Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion Review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion Review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
- when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See § Purpose.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Commenting in a deletion review
In the deletion review discussion, please:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. 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. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
2. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~ |
3. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
5. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use |
Active discussions
10 April 2016
9 April 2016
2014 Ukrainian coup
- 2014 Ukrainian coup (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Western media is biased since they typically would not favor another geopolitical rival such as Russia. Moreover, it can be seen as a coup as there were many violent individuals who occupied government buildings and attacked the Berkut. It was a coup since it was the threat of violence that caused Viktor Yanukovych to flee. It is hard for me not to see it as a "coup".
Victoria Nuland had plans to appoint a new prime minister, indicating that she had influence over the course of events.
It is correct that it is POV to say that it is coup and that this is the position of Russian state media, but it is also disingenuous on the part of Western media to largely ignore the violence on the Maidan and the role of far-right militants. Also, it is not "fringe" to say that it is a "coup", but it is a fairly unorthodox view in the West.LinkinPark (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Relist. Unless there is another RfD that I'm not seeing, the only discussion was about "Ukrainian Coup" which has potentially multiple vs. "2014 Ukrainian coup" which is clear although POV. We should probably have a redirect from whatever this event is called in the official Russian media, but that's a discussion for RfD. Hopefully with the citation of sources in English, Ukrainian, or Russian and a discussion of their reliability etc. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- endorse I think the names are close enough and the discussion at the RfD wouldn't have changed if 2014 had been attached. That said, if non-fringe sources can be found that give it this name, I'd support recreation. But I'm only finding the fringe of the fringe. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is unfair that RT would be described as "fringe of the "fringe". Here are some other sources that call it a "coup":
- https://www.rt.com/news/233163-ukraine-maidan-february-timeline/
- http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/05/chronology-of-the-ukrainian-coup/
- http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/28/commentary/world-commentary/ukrainian-coup-is-not-a-revolution/#.Vwiawnq3pAJ
- http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/24/a_coup_or_a_revolution_ukraine
- I think it is unfair that RT would be described as "fringe of the "fringe". Here are some other sources that call it a "coup":
Western mainstream media is not calling it a "coup", but it is also a legitimate viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Those are better than I found. I'll admit to thinking of rt as nothing other than a mouthpiece of the government and so not to be taken seriously. But as much as I think Ted R.'s politics are, well, very much on the fringe, he does have a pretty big soapbox. So I think we are still down to PR pieces and fringe sources. I'm probably biased (Westerner that I am), so I've no objections to my endorse being taken weakly. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
6 April 2016
Category:Companies_subject_to_BDS_actions
- Category:Companies_subject_to_BDS_actions (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
User suggested speedy delete with claim that this category is a duplicate of a previously deleted category Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories. The previous category concerns companies operating in a location. The category I was working on relates to organizations effected by an ongoing public event. Each company in this category already has matured content, not contributed by me, that clarify that specific company relation to the BDS event. I felt it would be generally useful for a category to exist that list all companies effected by this event. I did not see this issue address in the claimed duplicate category or its discussion. I'm perfectly okay to be told I am wrong. I would also find it completely reasonable to suggest a consensus be built but I would request this take place in a separate discussion from the older (6 year old) unrelated Israeli_companies_operating_in_the_occupied_territories category discussion. Note: that I have spoken with the administrator that eventually approved the speedy delete, whom has been helpful in pointing me to different Wikimedia guidelines to help me better contribute to the wiki community, including suggesting that I could request a deletion review here. Cyphunk (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I generally have a hard time with G4 being used based on a discussion from 6 years ago (2010). Plus though a similar topic, I think this category negates the main underlying issue (over categorization) that applied in the previous discussion(s). I'd say overturn speedy for now. Hobit (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn while related to the category discussed in the CfD there is a difference: not all companies operating in Israeli occupied territories have been the subject of BDS actions, and BDS actions have been applied to companies for reasons other than operating in Israeli occupied territories (such as ties to the Israeli military, involvement with other types of Israeli actions against Palestinians, expressions of support for Israel, etc). The age of the CfD doesn't help. While it may well be decided that this isn't an appropriate category anyway that would have to be decided by a fresh CfD. Hut 8.5 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- List at CfD. Is evidently worth a discussion. Reasonable contests of most speedies should be speedily listed at XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- List at CfD, I'm not sure there's a complete overlap between the two categories (the age of the original discussion notwithstanding). Seems like this could use community review rather than a quick speedy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
- List at CfD. There is enough to talk about here to merit a full discussion rather than a speedy deletion. Thparkth (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
5 April 2016
The Chickbusters
- The Chickbusters (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
AJ Lee and Kaitlyn (wrestler) are both obviously individually both very notable (AJ having longest cumulative Diva's title reign, Kaitlyn having also won the title) but I believe their team is notable too and I don't think it got due consideration in 2016. It seems strange that it gets retained on Spanish Wikipedia while removed here. DJ8946 mentioned feuds which I think were prematurely dismissed. Feuds with other teams are not entirely what a stable is about, either. Bella Twins for example got much of their exposure simply by being arm-candy for Daniel Bryan and Raw GMs for a couple years. For example Kaitlyn and AJ re-united their team in 2011 as "Mo Sistas" seen here to promote prostate cancer awareness. Ranze (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Could you list what you have that counts toward WP:N? I agree the discussion was pretty poor, but without independent reliable sources, I've got to claim it's the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. Clear consensus for deletion. The existence of an article on a foreign Wikipedia is a factor, sufficient in my opinion to prevent a speedy deletion, but certainly not an overriding factor. To overcome the reasons for deletion, please provide two independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Deletion review examines whether deletion process has been properly followed. It is not a venue to obtain a new hearing, advance new arguments, or repeat old ones. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
4 April 2016
Graffiki
User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki was moved to Graffiki (move summary- "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, and quote- "Users claim GNG can not be tested at MfD so bringing here for discussion.") A user moved content from the userspace to the mainspace, then subsequently nominated it for deletion. That is something that wouldn't be done if one believed the content was suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meeting the core content policies), which is required for the move. They also stated, as shown in the above quotes and links I provided, that their intent was to thwart the standards of another deletion forum (WP:AfD has higher standards than MfD which would have been the proper forum to seek deletion for a userspace page) and the opinions of others within the community. That is GAMESMANSHIP. This deletion review should in no way reflect on the deleting administrator, as their actions were completely reasonable, and backed up by community consensus. The content should be restored to User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse There is no reason to think the article was going to be improved. If the subject is not notable then why keep it around? If anyone wants to bring this article up to standards they can do so, but the original author is unlikely to come back. Drafts are for making articles, if we are not going to make an article from it then why are we trying to save it? HighInBC 03:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also the nom made it clear that the move happened, a consensus to delete formed with the knowledge available, and an admin closed based on that consensus. There was not end run, or tricking anyone, the voters were informed. HighInBC 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn We don't move someone else's draft into mainspace to "test notability" or because other things are "too annoying". Hobit (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Closer's comment: I don't think this is properly a topic for DRV, because what is sought is in essence a review of the move from draft to main space. That would be something for WP:Move review, or other dispute resolution. DRV reviews only deletion decisions, not what happened before the decision to nominate something for deletion – and as the filer writes, the deletion decision was consistent with consensus in the AfD. The argument that the prior move should have been an impediment to deletion is a valid argument against deletion that was in fact brought up in the AfD, but did not find consensus. It is not, in my view, a procedural defect of the AfD itself that would warrant its review here. Sandstein 11:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll claim that the argument someone else's work was moved to mainspace for the purpose of deletion is a _really_ strong argument and should have overcome all but an extremely strong numeric consensus to delete. Instead what we have is only the mover and one other person even discussing the issue, the other 2 focused on GNG. Northamerica1000's !vote happened before the issue was even discussed, so pinging. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Hobit: That ping to Northamerica1000 didn't go through, you accidently used "["s instead of "{"s and linked to ping. Pinged them for you. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll claim that the argument someone else's work was moved to mainspace for the purpose of deletion is a _really_ strong argument and should have overcome all but an extremely strong numeric consensus to delete. Instead what we have is only the mover and one other person even discussing the issue, the other 2 focused on GNG. Northamerica1000's !vote happened before the issue was even discussed, so pinging. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore to its original place. Legacypac is doing good work identifying viable articles among stale userspace drafts, but has a problematic attitude to unsuitable ones: there is a clear consensus not to delete solely for being stale, and he is deliberately attempting to defeat that consensus by propounding a theory, held by nobody else, that mainspace standards apply in userspace. When this is not supported at MfD, he is moving drafts into mainspace with the express intention of getting them deleted - see the edit summary "claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying" quoted above, and more recently "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." [1] These persistent attempts to defeat consensus are becoming disruptive, and should not be allowed to succeed. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn the AfD and move it back into userspace. Moving something into another namespace just so you can apply some deletion criterion is disruptive gaming the system. I would go further in saying that moving something to mainspace when you know it isn't suitable for mainspace is acting in bad faith. I don't see why we can't just follow WP:STALEDRAFT for it. Hut 8.5 20:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've temporarily restored the contents so people can see what is being discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- But bear in mind that this discussion is not about the content of the page, but about whether it was properly deleted after Legacypac moved it to mainspace and nominated it for deletion at AfD by mainspace standards, because he thought it "too annoying" that likely consensus at MfD meant he would not be able to get it deleted there. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's one view. I understood HighInBD's comment to be related to the content itself so I think that is needed for context to others. People can endorse or overturn just on the procedure or not. Otherwise, I'm staying out as I'd rather someone put all of the conduct together and do it as a wholesale reversal rather than bit pieces. Are you opposed to restoration? Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, not the fault of the AfD closer, but the page was an appropriate use of userspace for personal drafting or records, and, for any experienced Wikipedian, was obviously not suitable for mainspace. The userspace to mainspace move was disruptive gaming, openly done to avoid clear community consensus that the WP:N standards are not for applying as deletion reasons for userpages. WP:DRV is well-used to review more general abuses of the deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion this was a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts after several editors were voting to keep all kinds of nonsense - indefinately - regardless of it's value to the project. It was hardly a surprise either - I said I would do a test case. Other test cases at MfD have shown that when userspace garbage [2] is exposed to a wider range of editors (from an ANi link for example) there is resounding concensus to delete. Faced with various arguments that stuff labeled a draft does not need to pass GNG, V, or any other standard this article was picked as an example to take to AfD instead of MfD. There is no policy that says a person can't move to main and AfD and despite attempts at ANI by Godsy and a couple others to have me sanctioned for moving this article, there is no consensus that the move was not permitted by policy. The lack of policy against the move is confirmed by JohnCD's recent attempt to draft such a policy. Bringing this to DRV is just forum shopping after they failed at ANi to demonstrate a real problem. This should be closed with the disruption by Godsy noted. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Obviously I disagree, but a couple points of clarification: Your actions were brought to AN/I by another user, you proceeded start a different section questioning my cleanup of page moves you preformed that were clearly inappropriate (I can clearly show a large group of the moves were inappropriate upon request). If the latter boomerangs against you, it is your own fault. This is the proper forum for a review of the deletion, I never joined in on the call to have you sanctioned, and I've clearly demonstrated problems with several of your moves (as I've done with the one in question here above). Many of your moves were in clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- You actively sought and failed to get sanctions against me at ANi. I find your attempt to restore comtent that should be deleted to be stupid, wrong headed, disruptive, and totally WP:NOTHERE for you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia but enforce your preferred version of bureaucracy. I repeat this DRV is just forum shopping and an attempt to attack my work yet again. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously I disagree, but a couple points of clarification: Your actions were brought to AN/I by another user, you proceeded start a different section questioning my cleanup of page moves you preformed that were clearly inappropriate (I can clearly show a large group of the moves were inappropriate upon request). If the latter boomerangs against you, it is your own fault. This is the proper forum for a review of the deletion, I never joined in on the call to have you sanctioned, and I've clearly demonstrated problems with several of your moves (as I've done with the one in question here above). Many of your moves were in clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that there's no policy explicitly saying something is unacceptable doesn't mean it is fine. There's no policy saying I can't delete any article I want by moving it to my userspace and then applying WP:CSD#U1, but I would expect serious consequences if I tried that. Hut 8.5 07:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn although this is not to criticise the closer. I am completely unconvinced by arguments that a page would be properly deleted if it were in a different namespace and so I am sure that cross-namespace moves can be abusive. Hut has boldly suggested one abuse (which I have seen used) and there are several other ways of disappearing pages you don't like. I can see that many of Legacypac's moves have been helpful but this one was seriously harmful. Sadly, I think in future closers will have to inspect to see if such a move has been made before they delete - sometimes the page will need to be restored to its earlier place and relisted. I doubt whether WP:Move review would be effective for a deleted file - I expect they would kick the matter here. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, that's an end-run around process if ever I've seen one. Move back to userspace and MFD if desired. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturnand restore to draftspace. Out-of-process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and move back to user space (and, optionally, relist at MFD). I can't fault the close, since it reflects the discussion, but the whole thing is just wrong. As I've said before, I see no harm in leaving stale userspace drafts around forever. But, that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that moving a user draft to mainspace just so you can apply a different rule and delete it is gaming the system. And, to go back to the first issue, I really don't understand this war on user drafts. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play stupid wiki-lawyer games. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Some people, namely Ricky81682, assisted enthusiastically by Legacypac, want to clear the list of apparent abandoned drafts. Tens of thousands. This includes the admirable tasks of cleaning out NOTWEBHOST violations by noncontributors (CSD#U5), and moving mainspace worthy material to mainspace. The problem is their impatience with things in the middle, drafts with potential but not currently mainspace ready. MfD is not happy to delete them. Consensus is clear the WP:N is not a deletion reason in userspace. The case is not made that anything should be done with old userpages containing draft material with possible potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Inappropriate comment struck, withdrawn and collapsed. Apologies for the heated response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
-
-
-
-
- Someone asked for a quick history.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Were you, or were you not, working, within Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts as the biggest encourager, towards the elimination of the abandoned draft list, including userspace? Deletion of the crap, great, promotion of mainspace-ready stuff to mainspace, great. The problem was, and is, no allowance for the pages not in either group.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Have you not encouraged Legacypac in WP:GAMING, by suggesting WP:GAME strategies directly to him? "Enable" was a carefully chosen word, I consider it appropriate and accurate. Sorry you don't like it, but it effectively called out the behaviour, and subsequently the behaviour has changed. It is a nuanced word that does not necessarily imply actual wrong doing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- At MfD you are indeed special. Especially late 2015. In the WikiProject, you encouraged processing of the 50K list of pages to delete or promote, you were dong most of the MfD nominations, you were agitating against "no consensus" due to no participation defaulting to keep, and then you began indiscriminate relisting effectively pushing your agenda that MfD must deal with these borderline valuable drafts on your time scale. Relisting is a waste of time, messes up the review process, but at least the subsequent relisters don't have a background agenda. And I have dropped it because there was a much worse game afoot.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "nonsensical conspiracy theories about massively coordinated organized plans to destroy all of userspace"? There is a clear objective at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, with minimal coordination, to work down a list to eliminate all userpages of Wikipedians on long wikibreak. This is true, setting aside the diversion of the set of crap pages (agreed, a large set) and the set of pages worthy of immediate promotion. Since calling out this reckless WikiProject outcome, the behaviour has changed, borderline things are now being moved to DraftSpace.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The one exception to a pleasing change in behaviour is Legacypac refusing to admit that moving an unsuitable for mainspace page to mainspace to have it tested by the tougher requirements of AfD over MfD is not OK. That directly relates to this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment People keep saying they can't fault the close, but that is what we are here to review. We are not here to decide on deletion practices, we are not here to settle the underlying move/delete debate. We are here to decide if the closure was correct. So if you can't fault the close then don't overturn it. I will point out that the XfD mentioned the move, and there was still a consensus to delete it. Nobody was tricked into voting delete, it was clear as day in the nom. I expect this to be closed as overturn given the numbers, but I think it will be a reflection on an outside issue rather than an examination on how well consensus was measured. HighInBC 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Self-endorse but relist. After consideration of the above opinions, I think I should say explicitly that I'd endorse my own closure, purely on procedural grounds, because I don't see on which basis, consensus or policy, I could have closed the discussion differently. If we are of the view that moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with, then we'd need to clearly codify that as a policy or guideline, because only that would allow an administrator to override a "delete" consensus in circumstances such as this. If we don't do that, then this argument needs to be brought up in every AfD, and must convince the participants of the AfD, like every other argument for keeping or deleting.
But this is now in essence a new discussion on the merits about the "keep" argument that the prior move was improper. Because DRV isn't supposed to be AfD round two, that discussion should take place at AfD. Therefore I suggest relisting the discussion, which was in any case sparse and could benefit from additional input, and let a probable consensus to keep emerge from the proper forum. Sandstein 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- No opposition by me to relisting as suggested by Sandstein. HighInBC 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- AfD is the wrong venue. It belongs at MfD. What would be the right venue if someone moved an article to their user space and then deleted via U1? Are you claiming because that's not specifically prevented, it's okay? Hobit (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- At the same time, you can vote at AFD to userify the draft so why is that wrong? In MFD, we can vote to mainspace the draft. Why (a) overturn, (b) move and (c) relist when a relisting at AFD is the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, the option to re-userfy was available at AfD, but that is not the opinion that gained consensus. HighInBC 21:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- At the same time, you can vote at AFD to userify the draft so why is that wrong? In MFD, we can vote to mainspace the draft. Why (a) overturn, (b) move and (c) relist when a relisting at AFD is the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- AfD was the wrong venue. The move to mainspace was not OK. Yes, it could possibly be argued to be a matter within scope of WP:Move review, but as a WP:GAME directed at deletion, it is squarely within scope of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: if you self-endorse, does that mean you would act in an identical way if this situation recurred? If not, and considering your opinion above ("moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with"), what would you do differently? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Sandstein, but as an admin I could not have closed that AfD any other way. There was a clear consensus and those who participated were aware of the circumstances. To have closed it another way would have been disregarding consensus. HighInBC 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was hardly a clear consensus, if you look again at the AfD. Out of the two delete voters, Northamerica1000 and SwisterTwister they were clear that the content did not belong in mainspace, but they did not indicate in their reasoning that they knew the article had been moved to mainspace 3 minutes prior to the AfD being opened. The one editor who was aware, A2soup, commented appropriately and following that, I suggest, would have been the common sense route to closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Common sense does not work well in situations where people are split on how things should be done. When that is the case the common sense of an admin has the danger of becoming a super vote. The fact is people don't agree on this, therefore the sense isn't common. HighInBC 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was hardly a clear consensus, if you look again at the AfD. Out of the two delete voters, Northamerica1000 and SwisterTwister they were clear that the content did not belong in mainspace, but they did not indicate in their reasoning that they knew the article had been moved to mainspace 3 minutes prior to the AfD being opened. The one editor who was aware, A2soup, commented appropriately and following that, I suggest, would have been the common sense route to closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Sandstein, but as an admin I could not have closed that AfD any other way. There was a clear consensus and those who participated were aware of the circumstances. To have closed it another way would have been disregarding consensus. HighInBC 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment as others noted, there was no trickery here - the move was disclosed. If someone was unhappy with the move they had a whole week to participate in the AfD. This should not be AfD round 2. No policy based reasons have been given to overturn and no one thinks the content has any value. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Have you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? This comes to mind. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was hardly hidden. HighInBC 04:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Have you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? This comes to mind. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If Legacypac's actions are justifiable (by the result), then doesn't it mean that nominations to delete drafts should go to AfD all the time. The main advantages to this I immediately see is that [:Template:Find sources AFD] is always used, and the usually understanding that the deletion decision applies to the topic, not to the current state of the page, and that the decision is sort of final. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting points SmokeyJoe. MfD is good for clear cut cases that don't clearly fit a CSD. AfD might be better for borderline cases, especially since some editors refuse to consider N and V and even BLP at MfD. The world will not end if something borderline sits in mainspace for a week with a deletion discussion tag on it. More eyes at AfD and a pretty definitive result could be a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with not wanting to consider WP:N at MfD. Only a banned troll 166.x.x.x has been arguing WP:V is unimportant. Unverifiable topics are obviously bad drafts, WP:V is much easier to test than WP:N. Anyone arguing against applying WP:BLP at MfD has not read WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and return to original location per Hobit and others. User:Sandstein, you're really deserving of a trout for the reasoning... or lack of sufficiently nuanced reasoning. You've been around long enough; I know you know better. 1) We don't enumerate as prohibited every possible way to game the system per WP:BEANS. 2) Admins are expected to do the right thing absent specific policy guidance or previous community input on a matter. Legacypac's disruptive actions should have been stopped sooner and more forcefully by an admin willing to say "No, that's not a good faith reason for a move. Don't do it again." which could have--and likely should have--been you. So yes, this close does belong at DRV, because here is where we bring issues where the closer got it wrong, although this will have been the first time I think I've ever recommending overturning an AfD close because the closing admin failed to appropriately quash an attempt to game the deletion process via page move. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, I disagree. This is a dispute mainly about user conduct regarding an issue that has to my knowledge not yet been settled through community discussion and consensus. It's definitively beyond my pay grade as AfD closer to authoritatively resolve that issue by overriding a consensus to delete. Otherwise I'd be justifiably accused of casting a supervote. My job as closer is only to determine consensus based on weighing arguments in the light of existing policies and guidelines. And unless consensus to disallow such moves is codified in a policy or guideline, I'd have to close another discussion with the same distribution of opinions in the same way. Sandstein 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- To the extent the issue was about the user conduct, then yes, it was indeed not your job as AfD closer to weigh in on the nominator's user conduct. And yes, I agree if you'd closed it as "keep" and left it in mainspace that would have been an inappropriate supervote and you would have gotten flak for that. What I am saying, however, is that those were not the only two options: If you had decided to move it back to its draft location without a redirect, you would have honored the numerical consensus, which no one here disagrees with, that the article in its current state is not suitable for mainspace, while at the same point rebuking the mover/nominator for GAMEing the system. Note that moving the article to mainspace removed it from the NOINDEX protection, solely for the purpose of FORUMSHOPing a deletion discussion. If you think you don't have the authority to fix that as an admin, I suggest you go read WP:IAR again. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The afd close was correct on all counts. The article's unsuitable for mainspace, and condemning the move into mainspace doesn't mean we have to preemptively userfy it. If the original user or anybody else wants to try to salvage this, they can get a totally drama-free userfication or emailed copy at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the WP:REFUND suggestion. Look at this from the point of view of the user. They do some work here, leave the project for a while (perhaps years), and come back to find the work they started is gone. They're not going to know that WP:REFUND even exists. All they're going to know is what they left here is no longer here. I agree with the triage idea. Stale drafts can be divided into three broad catagories:
- Those that violate some core policy, such as being a copyvio, wp:blp, wp:notwebhost, etc. Those are actively harmful, and should be removed. I don't see anybody objecting to that.
- Those which can be improved to the point where they can be moved into mainspace. That's clearly a win, and should be encouraged.
- All the rest, which are the contentious ones. They may have little or no value, but they also do no harm. We've got two camps here. One camp emphasizes the little or no value part, and wants to delete them. The other camp (where I am), emphasizes the do no harm part, and wants to just let them be. Sadly, no wide consensus on this has emerged in either direction, so we continue to have battles about it. It's wasteful that so much effort is going into this battle; consensus building isn't always pretty or efficient. But, this idea of moving a user draft to mainspace so you can apply a different set of rules to it crosses the line. That's no longer engaging in honest debate, and that's what's got me worked up. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except in that 3rd case where people disagree we normally have a deletion discussion, like we did here. Then we close it based on the consensus found, like we did here. A consensus was reached but people disagree with it so we are having AfD #2 right here. Instead of looking at the validity of the close, we are instead rehashing arguments that should have been made at AfD. It bugs me when people don't pay attention to AfD then get upset at the results. HighInBC 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- If, against all odds, this deletion review ends up being closed as endorse, or (only a little more likely) it goes back to afd and gets deleted again instead of being userfied, it was my intention to leave a note on User talk:Abstractmindzent explaining how his draft got caught up in internal wikipoliticking and how to get it back. My point is, correcting the behavioral issues is a matter for the discussion at WP:ANI, where - as is par for the course there - nobody's commenting except those already party to the dispute and those who've taken only a very cursory look at its surface. Here at DRV, we have to be concerned about what's best for the article, and we don't userfy articles deleted at afd "just because", we do it when someone intends to improve them. Most of the comments above seem intended primarily to reprimand Legacypac and to reuserfy the article solely to spite him. That's not productive. —Cryptic 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I could not agree more. It seems like people are using whatever means to stop Legacypac rather than actually considering the content of the articles. The crap being defended here has no place on Wikipedia, the article will never meet our requirements and frankly I think politics are being put above the projects quality. There is a debate on the user talk policy page and that is the correct way to be advocating a position, not by trying to overturn a specific AfD in which everyone was aware of the situation. The recent ANI shows that there is no consensus this is against policy. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the WP:REFUND suggestion. Look at this from the point of view of the user. They do some work here, leave the project for a while (perhaps years), and come back to find the work they started is gone. They're not going to know that WP:REFUND even exists. All they're going to know is what they left here is no longer here. I agree with the triage idea. Stale drafts can be divided into three broad catagories:
-
-
-
- It's not a case of wanting to spite Legacypac, but of making clear to him that his tactic of doing an end-run around MfD by moving pages he wants deleted to mainspace where tighter conditions apply is gaming the system and not acceptable. He says above that he considers this "a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts"; if the page stays deleted, he will consider himself vindicated and his test successful and will carry on doing it. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Actually the extensive discussion at ANI has failed to find a consensus that it is inappropriate. You will also find at the user talk policy page there is a discussion where people are disagreeing with your interpretation too. Perhaps a consensus will form in this area but it has not yet. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Endorse Having just read the text, it's a glowing endorsement of an utterly non-notable individual, created by a user with exactly one (1) edit, to wit, the creation of this endorsement. Apart from WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTFACEBOOK and notability, this could easily be construed as a potential invasion of privacy and WP:BLP works in user-space, too and is not only applicable to the subject of the page, but also the people and bands who's names get not so casually dropped. (P.S. I don't give a rats ass about how it ended up here, but here it is.) Kleuske (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- To be honest, until just now, I hadn't even read the text of the original article. And, now that I have read it, I agree that it doesn't belong here, even in userspace. But, as several people have noted above, this isn't really about the article, it's about the process. This was set up as a test case of It's OK to move user drafts to main space in order to run them through the main space AfD process. If we endorse the AfD, we are endorsing the process, and that's what I don't want to do. It is valuable (and deliberate) that we have different standards for deleting things out of main space and user space. By endorsing this test, we would be removing that distinction. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except that there is no process or rule that says this cannot be done. When looked at specifically at ANI no consensus formed it was disruptive, right now discussion is taking place on the user talk policy page and there is disagreement about how to address this lack of policy. Endorsing an AfD does not endorse a process because we work on consensus not precedent. Processes get accepted through discussion on policy and guideline pages. HighInBC 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- When somebody specifically puts something forth as a test case for process, then yes, endorsing the outcome does endorse the process. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. This DRV will not settle this issue regardless of how it is closed. This is supposed to be a discussion about one deletion, not the process. The result with surely not be binding. HighInBC 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Where the rules are not clear, policy tends to get established by precedent. If this DRV returns the page to userspace, the result of his "test case" should be clear to Legacypac: the route to deletion he wanted to use is not available. I would hope he would not then try it again, but if he did the resulting debate should be a good deal shorter than this one. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think you will find that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS makes it cleat that this tiny little DRV is not going to settle a major policy debate. This is already being discussed at the relevant policy talk page, and I find the rehashing of it here to be redundant. If you really want to influence policy then the policy page is the place to do it, not at DRV. This is supposed to be about the merit of the close. HighInBC 03:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: WP:STALEDRAFT describes how inactive drafts in the userspace should be handled. Unless you think the content was suitable for the mainspace (which would justify the move), it says "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion" pointing to MfD. Is there a reason those rules from that guideline do not apply to this situation?—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That guideline is doing exactly what it is supposed to, giving guidance. It is not an exhaustive list of all acceptable ways of going about business and it never claims to be. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Nowhere does it prohibit other activity, nor does it claim to be the only way of doing things. It is not policy, it is a guideline. People are allowed to be bold and find other ways to improve the project. Perhaps instead of using the guideline as a limit, we should be adding this new idea to it. HighInBC 03:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist at MfD after moving it back to its original location. ~ RobTalk 17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's three steps essentially: (a) overturn AFD; (b) move back to userspace and (c) relist at MFD. Is there a reason why we couldn't just do this via another AFD? People do vote in AFD to draftify or userfiy and that can just be stated in the discussion to give a complete history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because relisting this at AfD would be endorsing the gamesmanship behind its being listed there in the first place.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. As RoySmith says above, we intentionally have different standards at AfD for deleting mainspace articles and at MfD for deleting userspace drafts. LP's game is to try to get AfD standards applied to things he can't get deleted at MfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes but you could argue to userify at AFD. The standard isn't deletion then. It's a different crowd of editors but the policies don't differ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notably, this is how A2soup did vote in the original discussion. Was that treated as wrong? Is there any reason other people couldn't do the same thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes but you could argue to userify at AFD. The standard isn't deletion then. It's a different crowd of editors but the policies don't differ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's three steps essentially: (a) overturn AFD; (b) move back to userspace and (c) relist at MFD. Is there a reason why we couldn't just do this via another AFD? People do vote in AFD to draftify or userfiy and that can just be stated in the discussion to give a complete history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There is no GAME by me here and I did not even have to IAR. JohnCD (by trying to create a policy against such moves) has proved there is no policy or rule I broke. The never ending accusations at ANi have failed to show this move was forbidden. All we have is opinion that some people don't think it is a good idea and others see no problem with it.
Every current rule and process on the site was created or modified by someone trying something and starting a discussion. I was only trying out a potentially innovative solution to the issue that a handful of editors were voting Keep on absolute crap that it became pointless to send crap to MfD (due to low participation). AfD participation is much higher and harder to GAME. Maybe MfD is too much of a backwater and is too easy to manipulate so should be merged back into AfD?
WP:STALEDRAFT gives a range of options that each require discretion, and the options are not exclusive to those listed. "If X condition is met do Y" does not necessarily mean "If X condition is not met don't do Y+Z" The argument against a Move to Main+AfD boils down to "It's not in the guidelines" Well, go search the guidelines for something that even recommends a third editor request restoration of a junk deleted article back to userspace that they have no intention of working on (like this DRV). There is also no rule or guideline that says that Godsy should move pages on notable topics from mainspace to the userspace of long gone users instead of improving the articles, only to spite me (he could care less about the thousands of other unsourced articles in Wikipedia).
When an action is not specifically forbidden, we should ask if it helps the encyclopedia or not. We are here to help people, not host junk or give people a space to promote themselves. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Textbook wikilawyering. I reverted your inappropriate moves of content clearly not suitable for the mainspace per BRD.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- For a policy against what you are doing, see WP:FORUMSHOP: "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Textbook wikilawyering. I reverted your inappropriate moves of content clearly not suitable for the mainspace per BRD.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really care about what procedure we use in the end. It is clear that we do not need this page, it is clear that its author did not stick around, and that it is not a live draft that needs to be kept around indefinitely. It is also clear that it was causing little or no harm in its original location. Blanking would probably have sufficed, but now that we are here, I suggest we continue abusing process and delete as WP:CSD#U5. Note that I oppose moving back to user space before deleting. —Kusma (t·c) 15:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and return to draft or userspace, without prejudice to a future MfD. Or just blank it and leave a courtesy note for the user. This whole debacle was caused by the disruptive actions of one user trying to game the deletion policies. Minor trout awarded to the AfD closer for not applying some common sense and administrator discretion, which could have resolved this much less painfully. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- When people are divided on an issue like this then what you call common sense I call a super vote. The ANI discussion shows no consensus that this is gaming or disruptive, the policy talk page shows plenty of disagreement about how we should fill this lack of policy. It is hardly the place of a closing admin to take sides like that. For there to be common sense the sense must be common, when people disagree about something and then it ceases to be common sense and becomes taking a side. HighInBC 15:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment a relevant RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. See particularly item B3 which is directly relevant to the issues raised here. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore to userspace, without prejudice against a subsequent MfD discussion. Admonish Legacypac that this was a violation of WP:GAME and that a repetition will bring consequences. DES (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: This happened at least twice, User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell (log) → Richard d'Anjolell, deletion nomination, restoration per User talk:Malcolmxl5#Richard d'Anjolell.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore to userspace. There is an appropriate notability related argument to use at MfD, which is that nobody is ever going to be likely to improve the article enough to pass AfD. If people agree, the draft can be deleted; if people don't. it remains. Even for G13 I am not really comfortable deleting unless I can also say something like: "and not likely to be improved" and I will adopt anything I think I can possibly rescue and work on it from time to time. There's a significant gap in our search system: people who might want to write an article cannot easily search to see if one has been deleted by G13 and can therefore be restored on request in order to be improved. While this remains the case, the bias should always be in the direction of retaining drafts, not deleting them. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Restore, I think is the phrasing I would prefer. "Overturn" has a whiff of disapproval about it which I don't think is appropriate here. The closer made no procedural error that I can point to, but as a result of an unusual sequence of events the process was circumvented in this case. Restoration gives us certainty that it will be followed.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
3 April 2016
User:Mauriciol1991
- User:Mauriciol1991 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Deleted by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G2 (Test pages), which "does not apply to pages in the user namespace"; upon pointing this out, it was restored and immediately re-deleted under WP:CSD#G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), which again does not apply as the page was not "exclusively promotional". Attempts to discuss the matter were not concluded to my satisfaction, see this thread. Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. I don't understand this at all. Unambiguous advertising or promotion?? Tempundeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I too am having a difficult time seeing that page as promotional at all, let alone exclusively so. Even the external links in the history look innocuous. —Cryptic 22:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn The content is nonsense, but since WP:G2 doesn't apply to user pages, I say restore it and blank it. It's not problematic enough to delete. clpo13(talk) 22:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. I'm at a loss as to why this editor's user page was ever targeted in the first place. I find Anthony Bradbury's responses to Redrose64 baffling, to say nothing of inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn. Not a G2, not a G11. Remind Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs) to follow WP:CSD more carefully. The talk page thread is below standard for an administrator. Admins are not the ruling class.
- Looking at the user history, I see the user's tests elsewhere have been G2-ed. So the user is using userspace. That is good, userspace is for testing. However, the main userpage is not the best place, move the page to a usersubpage (eg User:Mauriciol1991/sandbox) and encourage the user to consider testing there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn per above. We are seeing a lot of admins just ignoring the rules of CSD. Anyone know if we are just seeing more reports or if more admins are just thumbing their nose at the rules? Hobit (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, it meets G2 in every respect except that it's in user space, so that was an understandable error to make. To be honest, I'm not sure how the project is improved by the existence of this user page, and everyone involved should be trouted for process wonkery, but I don't see how it's a valid G11. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
-
- The project is improved by this because an editor (a valuable commodity which is in short supply these days) has learned something about how our arcane software works and is thus better able to edit content. On the flip side, the project is worse off by its removal because said editor is likely to be pissed off or discouraged, and stop editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If it were a sandbox page, then sure. But once the test page has been created, any value is more or less obtained. This user should be educated on a way to create edit test that do not lead to a malformed user page (something it seems that nobody has had time to do here), rather than starting a process with a whole bunch of arcane rules lawyering over their digital litter. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
-
- In what way does this editor having this page in user space cause problems for anyone? How does deleting help it? Roy gave what I think is a pretty strong reason to keep it (why annoy an editor? Maybe he's planning on looking at that as an example of _something_ later). Hobit (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The project was directly improved by this page, as shown by the user's subsequent edits to Template:Infobox Cantones CR, Vásquez de Coronado (canton), San José (canton), and Escazú (canton). Deleting his notes out from under him, especially with a log entry that screams "you were acting in bad faith!", is a rotten way to treat a volunteer. —Cryptic 14:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, users are allowed considerable latitude in userspace. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect for SmokeyJoe, whose opinion is always well worth reading, DRV is not the place to issue any kind of "warnings" to sysops. That's not a remedy that we have available to us here. We can correct errors in the deletion process, but anything that smacks of disciplinary measures belongs somewhere else and rightly so. Nevertheless, I think what we're looking for now is some indication that the deleting sysop is receiving the message loud and clear.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you S Marshall, but I disagree and maintain that in a review process the reviewers have this latitude. There is here an uncontested case that the letter of the CSD criterion was not respected. The deleting admin's attention to detail is part of the deletion process. Trouts, minnows, whales and warnings, as well advice, congratulations and encouragement are entirely within the purview of the closer to conclude if it reflects the consensus of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn it certainly wasn't hurting the encyclopedia, and it was in userspace. I see no problems. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 04:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I do not see consensus for merge and redirect; the discussion was closed by a non-administrator who did not bother to give any explanations. Not a valid close.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
What is with the personal attacks again? Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- @RoySmith: I accept the trout, and feel free to remove my !vote if you think it wasn't allowable during a close, but I don't think you should be bringing up whatever I wrote on my user page about my expertise or lack thereof, just because I failed to remember that I am no longer in CET (UTC+1) but in CEST (UTC+2) due to recent introduction of daylight savings. I'm sure there are systems programmers who have committed graver sins. LjL (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent discussions
31 March 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a non-admin closer and all the instructions are to discuss this with the closing admin but it wasn't closed by an administrator. Further, the non-admin closed an extremely contentious discussion about a seven year old single sentence draft. The closing remarks stated that "it is identical circumstances to several others nominated the same day, that all ended in the same result" and thus the basis of the close was not the actual discussion within it but these allegedly other nominated discussions that resulted in the same way. Note that they all closed by the same way because the same non-admin closed all the discussions the same way that day (here is 1, 2, 3, and 4) but only this one contains the fact that the basis for closure was the other discussions. Of the !votes there, we have three people supporting outright deletion, one IP saying keep citing the nonsense of WP:AGF, one who states "blank and redirect" without further discussion and finally Fagles' lengthy diatribe citing his personal opinion that "standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace" is to redirect when there is no connected history (which is a false assertion of current policy and then is quoting the "don't clean up" language from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter added here without any discussion and which is not a policy). SmokeyJoe doesn't actually vote but is arguing about the technicality that WP:UP#COPIES doesn't apply because it's not actually a copy of a mainspace article since it's not a verbatim copyright infringement so it shouldn't be deleted, a policy that was entirely created by SmokeyJoe at WP:UP with so much edit warring to make it "policy" that the page is now protected. There's numerous discussions along the same line and I think having an admin close these discussions is a bare minimum here. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The content survived both an AfD and a MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp. WP:CSD#U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions. Process is important. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Creative professional: http://www.tonymcgee.co.uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/dance/3557796/Tony-McGee-Diva-boot-camp.html http://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/london-fashion-show-60-years-of-fashion-photography/ http://www.creativeboom.com/photography/fashion-show-60-years-of-fashion-photography-in-the-making/ http://www.atlasgallery.com/atlas.php http://www.amazon.co.uk/Swans-1-Dream-Tony-McGee/dp/0957380100/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355824944&sr=8-2 http://www.winnicott.org.uk/beautiful-book-by-leading-photographer-tony-mcgee-benefits-the-the-winnicott-foundation http://everything.explained.today/Anthony_McGee/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.30.116 (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Great, thank you - I will make sure any links in the page are up to date and relate to primary sources. What is the next step for the page to be reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.30.116 (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
30 March 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn The article was listed AfD at 17.40 on 23rd March. This was done by –Davey2010Talk in response to an ask by CDRL102. By 18.46 on the same day the discussion had been closed with a Userfied result after contributions from only these two. The admin moved what still existed to CDRL102's userspace and therefore Clarawood itself became a target for speedy deletion which then happened at 2.54 on 25th March by Malcolmxl5. As the creator of the article I therefore had no opportunity to discuss the assertions of those involved. I have already raised the issue with Malcolmx15 with no result. WP:AFD states the following "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus". It also states "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies". Neither of these happened in the case of Clarawood. It also states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Again such a procedure did not happen in the case of Clarawood and my comments on talk pages were ignored, with some disdain and assertion rather than evidence I must add. The editor who nominatd for AfD went as far as to delete talk comments of mine. It must also be noted that the editor who started things with a huge sweeping edit and assertions that the article was unreferenced has a history of unnecessary and unwelcome edits which are reversed according to their talk page. In short I am convinced proper procedure was not followed, that the article was not in the state it was asserted to be in (ie non notable, unreferenced and biased trivia), that there was no opportunity to discuss the issues in a constructive way (it was gone before I even knew it was listed AfD) and as previously requested from the closing admin I would like Clarawood returned to the state it was in at 21.21 on 22nd March. I am prepared to expand on the General References quoted though this could be quite lengthy and I recall reading somewhere in the guidelines that in cases of multiple citations and attributions a general reference is more practical. I have absolutely no doubt as to the notability of the subject. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Also for all, See User:CDRL102/Clarawood for the article in it's current form and its edit history. CDRL102 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
As far as I can see this was a clear no consensus result and not a delete result. It also seems like a rather perverse and controversial closing decision, as articles on verified secondary schools are invariably kept (and the closer himself noted that he was sure that it would be taken to DRV). Much has been made of the fact that the keepers have mentioned a consensus to keep secondary school articles and/or pointed to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It has been claimed that this is not a valid argument. What those opposing this do not seem to realise (although it has been pointed out to them) is that citing this essay is not suggesting it is a policy or even a guideline. It is merely shorthand for pointing out that a consensus to keep verified secondary schools exists and has existed for a number of years. Barely a single article on a verified secondary school has been deleted in years. I see no reason to make an exception for this one, especially when there was certainly no consensus to delete it. Whatever policy or guidelines may say, it is a fact that certain categories of articles are generally kept (e.g. recognised settlements, members of national and sub-national legislatures, railway stations) because a consensus to keep them all exists. Secondary schools also fall into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 March 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was originally deleted because the person the article was about was not notable enough. Since the original deletion, a new article was rewritten with additional content and additional sources, but was still speedily deleted (and redirected) for WP:G4. Petersen has since gained more notability and gained support as shown by primary election results. He is also going to appear in a nationally televised debate with two other top contenders for the Libertarian Party nomination, which was sourced in the newly rewritten article that was speedily deleted. This demonstrates his viability to be a serious contender for the party nomination, and thus a notable public figure. Comparing the last revision of the old article with the newly rewritten article, I don't feel like these are "substantially identical" to justify a speedy deletion of the new article. --Hamez0 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Archive
2016 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2015 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2014 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2013 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2012 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2011 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2010 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2009 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2008 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2007 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2006 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
|