Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Somewhat contradictory closure instructions

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing_reviews has the following to say about a DRV ending with no-consensus:

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

So a no-consensus result "has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed", "may be more appropriate[ly] treated as a 'relist'", or should be treated "as a direction to overturn the deletion". I realise the text is attempting to distinguish between speedy and non-speedy deletions, but is quite messy.

To reduce confusion, I propose to replace the quoted sentences with:

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, they should close the discussion as overturn, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. They, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• Otherwise, they should close the discussion as endorse, but may, in their discretion, close it as relist instead.

Thoughts? Stifle (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree some clarification will be helpful. But isn't the original text instructing what ACTIONs the closer can take in cases determined as "No consensus"? Your suggestion in effect eliminates closures of "no consensus". older ≠ wiser 16:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think your text is a big improvement, but it conflates the close and actions taken subsequent to the close. In both cases, if there is no consensus, then the close should be no consensus. The question is what is the appropriate status quo ante to restore after such a close. – Joe (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• How about: Otherwise, the closer should note that the discussion ended without consensus and close the discussion as endorsing the decision being appealed, but may close it as relist instead. - --Enos733 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  That has the same problem. If there's no consensus, then the decision isn't endorsed, by definition. – Joe (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  At the end of the day, a no consensus discussion preserves the decision below, except in the case where the decision is a speedy decision where the decision preserves the underlying article in mainspace. Basically, this is Speaker Denison's rule - preserve the status quo. - Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I think we all agree on that. But we should maintain a distinction between the close, which summarises the consensus, and the outcome. Two different closes can have the same outcome, but still be meaningfully different in e.g. whether someone is found to be at fault, whether it sets a precedent, etc. – Joe (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So how about this?

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. They, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, it may be relisted at the closer's discretion.
• Otherwise, the outcome is the should be the same as if the decision was endorsed.

We could simplify further by removing the highlighted sentence. For me that's obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out (anyone can nominate an article for deletion at any time). – Joe (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with that version, and would retain the highlighted sentence for clarity. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer this (placing the third point first):

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then:

• The outcome should be same as if the decision was endorsed.
• Alternatively, the closer may relist the discussion.
• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. Any editor may proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum.

Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Then the contradiction Stifle originally pointed out is back: if you follow the third point, the first one doesn't make sense. – Joe (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think #3 (speedy deletion) should be seen as the exception (but again, Denison's rule applies). Enos733 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What about:

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. There are two exceptions to this rule:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, it may be relisted at the closer's discretion.

Would that address people's concerns? (Personally I don't find the current wording especially unclear, but since others do, I certainly support clarifying it.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of your text, would PROD fall under "speedy deletion"?

And I dunno if we should call relisting an "exception". - jc37 00:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We should probably add PROD as the same logic about uncontroversialness applies to that. As I see it relisting is quite clearly an exception, because it necessarily involves reversing the original close (if only temporarily). – Joe (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If a PROD is listed on DRV it should immediately be undeleted as though the listing were at REFUND, so it shouldn't get to the stage of a no-consensus being reached. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying one more formula:

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, if they consider it appropriate, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

And in the very first line of the section, change "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days." to add "unless the nomination was a proposed deletion, which can be undeleted immediately as though the request had been made at WP:REFUND."

How's that? Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me.

Though I think you may want to replace ...if they consider it appropriate...", with "...at their discretion...". Just to avoid even the appearance of "supervote" - the language "should" be fine, but I think we've all seen how some can get concerning an XfD closure. sigh @ the need for even that slight of a semantic difference...

Oh, and I might say "...the page(s) in question should...", but that's minor  : ) - jc37 08:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made these changes (moving Stifle's suggested addition under "speedy closes", since it seems sufficiently rare not to have needed documenting before now). Probably further wordsmithing can be done directly, since it seems we're all on the same page. – Joe (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice : )

Kudos all round : ) - jc37 11:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Closing DRVs as non consensus

Closing DRVs as non consensus is a cop out and a recent innovation. DRVs should not be allowed to close in that state and historically going all the way back to GRBerry we always found a consensus. Generally, given our mission to provide information unclear consensus should default to preserving material unless there is a strong argument against. That’s how I approached it when I closed all the DRVs and with policy so much clearer these days there is no excuse for not doing it that way 99% of the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Erm, "recent"? No consensus has been a documented option since 15:35, 20 April 2009. older ≠ wiser 20:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been at DRV since 2006 and an admin since 2007. Occasional outliers are not indicative of historical practise. [1] Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So practice has changed in 2009 and you haven't been paying attention. older ≠ wiser 11:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Not everything that changes is for the best and its much later than 2009 that this ridiculous notion gained real traction. I’m perfectly aware of what happens and have been paying attention but that does have to mean I have to agree. Oh and with that implied out of touch suggestion, why don’t you check back and see how many years it is since I closed more than a handfull of DRVs a year. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what? How are you always going to find a consensus? Lock people in a room? – Joe (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Historically it means erring in favour of disputed content unless there are clear problems with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that reflects current custom and practice. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t mean its right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• GRBerry did indeed feel that no DRV should ever close as "no consensus", and his process was to relist no-consensus DRVs (see User:GRBerry/DRVGuide#Review closings).—S Marshall T/C 08:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  So long as we specify what is the outcome of DRV no-consensuses (overturn CSDs, endorse regular outcome, or relist original deletion discussion) as the changes above do, then it seems reasonable to cover the occasional DRV NC. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, there are two outcomes. Until April 2009, the rule was that where there's no consensus at DRV, we close the DRV and nothing else happens, so status quo. In April 2009 we decided to give the DRV closer discretion to decide whether a no consensus means status quo or relist back at the original venue (AfD, RfD, whatever). Generally since then, the procedure has been to relist at the original venue if there's some realistic prospect of getting to a consensus, and not if not.

  When I think about this again now in the light of what I've seen here since April 2009, I can see both sides of it. On the one hand, I think it's unrealistic to expect every discussion to reach a consensus. But on the other hand, some problems need a decision, not a fudge or compromise.

  One thing I don't recall ever seeing tried is to relist at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 08:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Notifying Noms

Nominating pages for speedy deletion during NPP, I note that sometimes pages come up for deletion review but that it's only the deleting admin that gets a notification - surely it would make sense to also notify the nominator of the deletion review? While the admin is indeed responsible for upholding the nominator's suggestion, surely it's the nom who had a rationale for the deletion in the first place and, at least as a courtesy, should know that a review is taking place - but also may have a contribution to the discussion they, ultimately, triggered? Watching the page doesn't help until the review is done and dusted, BTW... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

So as Firefangledfeathers already said over at WT:NPR, notifications are usually done by whoever brings it to DRV, and unless they happen to be an admin they have no way of knowing who nominated it in the first place. We could theoretically do something like ask the deleting admin to pass on the notification to the nominator, or have an admin bot do it or something, but that seems like a lot of hassle to just to slightly reduce feather-ruffling. CSDs rarely make it to DRV, and when they do they're speedily endorsed more often than not. – Joe (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not really about feather ruffling, as the nominator knows why they made a nomination. Nice that an admin agreed and made the deletion, but I thought there were grounds to include the nominator in the subsequent review discussion, where there was one. If it's too much trouble, well that's just fine. I'll just carry on using this here clay tablet. I'll be fine. It's fine. Fine and dandy Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A bot to add {{delrevxfd}}?

I just randomly went through the DRV log for August, and noticed a number of discussions where the {{delrevxfd}} template hadn’t been added above the original XfD discussion. I added the ones I saw were missing, but it made me wonder if the job of adding {{delrevxfd}} notices to XfD pages would be an appropriate task for a bot. It would remove one of the manual tasks needed to list a discussion here, and it would mean that there wouldn’t be any risk of a filer accidentally not adding the template themselves (as there is at present). I’m starting this discussion as I’m keen to hear others’ opinions on this idea.

(If there’s going to be such a bot, there may also be the question of whether or not it should add the result= parameter once the DRV has been closed — the template mentions the parameter exists, but a few unscientific spot checks indicate that it may not be in active use.)

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 10:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

why delete Farzad_ghaderi article

Hello, I am @Ahmadech4 and I created an article for MMA fighter named Farzad_ghaderi, but it was delete by @SouthernNights. but Farzad_ghaderi is a reliable MMA fighter according to reliable references. Please reconsider. Please take the necessary actions to recreate the article Ahmadech4 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You have had Wikipedia policies regarding notability etc explained to you repeatedly on your talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump dear, Please help me to create this article. Farzad_ghaderi is one of the best MMA fighters as evidenced by the following references and I am his follower

Ahmadech4 (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Entries in database-style MMA websites do not constitute the sort of in-depth independent coverage required to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. And that is all I will have to say on the subject. The biography has been recreated multiple times, and deleted multiple times, for the same reasons. It is entirely clear that Wikipedia is not going to have a biography on this individual unless and until he attracts significant, in-depth coverage, per our policies. Stop wasting peoples' time over this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump if you think it will take your time, don't work on Wikipedia, you don't have to.

dear@SouthernNights Please guide me to register the article so that at least the correct information is registered according to the rules of Wikipedia Ahmadech4 (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The rules of Wikipedia do not permit an article on Farzad Ghaderi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with @AndyTheGrump. Despite people explaining to Ahmadech4 how Wikipedia works, Ahmadech4 does not make any attempt to learn or improve. At this point Ahmadech4 is simply wasting everyone's time. SouthernNights (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've started a thread at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Appears all this is now wrapped up. SouthernNights (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Editnotice?

Every single time there's a deletion review, I see people trying to relitigate the AfD rather than analyzing the discussion and strength of arguments. The distinction between those two is nuanced enough that this is pretty much inevitable, but I do think that an editnotice explaining how deletion review works and how discussion is supposed to be focused might help on the margins. (For a very rough parallel, think of the editnotice we use for RfAs.) Would folks be in support of adding something? And if so, anyone want to contribute some language we'd want to use/help draft it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've no objection to that, but I do think this happens less than people seem to think. Could you take a few recent DRVs where you see this problem and highlight what you are trying to shoot down? Sometimes the underlying issue does matter at DRV. For example, if the discussion consists of one side providing sources and another side arguing those sources shouldn't count toward WP:N, the discussion at DRV will by necessity have to involve looking at the sources. If they clearly are way under or way over the bar, that matters. If the matter is borderline, that matters. I rarely see comments at DRV that are so far removed from the role of DRV that I think they shouldn't be there. So I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't find this objectionable, I also don't see a need and that I'm guessing some of what you are trying to keep out, are things I might find productive. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Calling out specific instances is a sure way to sidetrack/derail the discussion, but I'm happy to offer some more abstracted explanation. The stated purpose of deletion review (for the most common type of review) is to judge whether the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and should not be used because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. We should therefore be encouraging participants to focus in their comments on assessing consensus rather than relitigating the AfD. It's a similar distinction to the difference between a good close and a supervote. Granted, as I said at the top, it's a fine distinction, and as you note there can be gray areas. The difference between Overturn because the subject clearly passes GNG and Overturn because the arguments made that the subject passes GNG were clearly stronger and should have been given more weight often reflects just that the latter editor is more experienced and knows how to frame their view. Still, weighing the strength of arguments without injecting one's personal opinion is what we expect closers to do, and it's what we should aspire for deletion review participants to do as well. If an editnotice helps on the margins to get a few more editors to put aside their personal views and focus on assessing consensus, I think it's worthwhile to have. Does that help explain? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Plenty of deletion reviews are just seeking permission to recreate a previously-deleted article. Plenty of those are for pages that were deleted a long time ago and aren't salted, so we say to just go ahead and do it; for more recent deletions, and ones that have had long histories of abuse, we generally do want arguments that could be viewed as relitigating the afds - namely, new sources, or why the people at the previous discussion were wrong. And of course, for reviews of speedy deletions, there's no getting around discussing the content directly.
  I think replying to individual comments at DRV with a pointer to WP:DRVPURPOSE Not#5 is sufficient. We haven't had to do that very often. —Cryptic 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NewdelrevCFD

Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)