for anything that's not an article, and “forum” is something we're trying to avoid per WP:FORUM.
“appeal ... disputed”: The intention of this wording is not clear. It could mean (a) that by appealing a decision, it becomes disputed. This seems to go without saying, so one of the two words would be redundant. Or (b) that only discussions which are already disputed can be appealed, which seems to be misleading. So I'm assuming meaning (a) was intended. Possibly someone felt that the double wording was needed to make the connection between “appealing” and “disputed” clear. But that intention backfired through the introduction of the possible reading (b). To make it really clear, that connection should be stated in its own sentence, preferably not in the lede.

So, how about the following: Deletion review (DRV) is the page for appealing deletions. ... ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Even simpler, "the page" doesn't add anything. Everything on wikipedia is a page. How about: Deletion review (DRV) is for appealing deletions.

BTW, maybe it's just me, but I always mis-parse "Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal...". "Appeal" has several meanings, one of which is "to be pleasing to", as in, "This book will appeal to children ages 6 to 10". As I read the sentence, my brain would assume that's the meaning being used, and then as I read the next few words, I'd realize that didn't make sense and get stuck trying to figure out what was really meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good points, I like your even simpler version. Instead of “appeal”, maybe we could use “dispute”, which at least would make the connection to “disputed” straightforward. There are of course more synonyms. Your story about the two meanings of “to appeal” reminds me of when I overheard the conversation between a mother and a toy merchant at a fair. The mother was trying to hold back her child, but the merchant said “Don't worry, these toys are child-repellant.” ◅ Sebastian 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Housekeeping cleanup

OCD pedant here. Under the ongoing Notarize discussion is stray of code for something called the Battle for Dream Island, dated April 2020. Does anyone know how to delete it, or at least create a section title for it to separate it from the discussion? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleted, it was a copy-and-paste from October 12 log with minor changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging with WP:MR

I've floated the idea of merging this page with WP:MR at the Village Pump. Feedback is welcome there. Thank you -- Calidum 21:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

archived. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

DRV archives on mobile

So basically DRV archives are invisible on mobile most likely due to the template used. Any possible fixes for this? SK2242 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is the collapsing template. We can fix the template presumably. I usually just click edit source and read the wikitext, but in hindsight it’d probably be smarter to just click desktop mode for a while. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a place we can ask for a review of deletion by redirecting?

I've recently stubbed a topic (which apparently is controversial). Several editors repeatedly objected to the creation of said article and keep redirecting it (edit history), despite my repeated requests for an AfD (in my edit summary and on that artice's talk). As after my second recreation I have been warned to avoid edit warring, which IMHO is being blanked in violation of the deletion policy, can this case be reviewed here, and if not, what other forum(s) would be applicable? I am not even that invested in the topic itself (which I simply think is notable), but I think that from the policy perspective, blanking by redirecting, when challenged, should not be repeated but the topic should be submitted to a proper AfD forum for a discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's kind of a messy situation, but generally the situation you're looking at seems like it should largely go through the regular dispute resolution mechanisms, which it seems it is (including an apparent request for comment on how to handle the section). Since there's now an RfD, when it's closed it could be reviewed by DRV (if there's a reason to believe the close is flawed), but generally DRV is for reviewing speedy deletions and XfDs. Wily D 20:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
WilyD, RfD was speedy closed for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_27#Sexuality_of_Frédéric_Chopin. Which I think is fine in itself, but I still think AfD should be happening, as we are dealing with a case of sneaky deletion not compatible with DP. But I guess we can wait for the RfC to be formally closed as requested. On that note, however, some people suggested that RfC can determine whether such article should even be allowed to be created, which I am not sure is within the remit of an RfC and should be left to AfD. Any thoughts on that? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
So, the real reason, I think, DRV is needed is sort of twofold. One, deletion needs admin tools to undo, so you need admins watching and judging, especially for overturning speedies. Second, an XfD discussion has a very formal kind of "weight", and can't really thus be reversed by a small, local discussion. Merging by local consensus only needs local consensus to undo, so there's not the same need (and no admin tools). An RFC is (similarly) formal, but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure says disputed RfC closes should be brought to WP:AN. So, uh, I think you can ask meta-questions about whether that's the best forum, but for the moment, that seems like the venue for your case. Wily D 06:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I started an essay closely related to this, some years ago, at Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. It is an issue that comes up occasionally. I think a good answer is: If the redirection is a pseudo-deletion, you may appeal it at DRV. I think this is true even if there was no AfD. Deletion by redirection, followed by Wikipedia:Soft protection of the redirect would get good attention at WP:DRV. If the redirection is not a pseudo-deletion, you should use the target talk page to resolve the issue, starting from discussion, WP:3O, WP:RfC etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Where DRV doesn't fit, you can review almost any decision at RfC.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the main article has more about this in the sexuality section than the stub article created, then why do you need the stub article at all? Dream Focus 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this considered a "bias" criterion for DRV?

I believe I have sufficient evidence that a series of deletion discussions I have participated in were nominated and voted upon by people who routinely ignore standard procedures for discussion conduct. Is this a valid reason for submitting a DRV?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Conduct issues are not usually for DRV. Have you talked to the XfD closers about the issue? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I spoke to him about the closing and he said the consensus seemed clear. A week later I asked him about the conduct of a user and hasn't replied back yet.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  - Is he an admin? Probably, DRV is not interested in conduct issues unless it calls into question the close. Closers are supposed to be more than competent to recognize and respond to conduct issues in the discussion. It is difficult to comment on a hypothetical problem. If it is just mild conduct, or category minutiae, DRV is unlikely to satisfy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    - Is it possible to speak to you in confidence about the issue?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)