Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 20 October 2005 (→Header wording "Process not content"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: 1 2 3

Proposal

Per the above, and per several discussions on talk pages, it seems like a good idea to formalize the following:

• (1) If an admin's closing of a deletion debate is disputed, the matter should be taken here, regardless of whether the disputed decision was to keep or to delete.
• If the outcome was one of the following: keep, merge or redirect, and you think it should be one of the others, just be bold and {{sofixit}}, that doesn't require more debate. It's okay to add a note to the VFD debate that the article is merged now. It's also okay to omit that.
• (2) This process page should deal with the technical matter of whether a closing was done properly (as it mostly does now) and should be renamed to reflect that. Proposed name is "Deletion review".
• (3) If something is being discussed on this page, especially if it turns out somewhat controversial, then this process should not be bypassed by starting a similar discussion on other process pages, such as VFD.
• (4) If a deletion debate has shown consensus to delete something, then no admin should unilaterally undelete it. That's what this process is for.
• (5) If something is speedily deleted, or deleted as an apparent mistake or flaw in process, and an admin wishes to undelete it, he should either notify the person who deleted it as a matter of courtesy, or discuss it here.
• (6) Obvious exception - if a new article is written on any subject, then a history undeletion is no big deal and should not require discussion here.

Please don't just yell 'instruction creep', what I'm saying here seems like common sense (and of course is open to discussion) and has been the subject of some recent controversies. No harm in writing it down. Radiant_>|< 09:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would add the following points in some form or another

• (7) If the closing admin determined that a deletion debate has not shown consensus to delete something, no admin should unilaterally delete it.
• (8) The closing admin may overturn his or her own decision if s/he discovers that he blundered while closing the debate. For example if a vandal altered all the "delete" votes to "keep" votes and the closer failed to notice that, the closer may reverse the decision. No other administrator should do this.
• (9) If a non-admin's closing of a deletion debate is disputed, the debate may be reopened or overturned without a discussion.
• (10) If a debate was closed as a "keep" before the five day lag-time was up, the debate may be reopened without a discussion.

I would also note the first point presented does not rule out the option of putting up a second VFD debate instead, and that this is a better option if a better reason to delete is presented. For example, if someone nominated an article on the Norwegian El 19 locomotive for deletion with the reason "We don't need articles about every locomotive class" and is shouted down by twenty voters saying "yes we do", the place to point out that the El 19 doesn't exist is a second VFD debate.

Another question: Currently, we usually need a simple majority to overturn a disputed deletion, but what would be needed to overturn a disputed "keep" result? About 50%, about 75% or what? I don't think that we should leave it at 50% because that would mean that a simple majority could get an article deleted, while a rough consenus is what should be required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good points all. More common sense, but it never hurts to write that down. Regarding your last point...
  • If an article was closed as keep, then
    • 1. if you believe the admin made a mistake (e.g. missed a sockpuppet) and it should actually be deleted, then either discuss it with that admin or take it here.
      2. if you have found a new reason for deleting the article (e.g. the locomotive you mentioned doesn't actually exist), then take it to VFD again.
• Regarding your question. We should under all circumstances avoid this process being about content. Votes like "delete - not notable" here should be summarily ignored. The question is whether the earlier made decision was in fact supported by consensus.
• Which also brings up the question - under what circumstances should an article processed here be thrown back onto VFD? Currently they generally go back as "procedural" but that seems needlessly bureaucratic. If the decision here is that a previous VFD discussion was valid, there's no point in discussing it again. Radiant_>|< 10:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that votes like "Overturn the debate and delete, subject is not notable." should(?) be ignored. Only trouble is that the ones who know the process will know that such a vote will be ignored, and instead write "Overturn the debate and delete. Administrator ignored a clear majority.", even if that is not necessarily the real reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That is true, and it's gaming the system, and unfortunately I can't offhandedly think of a non-instruction-creepish way to fix it that won't allow some other way of gaming it. I'm afraid that occasionally we will have an unfixable mess about deletion (qv GNAA) - regardless of how we word it. Radiant_>|< 11:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I support the concept. VfU can be productively turned into a more formalized appeal process that works for contested decisions in both directions. We might still want to tweak some of the wording. For ease of discussion while we work on the proposal, I'm adding hard-coded numbers to the bullets.

• The wording of bullet 4 could be misinterpreted or deliberately abused since it doesn't specify who got to make the closing decision. I recommend rewording it to parallel the wording of bullet 7. We also need to include the existing caveat that an "out-of-process" deletion may be summarily reverted and does not require discussion.
• Bullet 5 is a courtesy and a good practice but also smells instruction-creepish. Would the policy be significantly worse without that particular bullet? Could we enshrine the practice in some other way?
• Move bullet 7 up under bullet 4.
• In bullet 9, add "..the debate may be reopened by an admin without ..."
• In bullet 10, I would remove the "as keep" clause. Any prematurely closed decision should be able to be reopened whether keep or delete.

Great draft. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding your comment on point 10, the reason I said "as keep" is to take into account that some debates are validly closed as a "speedy delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 4 Reworded. 5, well, possibly - but a certain person has recently been claiming that speedy-deletes can be unilaterally undone. I'd say we can combine points 9 and 10, and 10 should be reworded from "as keep" to "other than by CSD" Radiant_>|< 14:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• I like all the above with the following alterations:
  • (7) If the closing admin determined that a deletion debate has not shown consensus to delete something, no admin should unilaterally delete it but may bring it to Deletion Review for review.
  • (8) The closing admin may overturn his or her own decision if s/he discovers that he blundered while closing the debate. For example if a vandal altered all the "delete" votes to "keep" votes and the closer failed to notice that, the closer may reverse the decision. No other administrator should do this but may bring it to Deletion Review for review.
• Without this option an admin can unilaterally delete an article with all "keep" votes. - Tεxτurε 14:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Does any of these make it clear that Deletion Review would also be to review kept articles despite all "delete" votes? It should be made plain. - Tεxτurε 14:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the first point ("(1) If an admin's closing of a deletion debate is disputed, the matter should be taken here, regardless of whether the disputed decision was to keep or to delete.") Radiant_>|< 14:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think probably all the points above are instruction creep, with all the attendant downsides. It will likely turn out to be impossible to abide by them at all times. Kim Bruning 14:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you been following the recent controversies on VFU and VFD? It is entirely unclear by current policies whether a closing of a VFD may be disputed in the first place, let alone how to do it. Some people even think VFU may be circumvented by anyone who doesn't like the consensus formed there. Give me one rule that is possible to abide by at all times. Radiant_>|< 14:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is probably because the fundamental weaknesses of the current deletion process are starting to become more and more apparent as the load on it increses. This has been predicted over and over and over for over a year now. The solution is probably not to keep adding more rules. It'll work for a little while, but every rule you add also adds a possibility of abuse. With this approach, at some point the system will fail catastrophically.

I'm not saying I oppose at this point in time, but realize for yourself that this is a temporary fix. DO make the fix, but DO also work on a long term fix at the same time. Kim Bruning 15:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• meatball:CommunityMayNotScale, something like that? You are absolutely right. Maybe XD will help though, but it only seems to work for uncontroversial things. Radiant_>|< 15:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

(Was editing my comment but got edit confliced...)

I am worried about the word unilateral creeping in everywhre. It should be defined or dropped. It appears to be synonymous with WP:BOLD? In that case, check and/or modify WP:BOLD first.

Finally, if people continue to instruction creepize and unilateralize, we're going to have to set up a separate wikipedia:special circumstances with an explicit licence to ignore all these new rules. Kim Bruning 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fewer words!

Good proposal. Too many sentences. Not instruction creep if written right, as it's just a change of scope. I share Kim Bruning's concern that each new rule is a new battleground for the future. How about:

1. Deletion review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:
   • They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question;
   • The action in question was so clearly out-of-process that it would be reasonable to expect a near-unanimous vote here. They should, as a courtesy, inform the editor whose action they are reversing.
   • In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
   • An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above.
2. Significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. If you can simply write a new article, be WP:BOLD and do so!

• If a deletion debate was closed with a non-delete result early and an editor thinks there is non-bureaucratic value in re-opening it, they may do so.
• This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process not content.

That says it all, I think.-Splash 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the simplicity but feel it needs something regarding restricting admins. This approach does not change the current problems between admins and while this does say that it applies to "all" editors it does not indicate that admins should use this method instead of, dare I say it, unilateral boldness against the consensus and process. - Tεxτurε 18:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid the "u" word, although I am familiar with the fact that some recent troubles stem from it. It does use the words "all" and "any", however, so there's not much wriggle room. I added an explicit mention of admins. I think the wriggles will come from the second "unless" — that may need phrasing more tightly. -Splash 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good rewrite.
  1. Do we need a clause to state the obviosity that "converting a keep to a merge or back does not require any vote"?

     Plainly; given the recent complaints that articles were kept and not merged. Septentrionalis 18:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  2. Maybe add to the first line "instead of other processes"? Might also be redundant though.
  3. I believe Sjakkalle recommended that an admin should be able to automatically overturn a closing by a non-admin, and that a non-involved person should be able to automatically overturn a closing by a person involved in the vote. Necessary or creep?

     The first is creep. Since a non-admin is only authorized to close consensus keep/merge/redirect, any other pretended closure should be overturned anyway. The second is necessary; and closure by an involved person should be expressly deprecated. Septentrionalis 18:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  4. I think we should drop the second "unless". It's quite possible that an admin will expect a unanimous vote here and be dead wrong.
• Overall, it's very good, I'm just bringing up some details, which may be very creepish so I won't mention them again unless anyone concurs. Radiant_>|< 10:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Does the "clearly out-of-process" clause actually add anything to the proposal, other than the potential for abuse? What problem is it trying to solve? Hopefully "clearly out-of-process" happens so rarely that there's no harm in letting the community help make that decision on VfU. We need to be able to trust our admins, but more importantly, the admins needs to be able to trust the consensus process. If there is an admin who continually makes unreasonable out of process deletions, well, the solution is to use our dispute resolution process to reach a satisfactory conclusion, not to cut corners elsewhere. Nandesuka 11:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, a lot of undeletions in the Deletion Log use the words "revert - out of process". I've not done a statistical review to see how many of them were justified. I know that my own anecdotal evidence suggests that it's not a trivial number. The most common example I can think of are "speedy deletes" which clearly fail to meet any of the speedy-delete cases. However, my anecdotes are old. I haven't patrolled that page since the speedy case list was last expanded. Rossami (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but no. You cannot enter a summary for undeleting anything (unfortunately). However, a quick count gives about one undeletion per 100 deletions in the log. Seems like there aren't that many improper speedies. Radiant_>|< 14:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

      (Interesting. You're right that it couldn't have been in the Deletion Log. But I'm sure I've seen that explanation made for more than a few undeletions. Now I'm wondering where I did see that... Time to do some more digging. Rossami (talk))

      • Or it could just mean your average admin is too crotchety and set in their ways to admit they were wrong. Agriculture 14:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
        • While I'm sure that some admins are, I know several admins that are more than eager to prove other admins wrong. Speedies are generally undone by someone else. Radiant_>|< 14:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, let's say that there were more improper speedies than there actually are. Isn't that an argument that the admins who are improperly speedying need to be brought into line with the community consensus? It seems to me that discussing those speedies on VfU (and proceeding to RfC if that doesn't "help", although hopefully that won't be necessary) is a "better" outcome, because that creates dialogue where the admin can get feedback from the community explaining why she or he was wrong, rather than it just becoming an edit war or personality conflict between two strong-willed admins.Nandesuka 14:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. We could then have a page with precedent about what is and is not a good example of a speedy. Radiant_>|< 14:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, there is evident concern that this is still too stretchy. I think admins need to have a little bit of stretch room, however. One situation I was trying to avoid with the "clearly out-of-process" clause was the Garrett thing: some of his earliest deletions were way out of line, and to make those all go through VfU (as well as AN/I and his talk page) would just have been a bit silly. NOT:a bureaucracy blah blah. To Radiant!'s points:

1. I'm not sure we do. It's something that any user can do at anytime, whether we write it in here or not. A new user could do it in blissful ignorance of the VfD closed 1 minute ago.
2. Yes, ok.
3. Misplaced Pages:Deletion process already says the first bit of that and they can't delete articles anyway so the collateral damage is small. To allow the second...well...it would mean that VfU-ing a VfD could be circumvented by almost all admins — just as it currently can be.
4. Ok. Let's try something else. It would also allow for the wide-eyed innocence approach: "dang!, I got it wrong again, huh?".

I made some changes to the original draft, along these lines (use the diff). The thing about AN/I — would people just prefer no such clause at all?

-Splash 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The AN/I thing reads better to me, because it makes clear that the guiding principle is community consensus rather than "I, the Lone Gun Admin, am all that stands between the people of Misplaced Pages and Anarchy." Nandesuka 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Given a current discussion on the main page, I think we might think about reviving this discussion. It would help greatly to have clarity one way or another. <prods watchlists>.

Naming

If this page is to be renamed, I find Deletion review cumbersome; and easy to confuse with "Deletion Reform".

I much prefer the straightforward Undeletion. Septentrionalis 18:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How about Deletion reconsideration or Deletions up for reconsideration? This seems to be a more apt description of what is happening on the page. NoSeptember 15:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the...

I've removed some material from the main page. If someone thinks it should go back, do that of course.
brenneman 23:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

CSD A7 clarification proposal

CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal here. At Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particualrly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES 00:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The scope of VfU

A couple of sections up, in #Proposal and then #Fewer words! there was a formative proposal about extending the scope of VfU to review the outcome of all deletion processes whether resulting in deletion or some other action. Given the current discussion on VfU, we should revive that discussion and complete it.

Originally, a rather convoluted, creepy offer was on the table which was simplified and received some support. The then-current draft of the new scope of VfU was:

This sounds ok to me, but it would since I wrote it. If we can generate some discussion and some consensus here, then perhaps admins fighting over AfD closures might come to an end. -Splash 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Simple has my vote. KISS - Tεxτurε 22:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme lesbian support! --Phroziac 22:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose scope creep. Disputed cases of A7 should be taken to Afd, as per Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead". What is the VfU supposed to do in this case, evaluate if there is a claim or not? So what... let Afd decide if the topic is really worth an article. Kappa 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I hadn't noticed the A7 heading just above; this isn't related to A7 particularly at all. Specifically, the discussion surrounding Harry Potter trolling made me try this again. It's only intended to prevent the recent wheel warring by bringing within-scope all outcomes of deletion processes rather than just deletes. -Splash 22:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's not about speedy deletions, leave that out of the proposal. 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It is about speedies, just not A7 specifically. We should try to stem the recent fights between disagreeing admins by giving them very strong recommendations that they ask the community to make a decision in a deliberative process. -Splash 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Afd is a deliberative process where those who believe the article has merit have the possibilty of improving it to answer the objects of those who feel it should be deleted. Kappa 00:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The "debate it where we can all see it" argument is a good one. My concern with it is that it requires a summary overruling of one admin's decision by another: and will likely result in a further overruling by either the first admin, or a friend thereof. Debates on AfD are not presently completely sacrosanct for 5 days if it's a blatant speedy. By insisting that the undelete come to DR/VfU the war is nipped in the bud before it begins. The provision for "most extreme" circumstances allows an expedited way to fix major mess ups but only once the community has nodded — again there is not the summary reversal required to take it straight to AfD. Although I'm still thinking about this point. -Splash 00:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I would support this. Please make it clear that VfU is to be renamed to DR as part of this change. I also suggest announcing this proposal fairly widely so that consensus will be clear. Note this is not so much for disputed cases of A7 as for process disputes on AFD or xFD when the decision is soemthing other than delete, in my view. DES 22:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, although it obviously wouldn't preclude a delete outcome being brought here too if that were out of process (e.g. the one on the main page at the moment). -Splash 22:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think David raises a very important point that should be clarified. The proposal specifically says "the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion..." So shouldn't an A7 that someone disputes be brought here? That is in fact the current practice as I understand it, except in those instances when there is an independent undeletion by a sysop or higher, no?—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  23:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Short answer is: yes. Long answer is compulsorily if you're not an admin and you can't find an admin to do the job and very optionally if you are an admin. The reason for including speedies is to level that playing field and put an end to a string of recent fights over speedy-unspeedy-respeedy-unspeedy-afd-ani-vfu-talk-yadda. Anyone wants to undelete an article that is not a "most extreme" mistake should bring it here. Imo, anyway. -Splash 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. I think it should also be noted that there's absolutely nothing here that stops anyone from re-writing a new, substantially better article— it merely keeps (almost always) extremely poor articles off WP while a valid community decision is being made via DR.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  00:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support sounds like scope creep and a lot of extra work... yet still a good idea Splash :) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Well, there are very few challenges as it stands both on keeps and deletes so it shouldn't make much extra work. -Splash 22:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• 2 problems I see two problems with the wording above: (1) It doesn't make clear that VfU (or whatever it's to be called) is about resolving issues with the process of obtaining & interpreting consensus, it isn't a place to form new consensus. In other words, if a AfD debate produces clear consensus to delete an article, that should not be challenged on VfU. RESOLVED. (2) The final sentence practically begs editors to re-create deleted articles, which is a waste of time because re-creations generally get deleted too unless substantial new notability is present. I don't see any problem with users interested in re-creating articles to raise the issue on VfU first... it would provide a measure of consensus before the editor creates the new article, as well as protecting it from immediate re-deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How would a newbie editor know their soon-to-be article had been previously deleted? (Apart from the new link to the history implying it had been.) They wouldn't know the existence of VfU, let alone that they should use it in preference to the edit and save buttons. Perhaps we should rephrase the final sentence to some other form? -Splash 22:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah, the VfU wording isn't going to make a lot of difference for users who aren't aware of VfU, but the wording as-is practically commands them to re-create deleted articles ("be WP:BOLD and do so!") when in reality that's something that should only be done in certain cases. Since we're on the topic, I do think that the "no article by that name exists yet" page should mention whether a page by that name was deleted (and link to its AfD), which would possibly cut down on re-creations, but that's a whole different topic. I'd say that "be WP:BOLD and do so!" line definitely needs a rewrite, or even a removal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Now that I fixed my grammar, I realize that it is actually redundant dressing to the words. How about it is simply removed? We don't need the exhortation, since they already have edit, save and the rest. -Splash 00:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I do apologise, I missed a sentence out about process-not-content in my copy paste from up above. I have added it now. -Splash 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Much better, thank you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent work by all the editors involved (Splash, Sjakkalle, Rossami, Radiant et al).

1. Splash, would it make sense to replace "editors, including administrators" with "Users"? There is currently a plausible loophole for someone to claim "Well, I'm a Bureaucrat, so this doesn't apply to me."

   Hmm, well, bureaucrats are admins are editors both. There were suggestions at the time that VfU was only for non-admins to request undeletions and that admins could just do it. In fact, this was the cause of the original discussion. Explicitly placing admins within scope is important in that respect. -Splash 23:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

2. This is minor, but what are the exceptional circumstances referred to in 1.2? Can a simple clarifying remark be written about this? I can forsee editors who are so inclined (ab)using this provision to take almost everything to AN/I.

   After a recent RfA the new admin made a number of considerably out-of-process speedies; a number of them were summarily undeleted during a discussion on AN/I (and their talk page...). We should not hem our admins in completely. I would hope that the extreme phrasing and the result being rapid correctional action means those on AN/I would normally just send the complainant to deletion review. I will try to think of a clarifying sentence, but I'm struggling at the moment. -Splash 23:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Sentence 2 (Significant new information has come to light...) seems to be hanging. Is it meant to mean: "Deletion review is also used when significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the..." Should the next sentence begin "However, if you can simply..."?

   I have grammar my fixed. -Splash 23:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

4. In the very last line, add comma after process.

• The proposal is beautiful, and I would strongly support this or a closely related version.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 
• Question: Someone makes an article about a notable person, but fails to claim notability. It gets speedy deleted. They read the rules, and figure out they have to say "noted game designer" not just "game designer". Now they have to go through VfU, then Afd, just because they didn't know they about a[REDACTED] idiosyncrasy? Kappa 22:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In practice, I don't think a second article with an actual claim of notability would be speedied (of course, claiming notability means more than just slapping "notable" on something though). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • One solution would be for them to recreate the article and immediately place it on AFD, as this appears to be the express procedure for disputing an A7 speedy deletion. I presume it couldn't then be speedied under A7 again. Otherwise I support this amendment to the header of VFU, and the name change, although in all such situations it is preferable to work it out between the involved parties rather than bringing it here. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Uhm, "game designer" IS a an assertion of notability... This criterion is for things like Sam Toupin. Playing DDR is not an assertion of notability. It would be out of process to speedy an article that claims notability, other then using WP:IAR to delete it anyway, if it's fairly obvious, but doesn't exactly fit into the criteria... --Phroziac 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I would support this IFF there were a parallel process, or even the same process were used, to review articles that were kept as the result of a "no consensus to delete" closure of an AfD listing. What this is doing is attempting to go around the AfD process, and is changing the criteria so that if an article gets deleted because of a consensus on AfD to delete, it would only take a majority of votes on VfU to undelete. Change the criteria to require a consensus to undelete as well, or this is just an end run around AfD deletions. User:Zoe| 23:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The phrasing says "the outcome of any deletion debate". It is intended to include both deletes and nondeletes in that phrasing. The situation you describe is currently the way things stand, and we shouldn't change more of the current process than is necessary. I don't think I've seen a debate on VfU that overturned a clear consensus on AfD — people are forever reciting the process-not-content mantra and it seems to work qutie well. -Splash 23:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad speedies should be restored by an administrator who is able to view the contents of the stub. If there is a dispute then it can be taken to AfD where the article can be views by all and edited during the debate. Requiring a sysop to challenge all bad speedies on VFU would be adding a further unnecessary bureaucratic layer. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. What about the other, more significant, part of the proposal: that an admin who wants to amend a AfD (or other _fD) closure comes here rather than just doing it, if they can't persuade the admin on their talk page? The Harry Potter example on the front page is why I revived this debate. -Splash 01:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Current practise in my experience is to relist on AfD. It works well and I don't see any point in changing the venue. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And I want to make it absolutely plain that I will not accept any major change to policy, particularly any changes permitting articles listed on AfD to be subject to double jeopardy, or limiting sysop powers, or changing the venue for disputed speedies, without clear and loud evidence of a widespread consensus. If the proposed changes are to go through, I think we need a straw poll at least on a similar scope to that which applied to WP:3RR. The proposed change would have ramifications of a similar scale and should therefore not be a step taken lightly.
  • On double jeopardy. I'm concerned with the case of a person who doesn't get the result he wants, or who doesn't agree with a closing sysop's method, bringing cases to DR in the hope of a second chance of deletion. Now presumably the proposed process would stop him just deleting and *then* coming to DR, and that's a good thing. But I'm still uncomfortable with this idea of rerunning the AfD on DR. I don't think it's right to require an article to jump two hoops to escape deletion. We already have a speedy deletion process for obviously damaging articles, and someone who feels strongly can always ask for permission to relist on AfD (or just go ahead and do it if he feels confident enough). So we already have a perfectly good remedy. Now you'll always get sysops who object to a non-delete result who perform out-of-process deletions (as happened with the Harry Potter trolling article), but these are easily remedied by undeleting them pending a properly processed deletion, as policy permits. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Afraid of accountability, Tony? We know from your record that you like using your status as a closer to override the wishes of those that voted. This would just provide a well-needed means of giving the community some accountability over your actions. Ambi 03:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wholeheartedly support. Tony's past actions illustrate just why it would be wonderful to have better scrutiny of closers, and it seems that this proposal would provide that. Ambi 03:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I strongly support this with one amendment. The arguments above have convinced me that we should remove the "or speedy deletion" clause. The current rule for a contested speedy-delete (A7 or otherwise) is "find an admin to undelete but immediately nominate to AFD and let the community decide". We should stick to that rule. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: To answer Tony's concern about double jeopardy, remember that the standard used on this page to reverse a decision is even higher than the standard to make the first decision. If someone really wanted to game the system, yes, they could immediately appeal to DR. They would have to do so in the face of an informed and educated user-group which has so far been quite good at discerning ulterior motives and shouting down inappropriate nominations. I believe that the procedural and cultural controls will prevent this page from being abused. However, we may need to rethink the current text on the Undeletion policy page about how to count the rough consensus. For one thing, it's too focused on vote-counting and not enough on discussion. For another, it succeeds in setting a higher standard for overturning a "delete" decision but not for overturning a "keep" decision. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, since it provides a venue for disputing a result, but a few further issues need to be adressed.
  1. About how strong support will be needed to overturn a disputed "delete" result? >50% is the norm now, and we might continue with that.
  2. About how strong support will be needed to overturn a disputed "keep" result? Here I think that we need much more than a simple majority, 75% or something like that. We should not have a situation like we saw at Historical persecution by Jews (here and here) where a simple majority (but not a consensus) uses Deletion Review to obtain a deletion which they could not obtain at AFD by means of their majority. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• If Rossami's condition, that "or speedy deletion" is removed, is agreed to, I think that with appropriate safeguards DR could work. If as Rossami suggests we set the margin required to delete on DR even higher than pertains on AfD, at least it answers my objection on VFU. The real trick would be to persuade sysops not to just summarily delete an article if they disagree with a AfD close. If we set up a kind of appeals court then it could work well. It is understood, I hope, that an article whose non-deletion result is under appeal must be kept in an undeleted , editable state during the discussion, and an appropriate template should direct editors to DR.
  • Yes, I'm coming around to the idea of taking speedies out of scope. The mantra of process-not-content is, probably, reversed for speedies where there is basically no process: we can only judge a speedy's correctitude on its content i.e. they are content-not-process and so we have AfD for that purpose. Being ruthlessly firm on the role of DR/VfU being to examine the closure process should help to avoid gaming things in the way you describe — something we must certainly avoid. -Splash 19:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I would also ask editors in this debate to refrain from personal attacks. -Tony Sidaway 07:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• On the numbers: we already have too great a preoccupation with numbers and votes. It should be pretty clear when a consensus to delete exists, and as long as the person closing the DR debate isn't the same person who closed the AfD I don't think we need to put numbers on it. A "strong consensus" to delete should be required (implying something more than the kind of marginal stuff that leads to these cases). For undeletion, I assume that an article would be undeleted unless there is consensus support that the deletion was correct. If this isn't what happens now, perhaps we should review this. Loading the odds in favor of keep/undelete would be in keeping with Misplaced Pages deletion policy: if in doubt, don't delete', which I sometimes think we sysops should have stenciled across our screens. --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • On the numbers: I'm inclined to think we should load the odds in favour of not reversing the closer's decision. We should work on the presumption they likely got it right, whether they deleted/notdeleted. So we should scrap the present simple majority that the undelete policy has. If this process is to work well as an 'appeals court' it should also hope to be less subjective than AfD closure or it will need an appeals court of its own! The bulk of present VfU debates are pretty decisive (see the main page), but not all of them are. Perhaps if we phrase it something along the lines of "...requires a strong consensus, usually about three-quarters of the participants concurring..."? We can allow the usual socks to be thrown away, and we should also be brutal at dismissing any 'vote' that speaks to the content not the process except insofar as the closure may have judged some of the comments against the content. To the end of simplicity and objectivity, we should also retain the current up-or-down system i.e. you can't say "undelete and merge", you can only say "undelete (and relist)". -Splash 19:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Splash. In a VfD/AfD the "keep" is the default state because you have to have a good reason to overrule the article's creation. In DR "keep deleted" needs to be the default because you need a good reason to overrule closure. If there was no doubt in the closing admin's mind regarding consensus then I don't see a reason "if in doubt, don't delete" would apply. Consensus was followed. There is no such guidance for VfU and should not be for DR - it would fly in the face of the consensus that was followed. It would be abused into an "extension" of AfD for every deletion closed with consensus to delete. - Tεxτurε 19:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree that the default should be "leave the result unchanged" (note that for a keep decision on XfD this means the default is keep). I don't agree that a 75% strong consensus is needed. If a majority, or perhaps a 60% majority, think the process was in error (after discounting socks and comments based on content rather than process) then reverse the decision or restart the process (i.e. relist) to obtain an untainted result. Perhaps when a "keep" is overturned by a narrow margin the articel involve shoukld be promptly relisted, with a note that a different admin will cloe the debate, insted of being promptly deleted. Note aslo that if a "merge" or "redirect" consensus was clear on AfD but was not followed by the closer, DR could and IMO should direct that the AfD consensus be followed, thus it could ahve a "merge" result. But ONLY if such a result was the clear consensus on the original fD discussion, after correcting any procedural errors. DES 20:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, what a DR is really deciding is was did the decision follow consensus. This should not be a forum to revote the AfD but rather a vote that consensus was not followed. - Tεxτurε 20:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Or other problems with process. Issues of vote forging, sockpuppetry, vote solicitation, and votes that should or should not be discounted could also be brought up on DR, with possible results of "outcome valid", "relist" or "outcome reversed". DES 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm convinced. You should add to the proposal that the only valid votes and closing consensus are "outcome valid", "relist" or "outcome reversed". (Or I suppose this could be handled later.) - Tεxτurε 21:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I meant that the default for a "keep" closure is "keep kept"(!) and the default for a delete closure "keep deleted" etc. I can see the utility in having a purgatory kind of outcome at narrow margins, although it would be nice to keep things as simple as possible. Still we could say that between 50%+1 and about 75% it goes back to AfD (undeleting first if necessary) but above about 75% the decision is simply reversed, or amended as appropriate. And yes, now I think about it I agree that DR should be able to mandate the appropriate outcome, although only as far as a {merge} tag since merges can be difficult sometimes. -Splash 20:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree that a "mrege" decision on DR need mean no more than putting a proper merge tag on the relevant article(s), (plus a note on the proper talk page that the merge was a result of a consensus decision with a link to the relevant discussion) anoyne so inclicned can then do the merge. A redirect should just be done, if no merging is involve. I still think that 75% is a rather high bar, and 66% could be regarded as decisive, but i could accept your formulation, Splash. Also, a "relist" outcome might be explicitly determined when the DR consensus is that the process was so damaged that no clear consensus can be determined (for example if there was disruptive vandalism to the XfD page, or if an article was rewritten late in the process and it is probable that the opnions expressed do not refelct the current state, etc) DES 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• It should be made clear that DR is not to be a "second chance" to delete an article that had no conssnsus to delete on AfD, nor a method to make an 'end run" around the AfD consensus requirements. DR is not to be used by people who simply displike the AfD result. Those who try to use it to chanmge a consensus result (and there will be such people) should be refused and rebuked. DR should be for reviewing claims of incorrct procedure, and correcting such errors when found. When a clsoer ignores or clearly incorrectly determines the consensus on an AfD (or one of the other XfD pages), or when an improper speedy deletion is made, or when there is soem other error in procedure during an XfD discussion that affects the result, DR should be the place to review the events andf take corrective action as needed. DES 14:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've read over the arguments carefully, and although I do certainly understand the fear of creep, I cannot believe that any device through which the deletion process can gain more accountability and transparency can be bad. There can be no doubt that this will lead to wider criticism of admins, and this is both the whole point of the new institution and a detriment. Admins should welcome more constructive criticism in all cases, but admins should also back up and protect other admins when criticism is excessive and/or unwarranted. My two bits. Fernando Rizo T/C 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• "Not reversing the closer's decision" goes against the fundamental tenet of deletion policy: if in doubt, don't delete. If we want to reverse that principle, let's get a wiki-wide consensus. Otherwise it's a non-starter. Whatever we do here must be compatible with deletion policy.--Tony Sidaway 20:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just re-read deletion policy. i don't see "if in doubt, don't delete" enshrired there as a "fundamental tenet". it is a good rlue of thumb for AfD closers, but does not trump other policies and guidelines. DES 21:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Read Misplaced Pages:Policy: WP:DP is part of official policy: policies that are widely accepted and that everyone is expected to follow It isn't a rule of thumb, it's our policy as a wiki not to delete pages where there is some doubt. This does trump all guidelines, although it is subject to the key policy: Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. In the latter policy, related to copyright questions, we adopt the reverse principle: we delete unless we have clear evidence that we have a right to use copyright material under the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not think there is a particularly close relationship between the phrases "don't reverse the closer's decision" and "if in doubt, don't delete". They deal with two quite separate concepts: the first works on the presumption that our admins get things right the vast majority of the time, the second is to help them in doing so. -Splash 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I have read both Misplaced Pages:Policy and WP:DP fairly throughly and I thgink i understood them quite well. Please re-read what I wrote above. I didn't say that WP:DP was a rule of thumb, I said that one phrase from that page was a rule of thumb. I am contending that that phrase is not the heart or central meaning of that policy page. I supported that by mentioning in what context the phrase was used in the policy page. Of course policy is to be adhered to, and I never argued otehrwise. I would like to see just what aspects of current policy you or anyone things this proposal would go against. Of course, a newly adopted consensus can amend an existing policy, either explicitly or implicitly, and then, in general, the newer consensus trumps the older one, unless the older one had a much wider or stronger consensus, or is for soem reason more fundemental, for exmaple the WP:NPOV policy tumps most others with which it might possibly be in conflict, IMO. But my main point is that one phrase from WP:DP deos not override all the resat of that policy page, nor the undelwtion policy, nor other policies adopted by consensus. Note that WP:DP also says "You can expect administrators to follow the process detailed below to aid them in their judgment." and "Hence, the decision to permanently delete an article is not taken lightly, and the deletion process is followed." thus indicating that proper process is important. I could as easily claim that those statements are the key to the deletion policy. In any case, I would argue that the propsoed DR process does not violate the maxim "if in doubt, don't delete". It is merely a method of helping to determine when there is significant dobut, and when, in fact, there is not enough doubt, but rather it is clear that an articel should go. I am not proposing, and I do not belive that anyone is arguing, that any page should be delteded without a clear consensus. DR should have a delete result only when there is agreement that there was in fact a celar consensus to delete on XfD (or a clear consenus in advace via the speedy deletion criteria) and the relevant closer somehow made an error in determining that copnsensus, or violated policy by ignoring it. Of course no one should ever violate policy, but soem people do, for various reasons. DR is one method of correcting that, or (more often I hope) correcting well-intentioned but clearly mistaken attempts to apply the deltion policy. DES 19:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• As someone who just had a closure reversed (and felt slightly hurt by not being approached for discussion, but feels all better now) I think that this is a good idea, but should not be the first course of action. The first course of action should be that if someone disagrees with an AfD closure, he or she should approach the admin who closed the vote, giving the latter the chance to say "hey, you're right, guess I can't count" or "I didn't notice the sockpuppetry" or whatever. There is no need for byzantine procedures when simple, polite human interaction will solve the problem 95% of the time. moink 21:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think this proposal changes an admin's right to undo their own mistakes. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right, Texture, but I'm somewhat worried that it will change behaviour in practice. I think the description should say, not only that you don't have to use this process if the admin goes back and corrects it, but that it should not be the default process. The default process should be a polite informal discussion that assumes good faith. Only if that fails to procure agreement should this process be used, in which case I think it would be useful. moink 18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. We need this yesterday. Too often the fate of an afd'd article is more influenced by the closer's wikipolitics than the comments on the afd subpage. VFU has worked exceedingly well for improperly deleted articles; currently, the only recourse for improperly kept articles is a disruptive and bureaucratic afd renomination. —Cryptic (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly support now. The most vocal opponent says above that disputed keeps should be brought back to AFD, but labels such renominations as bad faith and calls for censure of the disputant. I find it impossible to assume the opposition is in good faith. —Cryptic (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The current way of disputing a bad keep decision is too disruptive and acrimonious. I like this. android79 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• I Support this well-thought out, balanced, and consensus-driven proposal. Android's point that the current dispute process is failing is a good one. Nandesuka 19:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. I go away for a week, and you guys change everything... gee! :P Now, a little bit more seriously. The only thing I would amend is this particular sentence: "This page is not intended to be a new deletion discussion. This page is about process, not content." Why? Simply because those new to VfU don't know it. --Titoxd 17:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• EXTREME SUPPORT! well-thought out Ryan Norton 09:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Mechanics

There appears, to me at least, to be a broad support for making a change towards the boxed proposal above. There are concerns about the detail of the process, however. As I read the discussion above (and not the discussion below, since it relates to a fundamentally different approach) we are consider something like 3 options:

1. Simple: A strong consensus (e.g. three-quarters) to amend a closing admin's decision i.e. a delete turned into a notdelete or vice versa, or a straight keep turned into a redirect/merge, or a keep turned into a delete. Also, a simple decision to "relist" when things are very unclear.
   • There are suggestions of a lower notion of consensus: at present VfU needs a simple majority. This is too low a threshold imo, since we should start out by trusting our closers — there is no reason to defy tradition and remove the element of trusted judgement implied by a successful RfA.
2. More complicated: A kind of purgatory. If the numerics are in the 50-75% range (with the usual emphasis on process not content demanded from participants) then the article returns to AfD (or _fD). If above three-quarters the decision is simply mandated and implemented.

Some sort of a merge of the two might be appropriate. What do people think? -Splash 18:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• I believe the complicated method is more effective. After all, right now we're supposed to relist things on xFD when we decide to undelete. But even 75% seems low IMO. Maybe a quasi-unanimous discussion (discounting sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc.)would be required to simply overrule a lower decision. Titoxd 17:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Quasi-unanimity means that the process can be held to ransom by a single editor (e.g. the closing admin) and a friend. That just won't do; consensus is not unanimity insofar as those in the minority are able to accept the decision of the numerical majority because it is so sizeable. That does not need unanimity. -Splash 21:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's why I said quasi-unanimity. Admins are smart enough to recognize when there's an attempt to delay the process and when someone thought of something that hadn't been thought of before. But I agree, that makes it very ambiguous and that's what we're trying to get rid of. Maybe 75% isn't as bad as I think, but 80% or 85% should be more resounding. After all, we're making VfU the equivalent of an appelate (Supreme?) Court in the US, so if we are going to downright reverse a lower court, we might as well be sure of it, since there won't be courts with appellate jurisdiction over VfU. Titoxd 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a proposed wording for the mechanics, similer but not identical to numer 2 above. What do people think of it? Obviously it is merely a suggestion, and is subject to changes if anyone offers ideas for them DES 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• In the deletion review discussion, users may opt to either overturn or endorse the previous deletion decision. Those opting to overturn should also specify whether the page should be relisted, kept, merged, redirected, or deleted. (Note, a "merge" result may mean no more than approperiate merge tags being applied to the article and any sugested merge target, plus a note referencing the DR discusion on the appropriate talk page. After that the merge can be performed via normal editing. No closer is ever required to actually do a merge.)
• If a majority, but less than a strong consensus, favor overturing the deletion decision, then the article will be relisted (or initallly listed, if it was initally speedy-deleted) for discusion on the proper XfD page, with links to the DR discusion and any previous XfD discusion.
• If there is a clear consensus (say 70% or more) then the decision may be overturned directly, and the consensus result applied. However, the consensus may be to relist, in which case that will be done. If there is consensus to overturn a previous decision, but not on what the result will be, the item in question will be relisted as above.
• Anyone expressing an opnion should also provide reasoning, at least in the form of a shorthand expression. Opnions that rely primarily on the contnet of the item, rather than the process being reviewed, will be ignored. However, a claim that valid resons were simply ignored during the deletion discussion is about process. So is a claim that the deletion policy was ignored or improperly applied durign the deltion process.
• Exception: users stating that they were not aware of the deletion discussion may indicate that they had valid reasons which they would have expressed at that discussion. Such users should normally opt for Overturn and relist so that their reasons can be more fully evaluated in a proper deletion discussion. (obviously users who commented in the previosu deletion discussion cannot honestly claim to have been unaware of that discuussion.

Any coments on the above? DES 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I may have more comments as I think about it more but right off the top of my head, I recommend removing the clause about speedy-deletions. Leaving speedies in scope will inevitably draw us into content discussions, not process discussions. Remember that the community has not yet expressed an opinion on the content in a speedy decision. A speedy is executed on the opinion of a single admin. Speedy-deletes are only supposed to be for non-controversial deletions. If a speedy is contested in good faith, the article should immediately be restored without bureaucracy or discussion. The restored article should, however, be immediately nominated for a full deletion discussion. That restored article could be kept (as a "no consensus") if as few as a third of the discussion participants want it. That process and standards are at odds with both the process and the standards proposed above for overturning a full AFD decision. Easiest just to put speedies out of scope and stick with the current review process for them. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point -- the above is really more tailored to disputing XfD results. OTOH, bringing disputed speedies to DR or a similar forum might help to developp a consistant practice on what patent nonsense or a claim of notability (to quote probably the two most disputed and mis-used speedy criteria), and to get most admins doing speedy deletes on the same page, guided by a community consensus. Please recall that it was discuaaion on VfU that led to the empasis on the WP:CSD page on th3 distinctiuon betweeen content and context. But if it is decided to elimitate speedy deltions from the DR scope, so be it. DES 14:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Afd challenge

• An alternative proposal: Afd challenge
  • Already, policy dictates that disputed speedies go to Afd.
  • I suggest that all disputes to deletion and AfD results go to AfD using the existing process, with the following additional rules:
    • A sysop who disputes a deletion in process can undelete and relist on AfD (he can already undelete without further process if the article in question isn't a speedy or AfD candidate; this is filling in the gray areas)
    • A non-sysop who disputes any deletion can ask a sysop to undelete and relist on AfD.
    • If no sysop agrees to undelete, the article can be relisted on AfD in its deleted state. If it was an out-of-process deletion, existing policy says that it can be undeleted at will by any sysop.
    • Only one challenge is permitted. Once an article has been through two AfDs, recreation of the same content can be speedied and any further attempt to challenge will be summarily removed.
    • Any person who disputes any non-delete close can relist (this is already allowed)
    • During the dispute period the article will not be deleted.
    • After a dispute of a non-delete that results in deletion, there is no further appeal.
  • There would be no need for:
    • VFU: appeal against deletion would take place on AfD.
    • Separate close procedures: the same close would be performed on AfD for primary listings and challenges.
  • I think this would work better than having a separate venue. In the interests of transparency, challenges to AfD results should occur in the same venue as AfDs. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I strongly oppose this "alternate proposal". I think that the status quo is a better choice than this. Why? I think there should be two distinct fora because there are two disntict sets of standards. VFU/DR should be about process, it should be, as Tony said above, a "court of appeals". Even now we have some people incorrectly basing decisions on content issues on VfU. Putting reveiws on AfD will just encourage this. Different fora for different procedures. I might add that Tony is incorrect that "policy dictates that disputed speedies go to Afd.". My understanding is that this is true only for A7 (non-notable bios). Can you point to any general policy statement that says this for other types of speedy deletes (granted this is the most commonly disputed speedy type). Also this proceduree IMO over-emphasizes the role of the admins. Currently any editor can bring a deeltion to VfU and it is treated in much the same way whether that editor is an admin or not. Under the above proposal it makes a huge difference if an non-admin can get an admin's support or not. i think this is unwise and unwiki. DES 21:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I based my statement that "policy dictates that disputed speedies go to AfD" on the following:
          • Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy: Exception: If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. If deletion policy dictates that the undeleted page is a VfD candidate, please list it there. If you are unclear as to whether it was out of process or not, the normal undeletion procedure should apply.
        • I interpret it as follows: Sysop 1 speedies an article. Sysop 2 decides that it's been speedied out of process (no speedy criterion covers it). Sysop 1 objects, so sysop 1 and 2 have a dispute. It can't be a valid speedy (WP:DP: if in doubt, don't delete; two sysops in disagreement is a reasonable doubt) but it may still be deletable, so it is a AfD candidate.
        • DES is wrong to claim that VFU is purely for procedural objections--far from it! In the Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy: Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion: "Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored". So VFU is a valid place to dispute a properly closed deletion discussion, if one simply wants to make points that one feels were ignored during the debate. Nothing we decide here can contravene official Misplaced Pages policies. If we want to change policy, we should do so with an appropriate level of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe that consensus already exists, Tony. The policy may state that article content is reviewable in VfU, but that doesn't reflect reality. Appeals to article content are ignored by most VfU participants, except in the case of radical content change during an AfD, in which case it's the process that failed to take the new content into account, anyway. Article content should not be reviewable in VfU or any replacement scheme, or it will simply degenerate into a "second-chance" AfD where anyone, admin or no, will be able to dispute a validly-executed delete (or keep) decision (and in the case of current VfU, interpreted strictly, this could be done ad nauseum). android79 15:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
            • If you believe the undeletion policy needs to be changed, you should endeavor to have it changed. If your belief that there is a consensus to change policy is based solely on current practice of a majority of editors in VFU, you are mistaken. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. I've just noticed that there is a fashion for citing "Valid AfD" as a reason to keep deleted. This is contrary to the undeletion policy. Accordingly, I have edited the head of the page, which was at variance with Undeletion policy, so that it correctly quotes it. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
              • I never said that this was a democracy. The established practice of a sizable number of people, over a sizable period of time, is one way that consensus can be established. Isn't it? I also note that I am not claiming that the undeletion policy is wrong, nor that the practice I cite is at varience with it. That is your claim. I also think that changing a long-stable instruction page (which arguably represents a level of consensus itself) to favor your views, during an active debate over policy and procedure, without discussing the change, is not the proper way. DES 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
              • If you think the original proposal is at varience with the current policy, do you not agree that a discussion seeking consensus is a proper way to modify that policy, by the way? if not, why not? or is there some beauracratic rule that says such a discussion must happen in a particular place? Thsi discusssion is not secret -- it has been widely announced in several proper places. DES 20:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • On the objection that the proposal makes a distinction betweeen admins and non-admins, this is becasuse there is a difference between admins and non-admins. A normal editor cannot undelete an article during the challenge process, although in the case of a non-trivial challenge the article should be undeleted. So this simply provides a mechanism by which an editor can try to convince an admin to undelete during the challenge. It could be merely formal; most reasonable admins wouldn't have a problem undeleting an article so that it could be edited and examined during the challenge. --Tony Sidaway 13:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
          • There should be no difference between an admin and a non-admin. Both should follow policy set by consensus. Just because an admin can do something does not mean that it is proper to do so. Any admin can delete the VfD and cause massive database impact. Does that mean they have the right to do so as your statement implies since they can do it while a "normal editor" cannot? The ability does not imply the right. Any admin can now undelete a properly or improperly closed VfD/AfD. Deletion Review seeks to make it policy that no such unilateral overturnings should happen. Let's make the admins follow the same rules and be "Administrators" and not "Gods" - Tεxτurε 14:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
          • If the editor in question can find an admin who can be convinced they should also be able to convince the community at large, since admins should be in touch with the community feelings. I would also fear friends-of-AdminX-clubs who know they'll do just about anything they're asked to, when it would be better if everyone just sat around the table together and spent a few days thinking about things. -Splash 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • This also leaves no method to deal with procedural erroes on CfD, TfD, IfD, MD, or SfD. These are less common than on AfD, but are currently in scope for VfU. DES 21:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The idea can be extended to work in the relevant forums. I do think it would improve transparency to have challenges of this kind in the original fora, and not tucked away unnecessarily on a page that is disjoint with the one where the original decision was made. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing I like least about this is that it strongly entrenches a philosphy that "admins can when they feel like it", but ordinary editors "must ask nicely". The original proposal treats everyone equally, and I don't fully see the benefit in enshiring inequality. And lets fact it, with nearly 600 sysops you'll be able to find one who'll undelete just about anything. -Splash 22:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• The original proposal, if it contravened Misplaced Pages policy, was wrong. Change Misplaced Pages policy if you think it's wrong. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The proposal seeks to change Misplaced Pages policy as you suggest we should. As for "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy" - I need to restate that admins should not be "Gods" and were once described as "Administrators" because their task was intended to be only a maintenance position and not a god-like aristocracy. - Tεxτurε 14:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see this proposal as significantly changing[REDACTED] policy (although inso far as it is contrary to current policy it is a proposal to change that policy, of course). IMO this is a proposal to change the procedure by which policy is implemented. it does not seek to change any of the criteria or standars in the deletion policy that indicate what should be deleted, nor any of those in the undeletion policy that say why a deletion decision should be reversed. It only seeks to chnge some procedure, to say when and how a decision shall be considered for reveral. Specifically it seeks to extend the current process for reconsidering decisions to delete to also reconsider decisions that did not result in a deletion. it also seeks to make explicit that in reconsidering such a decision, valid results include "merge" and "redirect" as well as "delete" and "keep as an article", IF such a result is the clear consensus of thos who discussed the matter. Following consensus is hardly a violation of policy here. DES 15:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem the original proposal would resolve is the lack of any policy to guide behaviours in the event of a disputed AfD closure that is not a delete. It does not override any of the deletion policy and with a firm focus on process-not-content (which VfU most certainly does have) there will be no risk of double jeopardy, especially if we seek a strong consensus as has been suggested further up. -Splash 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway makes much of the phtrase "If in doubt, don't delete". That phrase does occur in the current deletion policy. it is at the end of a paragraph discussing repeated recreation of deleted articles by multiple editors, and similarly repeated nominations of an article for deletion. it suggests that in each case the repeated action may indicate consensus, but modifies that with "If in doubt, don't delete". I don't see this as a central tenant of the deletion policy. It certianly doesn't apply to copyvios, where the mantra is basically "if in doubt, delete" -- unless there is clear evidence of a proper release,[REDACTED] doesn't want any possible copyvios. Tony also says that VfU is not primarily for process. Note that the instructions on the VfU page itself say "Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion". The undeletion policy gives as possible reasons for undeletion that an article was 1) Deleted "out of process" (I take this to mean arbitrary deeltion in no way justified by any policy); 2 ) The article was wrongly deleted ( 2a)Admin not aware of dicussion on AfD; 2b) Never listed on AfD; 2c) proper objections to deletion were made but ignored); 3) temporary undeletion; 4) histroy only undeletion. Of these only 2c is soemwhat about content, and even that is significantly about process, it deosn't say that valid objections could have been made but noew one raised them, it says that they were raised and should have been heeded, but they weren't. In short I think the current VfU instructions and the Undel policy strongly indicate that VfU is curently primrily about procedure, not content. Surely this is the current practice on VfU, and thus the clear community consensus. If the policy doesn't follow that, then perhaps the policy has been silently changed and needs to be formally adjusted to match. DES 15:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly think it is the current process on VfU. Admins need not fear that they are going to be overruled in terms of demanding a higher or lower level of consensus. The question asked on VfU is, in effect, "was the admin within their discretion to close the debate the way they did". If they were, it's usually pretty obvious. If they weren't, that is usually pretty obvious also and it seems only natural to have a means of correcting the process.
  • Tony Sidaway also says that incorrect speedies should not be brought to VfU, but should be listed on AfD (or XfD) after uinilateral undeletion by any admin who disputes them. He basews this on two policies. WP:CSD says that under A7, if notability is disputed, the article should go to AfD instead of being speedied. But this is speeking at least as much about disputes that occur after an articel is tagged but before it is actuially deleted. In fact i read it that if ther is a dispute before an A7 is deleted it should go to AfD, but afterwards it should first come to VfU under the general undeletion policy, and only if undeelted be placed on AfD. Noter also that the undeletion policy says "If the page was deleted via AfD or Md rather than via Speedy Deletion....", thus clearly indicating that the poliy, and VfU, is intended to apply to speedy deletions as well as XfD deletions. Tony also relies on the "Eception" section of the undel policy. This says "If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately." and goes on to say what should happen thereafter. i read this as primarily applying not to speey deltions whose basis is disputed -- those are not "out of process" because the admin who deleted them used the speedy deletion process, although it may have been used incorrectly. IMO this exception is designed primarily for deltions that followed no process at all, where an admin simply felt that the deletion was a good idea, with no policy to rtely on. The recent deltion of the VfD page comes to mind, as does the compltely out of process deletion of the proposed GNAA policy pages. Similatly an admin who comited what amounts to deletion vandalism or just bypassed policy could have the deeltion instantly undone under this exception. This is said to be an "eception" -- it is supposed to be a rare case, i should think. Seedy deletions are not rare, and debates about speedies are not all that rare, while admisn acting compeltely out of process are i am gald to say, quite rare indeed. So I think that Tony has misinterpreted the policy and VfU is cuirrently the proper place to debate allegedly improper speedy deletions, and DR as proposed would be the proper place to discuss allegedly improper speedies in the future. DES 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • To a certain extent, I wouldn't mind so much if disputed speedied were taken to AfD instead: the content of a speedy matters after all, since there is no debate to evaluate. The content of a disputed AfD closure on the other hand is a dispute about precisely that: not about the content of the article itself (except insofar as the closer may have had to refer to the content in determining what to do with some of the comments). -Splash 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Purpose of the page" section

Tony, I find it deeply distasteful that you make such changes as you just did to an established process when your proposal has thus far received no support. You told us to change policy if we didn't like it. That's what we're talking about doing. You on the other hand, have simply decided to reshape procedure you don't like on a whim. I could as well have changed the header, moved the page to a new anme and proclaimed the issue settled. But I figured discussion was a better way to go. Thus far, everyone apart from you seems happy that discussion is indeed the way to go. -Splash 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I also wanted to say, before everything just died, that I realize you took the wording out of the undelete policy. But it seems to have been done with the fairly clear intention that the mechanics of VfU be peremptorily changed, given your current interpretation of what they are. -Splash 22:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So, he was trying to make a WP:POINT? - Tεxτurε 22:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Tony? I don't think it was a WP:POINT, particularly. -Splash 23:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I reverted Tony's changes to the "Purpose of the page" section on the process page. Tony has asked me, on my talk page, to revert my reversion. I have declined, pending discussion here. Does anyone think that the current section should be changed? Does anyone think that tony's version is an improvemet, or that some other version should be used? (you can see the relevant changes in the page history, and particularly in this diff.) Note that the instruction section currently points users to the deletion policy and the undeletion policy and instructs people to read those policies (and implicitly to follow them) before using the VfU page. DES 16:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• I note that Tony just reinstutited his changes, in a version a bit more through than before, and i have re-revertted to the longstanding text. I will not revert the VfU page again anytime soon, no matter what further changes are made to it. I hope that people can start discussing the issue here. DES 16:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One way of determining that the community is ok with a process is that it has stood for some time. Just because one person comes along suddenly and changes it without discussion does not undermine the strength of the acceptance imparted by the passage of time and the long-standing behaviours of those regularly involved in the process. One person instituting a change after a good discussion is, of course, another matter. -Splash 18:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Given that the page already indicates that users should read the undeletion policy, I didn't think Tony's paragraph added anything (in addition, it read somewhat poorly). I removed it on that basis. Tony, if you'd care to explain what problem you're trying to solve on the talk page before adding text like that, that would be helpful. Nandesuka 16:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• I have also made a relevant suggestion at Misplaced Pages talk:Undeletion policy#Process or content. I urge people interested in this issue to read and comment there as well. DES 16:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply: the purpose of the page section should be replaced by the boxed proposal above, subject to us working out the details of the mechanics. The consequential changes should then be made to the undeletion policy. -Splash 18:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Clearly it is right to include the precise wording from the undeletion policy at the head of VFU. That it was removed, I find inexplicable--whether or not people disagree with Misplaced Pages official policy, we are still bound by it, so it's only fair to warn editors coming here that if they see "Valid AfD, keep deleted", they will know that those votes are contrary to undeletion policy. I am happy to see that there is now at least some kind of discussion on undeletion policy itself. If you can get a Misplaced Pages-wide consensus to change that policy and reverse its meaning, good luck. It isn't going to happen. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot gain a consensus here, then no, it is obviously not right. You are changing undeletion policy by claiming another policy is somehow altering that policy or superceding. This claim is unreasonable. - Tεxτurε 02:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review support

The above section with the DR proposal had overwhelming support with very few challenging it. What's next? - Tεxτurε 17:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Was bold. brenneman 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Note - This still leaves the "mechanics" question open.

I'd like to offer a challenge here, having just become aware of the debate. (Whatever happened to things like mentioning changes on the mailing list and the like?) If VfU is procedural, I don't think we ought have a vote to determine adherence to procedure. We do not have Votes for Unblocking (Thank GOD) to determine whether the blocking policy was followed correctly. Admins sort it out amongst themselves. In the case of a procedural failure - either to delete or to keep - the dispute should be sorted out by the participants. To have a vote would lead to odd results like the same procedural decision being considered an error or acceptable on a case by case basis, depending as largely on who shows up to vote that week as on the actual correctness of the decision. Which is to say that this is not something that should be left up to whim, whether collective or individual. Snowspinner 18:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Mechanics again

Based mostly upon DES's suggestions above, but with a smerge of Tony Sidaway by eliminating the "opinions on content will be ignored" section:

Skip to: Active discussions Recent discussions Archive (purge cache)

Shortcut WP:DRV

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes 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:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
3. 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);
4. 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these);
5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer 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 closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. 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.

Steps to list a new deletion review

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• 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.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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 everyone. 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, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages: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 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) in question 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, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

23 January 2025

22 January 2025

Fartcoin

Fartcoin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was chosen to be merged for lack of noteworthiness, however the consensus was reached before multiple knowledgeable editors updated the page with over 40 references. Deletion discussion centers around lack of noteworthy sources, where users are not willing to accept sources that are not major media companies. This coin is an example of the ability of AI to relate to humans in an infectious and viral way. The name Fartcoin was conceived by a jailbroken Large Language Model as the ideal meme coin to relate to humans. It plays a major role in the creation of the first ever AI crypto millionaire, in which 2% of the token supply was sent to the crypto wallet of the Truth Terminal AI agent that named the coin. It also has connections to Marc Andreesen as one of the most prolific Venture Capitalists, when Marc sent $50k to the Truth Terminal agent's wallet after seeing it reach viral status on X.com social media site. I request that moderators review the sources shown in the article as there are dozens of mentions in the media landscape about Fartcoin and its encapsulation of the absurd and hyper-speculative nature of crypto. The connection to AI as the ideal meme coin name, followed by its successful capture of human attention and creation of an AI millionare, is noteworthy enough to have its own page. In less than a month it garnered 27,000 pageviews. EveSturwin (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. The term notability, as we use it here, carries a very specific meaning that has little to do with noteworthiness. In the AfD, none of the Keep !votes carried any weight in terms of guidelines, other than that of WeirdNAnnoyed, who also advocated for a merge. That's also the case for the appellant's petition here. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok I understand. The definition here is different.

  In the original deletion discussion the Fast Company article is recognized as a reliable source.

  Here is another piece of significant coverage independent of the subject:

  https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/21/david-einhorn-says-we-have-reached-the-fartcoin-stage-of-the-market-cycle.html

  In reference to @WeirdNAnnoyed reference to WP:TOOSOON AND @Cinadon36 ask for articles over a period of time, this second article of note may satisfy that requirement given these 2 articles are more than 1 month apart, and therefore may be more than just a flash in the pan. Beyond this there have been several mentions by media and traditional finance professionals outside of the crypto industry, as required by coverage independent of the subject. EveSturwin (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse own close. The closer's job is to evaluate consensus, and DRV is for challenging that evaluation and nothing else. It is not "AFD round two". It is not the closing admin's job to evaluate the sources for themselves or to otherwise have an opinion at all in the debate. Beeblebrox 23:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. I’m a little confused, you’re saying the DRV process only re-evaluates the deletion discussion itself and doesn’t take into account sources shown in the article? How can you make a determination of rejection based on notability guidelines without referencing any of the 40+ sources? EveSturwin (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse nothing in the discussion indicates this should have been a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. As noted in the discussion the article can be improved by reliable truthful sources. We have Fast Company, Fortune, and now a recent CNBC article showing significant coverage over a period greater than 30 days. EveSturwin (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, replying to everyone can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse Sorry, User:EveSturwin, your attempt to spam crypto relies on an insufficiency of sourcing. Non-notability is inherent here. And who the hell is "a knowledgeable person like myself"? Serial (speculates here) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have worked in the industry for several years as an honest contributor to blockchain technology, and I unfortunately know how a lot of these memecoins work. Part of my job at my salaried place of employment is to perform market search in the budding Crypto x AI vertical. And sadly there are many founders that have seen Fartcoin take hold of the market in a way their utility-based products are unable to do. I’ve been following the project since Marc Andreessen sent $50k to an AI this summer. The fact that a token named Fartcoin reached this market cap is both ridiculous and a snapshot of a moment in time. I’m not spamming anything, I’m providing the true context and backstory of an incredible phenomenon that enrages so many people.

  But the most noteworthy pieces are that

  1) A viral AI agent identified this as the ideal meme coin and it somehow took hold in human society. It’s quite incredible. Hedge fund manager Raoul Pal likened it to a virus jumping from birds to humans. That in itself is a snapshot in time.

  2) The donation of this token to an AI agent crypto wallet created the first ever AI that had a net worth over $1M. This in itself is a noteworthy event and there are TechCrunch articles about it, with Fartcoin as the driving factor behind this historical point in time.

  I understand the negative sentiment towards it, but the amount of media attention it has received is larger than any other memecoin this cycle. It is larger than true products with underlying value. It is larger than the company AMC. It is frequently quoted by traditional finance professionals as a sign of outlandish crypto market sentiment. In the time since the article was deleted a large hedge fund manager used it as a headline “we are at the Fartcoin part of the cycle”. The Stocktwits founder coined the term Fear of Missing Fartcoins due to the fact that it outperformed the returns of past 50 years of the stock market in 2 months. High school kids are making their teacher’s salaries in one week from this coin in particular. It is a perfect encapsulation of financial nihilism and hyper-speculative behavior that can be tied to the runaway costs of living in America. It’s a direct result of young Americans not feeling as though they can achieve success in life through traditional methods like obtaining a degree and a job. It is possibly the most fascinating thing I’ve ever seen, and I’ve watched it from day 1.

  I think it’s important for curious individuals to see the full backstory and context which makes it even more intriguing. Otherwise I feel this is a case of citizen censorship based on personal attitudes towards the subject of crypto. Just because you’re personally enraged by a phenomenon doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You can’t delete something from the history books because you don’t agree with it. I’ve been shocked to see that even the memecoin launched by President Trump was nominated for deletion. That also is a clear demarcation in history of human’s relationship to digital currency and there are people who don’t like it so they nominate it for deletion immediately? I fear Misplaced Pages has lost my respect and I will no longer spend hours reading up on worldly topics here, for I now know that keyboard warriors can paint history in their own viewpoint. I’m quite disappointed.

  And for the record I never used AI, which someone tried to highlight as a reason to denigrate the validity of this page. EveSturwin (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, we don't do the subject-matter expert thing here. Owen× ☎ 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I’m directly replying to the “who the hell is a knowledgeable person like myself” comment above, that’s all. EveSturwin (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse based on "updated the page with over 40 references". It is not reasonable to ask reviewers to review 40 references. Read WP:Reference bomb. Read WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Gulf of America (closed)

20 January 2025

Shivkrupanand Swami (closed)

Silvia Dimitrov

Silvia Dimitrov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As no arguments were made for keeping this article which cited any evidence of notablity or provided any sources, this should have been closed as a soft delete, as it had never been PROD-ded in the past. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. This was a lazy nomination, followed by lazy rebuttals. Doczilla prompted the nom and participants to put in a modicum of effort, but as Vanderwaalforces correctly noted, that was not heeded by anyone. We ended up with a content-free AfD, in terms of policy and guidelines. It could not have been soft-deleted, as the nomination was clearly, if not meaningfully, contested. It could, however, have been speedy-kept, as no valid argument for deletion was brought up. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - As OwenX says, this was a content-free AFD, one of the sloppiest AFDs I have seen in along time. The nominator did not provide any policy-based arguments, and the Keep voters did not provide any policy-based arguments. The appellant-nominator's request to treat this as a Soft Delete is vexatious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist: Although it wasn't a WP:BADNAC, but a second relisting would have been better than "no consensus". I also opposed strongly the option of "soft delete" as raised by the nomination. Safari Scribe 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Without a valid nomination, there is nothing to relist. If relisted, it can be immediately re-closed as speedy-keep under our policy anyway. Any editor is welcome to renominate, of course. Owen× ☎ 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• weak endorse Just wait whatever time we now suggest for a renom and renom. I'm also fine with a relist given there was no consensus yet and it was "only" relisted once. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• I appreciate everyone's feedback. I will re-nominate this article at some point, but will do a better job of it. OwenX is correct in that it was a lazy nomination. Anyone should feel free to close this complaint as nominator withdrawn so as to not waste anyone else's time. I also apologize to Vanderwaalforces, as their close was a proper one. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for saying that. You do bring attention to many articles worth considering for AfD, and your enthusiasm in doing that is truly important. I've just been concerned, repeatedly, that each individual AfD needs to show more preparation and investigation (mainly to demonstrate WP:BEFORE here) and to offer more detailed explanation for the reasoning behind each nom. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse per Hitchens's razor. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

19 January 2025

Raegan Revord

Raegan Revord (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin did a "Procedural close", stating that it was because the page was swapped out with one from draft space during the discussion. However,

1. That's not what happened; the discussion was closed, then the page was swapped with clear consensus from both Keep and Delete !voters, then the discussion was reopened following a January 3 deletion review.
2. That shouldn't matter because both articles were on the same subject (a specific TV cast member) and the discussion was all about notability (i.e., the subject) and not content (the article.)

Discussion on this has been extensive and should be allowed a proper close. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Agree. In this case, a closing admin should be able to make a whatever closing outcome they find reasonable based on the comments at hand. I don't think we need another week of discussion, 2 relists are enough, but an "actual" close, either by last closer @Liz herself or another willing admin. The post-close "swapping" can be seen as encouraged during-afd improvement. Ping "swapper" @PrimeHunter and afd-starter @Pppery if they wish to comment.

This subject has been in a kind of "development hell" for quite awhile. The draft was pending for review (again), and someone decided during that pending to make a new version and put it in main-space, and that version was taken to afd. Then the afd closed, the "swapping" happened, there was a DRV, and the afd was reopened, then closed by Liz. So IMO, the closer should also consider if a no consensus close here means

no consensus = back to draft

or

no consensus = stays in main-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the procedural close as a procedural close. I agree with the appellant that the discussion was extensive and deserved a proper close, but the discussion had been about two versions of the article, and I agree with the closer that this made a consistent close impossible. The closer said that a new AFD would be the way to resolve the biographical notability issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The MFD notice on a draft or project page says not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. The AFD notice on an article says not to remove the notice. I have been saying for several years that the AFD notice should say not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. An editor moved the page by replacing it with another page, and that confused things. I have mostly been concerned about bad-faith moves of nominated articles, but this was a misguided good-faith move that should not have been done because it made a consistent closure impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I am not invested in this closure and I came to the decision of a procedural close after reviewing the discussion again. The AFD was started with one version of the article on this subject and, after several relistings of the discussion, it came time to close the discussion but it was now about a different version of the article than when it started. I looked at the possible options for closure and none of them seemed appropriate as they would all be ignoring the fact that the AFD had covered two different versions of an article on the same subject.

I realize that the AFD is about the subject but this still seemed like a highly unusual situation so a procedural close was done and, if editors wished to do so, a fresh AFD could be started if there were those who still sought deletion. This seemed like the only resolution that would abide by the spirit of our guidelines. I review most open AFDs on a regular basis and if I had noticed that the articles had been switched out (main space>draft, draft>main space) earlier in the process, I would have closed this discussion sooner before it had gone on so long. I have closed hundreds (thousands?) of AFD discussions over the past four and a half years and this is the first time I've seen a situation like this happen. I'm glad this review is happening, not to second guess myself but because I'm curious what other solutions DRV regulars think might have been suitable for an AFD where the article that has been nominated is switched midway through the discussion with a different draft version. If the consensus is that my closure was incorrect, I accept that determination and welcome the community's guidance on how to handle situations like this should they ever come up again in the future. Liz 21:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I personally think that if an article is re-written during an AFD, that does not invalidate the !votes, since AFD arguments usually address the subject's notability rather than the state of the wikitext. I was expecting a keep close for this particular AFD. Not sure how much more editor time we should spend on this though. It's been to deletion review twice now. I would not have personally taken this to deletion review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• This is the second time this user insists on starting a deletion review on this article in a short time. He asked the closer but gave very little time for a reply before starting this second deletion review. Why this painful rush? Why force the community to spend all this time? Is it really a life or death situation to achieve just the exact and precise sort of close? I wholeheartedly agree with the above endorse (=leave the close as "good enough") in that in the bigger picture some sort of status quo close was realistically all that would be had from that discussion, so "procedural" is just fine. I strongly advise against a backdoor delete; it is not appropriate to reinterpret "no consensus" to mean back to draft; that is explicitly against what both keep and delete !voters meant and intended when they made their comments. If "keep" starts to mean "keep or possibly back to draft" then every Wikipedian needs to be made aware of that and we need a new term for "keep and only keep". To me, "no consensus" needs to keep having the meaning "we could not agree to make a change, so we keep the status quo" Regards CapnZapp (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the above poster who is criticizing me is a very involved editor who "insists" on dealing with this matter by insisting that those questioning specific claims inconvenient to his stance remain silent. The appropriateness of the first deletion review should be apparent in its success. As for rushing, I waited approximately a day and saw that the admin involved had responded to a number of other matters without responding to concerns posted by multiple people on their Talk page... and that admin has now expressed that she is "glad this review is happening". If this is found to be an appropriate close, I'd be interested in seeing where the limits are (WP:AFD says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article", and that is largely what the swap was, as the draft article was basically a superset of the information in the article-space article, with better sourcing; cutting and pasting the entire draft article would seem within the letter of that, but the swap maintained edit history better than such pasting would've.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop mischaracterizing my comment as "insisting" you "remain silent", User:NatGertler. I asked you to not shade Vanamonde's comment by pretending he was in the business of creating exceptions when good faith would assume he was not. I think if Vanamonde93 wants to define an exception, it's up to them where the line is they are arguing for. is a strong case of gaslighting and I wasn't letting you get away with it - to me he was definitely not trying to create exceptions and your demand that they draw lines is unreasonable. Telling you to stop diminishing another user's comment is very clearly not the same thing as "insisting" you "remain silent" - you are free to express yourself in a million ways; including ways where you put your thumb in the eye of a user that might not meet your stringent precision requirements. If, that is, you accept you might receive push-back from random users like me. Also, your comparison with Friends (each of the six Friends actors deserves equal notability while apparently there's this invisible line between the fifth and sixth main actor of Young Sheldon, which only excludes Revord). You somehow think it's okay to arbitrarily downplay actors (she is probably 6th in quantity of screen presence, She's a regular, yes, but she's supporting cast.) - no, Nat, there's zero weight in arguing her screen credit is less valuable than, say, Jordan's or Pott's. Finally, the context for what Nat is accusing me: Another user tried to defuse the situation by the very reasonable interpretation of Vanamonde's comment (Perhaps we can agree on "a main actor"?) but no, you doubled down - and when I didn't fold, that's how you end up in situations where your only recourse, apparently, is to think people "insist" you "remain silent" when in reality, they are merely asking you assume good faith. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I see a lot of electrons have been sacrificed arguing over my intended meaning - I wish I had been pinged! For clarity, I am aware that Missy Cooper isn't the main character of the show, and "a main character" is what I intended to write. Also, for the record, I have not watched the show, would not describe myself as a fan, and am only aware of it because of how often it is mentioned in articles on the internet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse This is a unique but excellent close. I agree above that AfDs are about notability, not about what should happen to a specific article, but I think "no consensus" is the strongest close here, it's been at AfD for awhile, and a "no consensus" creates possible issues with draft space, so a procedural close both allows it to be kept in main space, at least temporarily, and allows for a new conversation. I would give it a couple weeks and then start a fresh AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn I would still have nominated regardless of what the text of the article said, as I would not have allowed an article created in open contempt of process to survive without an AfD. And I still won't allow it, and will renominate this version for AfD as well as soon as practical. Hence nothing has addressed the actual reason for my nomination, and the procedural close was improper. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I'm hoping for an "actual" close instead of the procedural, it would hopefully spare us that new afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would suggest a little casualness in starting a new AFD, for the simple reason that there is currently material bubbling up through tabloid sources regarding an online persona that, should it reach the level of better coverage in the next few days, could push the subject past the WP:NACTOR concern, at least for me, and would leave the article in a state that would likely have been accepted if submitted from Draft. See Talk:Raegan Revord for details. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closing, including the SuperTrout ({{Whale}}) for User:PrimeHunter for disrupting the AfD. Ask User:Pppery to wait at least two weeks after the close of this DRV to renominate. While some have a sense of outrage, there is no reason to rush. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, look at the timeline again. When PrimeHunter did their thing, the afd was closed as keep, then it was re-opened, and then Liz closed it again. This trouting thing is quite unfair, and disappointing from an 18 year + Wikipedian. Not to mention an admin/arb. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I withdraw endorsement of the SuperTrout, it does appear unfair. Is he an Arb, didn’t know, but that’s irrelevant. Looking at the state of things around 10am 3 January 2025, the AfD was closed, and looked reasonably closed on my pass, and explicitly raised the possibility of a page swap of the article for the better older draft, which User:PrimeHunter carried out. That was ostensibly the perfect thing to do, so apologies to PrimeHunter. I’m tempted now to criticise User:OwenX for relisting. OwenX did not reverse the pageswap, and from then onwards, the process had failed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe Thanks! "admin/arb" referred to Liz, maybe I should have said "from an admin/arb". When she says stuff, people are likely to listen, for good reason, but IMO she should correct her closing statement. Agree with "ostensibly the perfect thing to do".

  On reverting the swap, I see your point, but I also think that would have been a bad idea from the BLP-perspective, changing back to . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  The pageswap should not have reversed, meaning that the AfD should not have been relisted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right to criticize me, SmokeyJoe. I noticed something was fishy when I reverted the NAC, since the linked page under review didn't have the AfD template in its history. But I figured I'd leave things for the WP:GNOMES and bots to clean up, and thought things were fine once I saw user:cyberbot I attach the missing template. I routinely un-move pages that are moved during AfD, and should have dug deeper and unswapped in this case as well. Mea culpa, and a well deserved self-trout. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is a strange case, and you’re a pleasure to work with. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is a strange case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have raised the question of forbidding the moving, merging, or blanking of an article during AFD at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Forbid_Moving_an_Article_During_AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon: sure, as long as we agree that doesn't apply to this particular article - as stated above it was only moved after the AFD was closed (and before it was reopened). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't particularly see a issue with the swap, especially since it technically happened while the AFD was closed? More generally, significant rewires, including total replacements, do not totally void an AFD discussion, and therefore page swaps shouldn't either. On the other hand, the close is essentially a no consensus without prejudice closure, and the AFD is enough of a confusing trainwreck to justify that (the bludgeoning does not help, though I suppose this is not a conduct forum). I would endorse the close in this specific case, and unusual closes that creatively get around issues (the trainwreck) more generally, though absent the trainwreck I would recommend that a page swap not be considered to preclude substantive closes.

As an retrospective on earlier administrative actions, the WP:REOPEN statement could possibly have been a bit more detailed, though of course I do not know if an exhortation to be more focused and provide analysis would actually have been effective. I agree with Robert McClenon, Liz, SportingFlyer and Pppery that a new AFD would be appropriate (in a couple of weeks). I would encourage participants of said new AFD to clearly link their arguments to the relevant guidelines, and if making an argument to IAR, clearly explain why the exception would make for a suitable article in this case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Liz is completely correct that you can't understand and parse a discussion when two separate iterations of an article are being discussed. Really, I don't think you can effectively hit a moving target when making changes during an AfD, which is why I rarely do. However, while Novem Linguae may be correct in theory, too many editors only look at and comment on the current state of the article--they don't do any research themselves nor engage with additional sourcing brought up by others in the course of an AfD. This is yet another topic that could stand to be clarified. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  In this particular case, I think you can understand and parse. It's a bit complex, though.

  In the first part of the afd, you have a bunch of keep, and they are saying keep to this version. 2 editors, me and @NatGertler, are indicating doubt, Nat Gertler with an !vote.

  In the later part of the afd, after the first relist that came after the close-swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft-DRV-reopen sequence of events, editors are now commenting on this version. Now, consider this speculation on my part if you will, but that change would not have made the keeps do a 180, the improvement is quite obvious.

  Nat Gertler commented extensively in the later part of the afd, if he had changed his mind he would have said so. As for myself, I wrote an !vote, so readers will know what I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe it would be uncontroversial to say there was universal consensus for "the second version is superior to the first" in both !keep and !delete camps. Everybody seemed to think PrimeHunter's "swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft" was a good idea, which makes his current supertrouted (whalesquished, even) status all the more poignant. CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And to be clear, much of my argument in the pre-original-closure made it clear that even then I was looking at the draft version, because I repeatedly argued that the draft version is the one that should be kept if there was a keep result. My delete concerns were based on notability, not on the content of a specific version of the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So, my cautionary advice stands: Just because one can follow what's happened, doesn't mean we should expect the average participant and closer to do so. The contrarian in me notes that if we made AfDs more confusing we might get fewer drive-by !votes, but reducing participation is almost never a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Average closer? Perhaps no. Called-in-for-re-close-after-first-DRV-admin Liz? Perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved, voted keep). Very difficult close by a very skilled closing admin. There were two different versions of the same article that were being discussed. While a no consensus close would have been fine, this probably works better as some may have considered a NC close to mean to send the article back to draft space for improvement. As the keep close is on procedural grounds, anyone is free to renominate it. I would recommend waiting at least a month after this DRV closes, in an attempt for tempers to cool down and to possibly allow for perspective from different users. Frank Anchor 13:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn closure (mostly to undo the Liz's incorrect WP:TROUT of PrimeHunter). Should probably be re-closed as a simple keep and the WP:TROUT should be applied to Liz and to OwenX who reopened the AFD without saying so and without noticing that the page had been moved . —Kusma (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Doesn't count as saying so? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  ok, yes, it is in the relisting bit that I never look at. Trout for me too I guess (tasty!) —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• With all due respect to Liz, who does excellent work at AfD, I don't believe a procedural close was needed here, and a lot of the procedural argument is quite unnecessary. If this is kept - and it seems it will be - the material in draftspace should just be merged to mainspace, and the draftspace title redirected to preserve history. If "credit" becomes important (why would it? DYK? GAN?) anyone who contributed substantively is logically entitled to credit in the same they would normally be if something were drafted in talk- or user-space. I !voted "weak keep", but either a "keep" or a "no consensus" could be justified here: there are substantive arguments for both outcomes, and many "keep"s acknowledge that notability is borderline/somewhat based on IAR. I would be fine with striking the trout to PrimeHunter - if I am reading the sequence of events correctly they acted while the AfD was closed, and as such their actions were reasonable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Tangential comment The reason "credit is important" is that editors (technically) retain copyright to their contributions, but license them under CC BY-SA, which requires attribution. If you can't figure out who wrote what, then we're in violation of the license terms. It's a little hard to imagine such a thing coming to trial, but it's a point of hygiene that the community takes seriously. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Trovatore: Our copyright and licensing choices require us to preserve the history of content we host. They do not in any way require us to preserve it at the same title, otherwise merges from draftspace/userspace to mainspace would not be possibly (they are in fact routine). If the page is kept, we need to preserve the history of both versions - but we do not need to waste more time over which title which version exists at. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Meh. Liz is correct that the AfD should be restarted because it is a mess, but wrong to blame PrimeHunter. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the closed discussion and I doubt that one would develop in a fresh one so perhaps it's best to wait a while before renominating. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

18 January 2025

Jarosław Bako

Jarosław Bako (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I am the user who nominated Jarosław Bako article for deletion. I want to clarify the situation in this deletion review as I think the nomination was not discussed further enough. JuniperChill closed it as Keep per WP:SNOW as there were more Keep votes than Delete or Redirect, the latter where his name is mentioned on "Most clean sheets" section of Poland national football team. This article is not meeting the current notability guidelines for sportspeople (after NSPORTS2022) on English Misplaced Pages.

Even after the AfD was closed, no significant, major updates of the article had been made. As JoelleJay and Mims Mentor stated in the deletion, their comments indicate nothing that shows particular notability, along with excellent source analysis provided by the former user. At best, this AfD should pull a Stanislav Moravec one that I nominated one month before Bako.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the “keep” result but I disagree with the “snow” characterization since there were legitimate arguments made questioning the subject’s notability. Nonetheless, there was clear consensus to keep and a general rejection of JoelleJay’s source analysis which argued the subject failed GNG. This was probably not the best NAC but certainly not a WP:BADNAC either since the end result is clearly correct. The fact that an AFD on a similar subject closed as “redirect” is not relevant. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Frank Anchor 16:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse the Keep close. The 'snow' characterization was silly after the AFD had already run for 162 hours. DRV is not AFD round 2. As Frank Anchor says, we shouldn't use an other stuff exists argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• I participated so won't endorse, but just to note the Stanislav Moravec outcome seems wrong as well given he was covered in the book Najlepší v kopačkách SR. It's hard to find online sources about him - he is a reserves team manager now and came down with coronavirus before an European match - but we've probably overcorrected on sports to the point where people who should be notable are getting deleted because they're pre-internet or don't live in an English speaking part of the world. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you want to add that comment, you should go to my User Talk or Talk:List of Slovakia international footballers instead... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why? It was specifically mentioned in this context. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. There were strong arguments to delete or redirect, and JoelleJay's source analysis was spot-on, as usual. But in the end, there was simply nothing close to a consensus to delete the page or redirect it. I can understand the appellant's frustration. Between NSPORT, NSPORTS2022, and the various other attempts at an SNG for this topic, the community simply cannot settle on consistent notability criteria for sports figures. When we do end up deleting an article, it will often be restored or recreated in draftspace by well intentioned editors, and eventually find its way back to mainspace, in hope of a more favourable AfD outcome, or at least of flying under the radar. While ARBCOM's attention is focused on political influence here, far more effort is directed by fans towards retaining the pages of their favourite footballers and teams, with the more experienced editors proficient at guideline-shopping to make their point. Little by little, over the years, WP turned into a hybrid encyclopedia-and-sports-almanac. This isn't criticism of any particular editor, but a reflection on our inability to set and enforce a consistent, clear set of notability guidelines for this subject. My hat is off to any AfD closer, admin or not, who tries to adjudicate these discussions fairly. But in the end, I wonder if such attempts are worth the time and effort we put into them. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. This could not have possibly been closed any different. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment as Discussion Starter: I would be fine with a redirect endorse. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

A “redirect endorse” is not a realistic option, as there was clearly not consensus to do anything but keep. Frank Anchor 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

17 January 2025

Thajuddin

Thajuddin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has a place in the history of Kerala, it is a biography of a man who lived in AD 600, known as Chera King Cheraman Perumal (Thajuddin), but he went to Mecca and met Prophet Muhammad in person, converted to Islam and took the name Thajuddin. There are many sources that prove this, books, articles, historical documents, and the mosque (Cheraman Juma Mosque) built under his instructions is recorded in history as one of the first mosques built in India.

The article important role in the entry of Islam into India and Kerala

:Reference

1. Books:-
2. News articles :-
3. JSTOR :-
4. Other articles:-

1. External links:-

Notable Acknowledgements of this Biography

• Chera dynasty
• Rulers of the Chera
• Companions of the Prophet
• Part of Splitting of the Moon

The location where he was buried after his death : (GPS

This historical biography was deleted for being hoax and Sources cited are poor in quality This page can be brought back to life with good editing based on sources, for which I request you to restore this page.

AFD's Quotes:-

kept in the first AFD, rejected and deleted in the second AFD

The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merger or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision
_ Liz (First AFD Closed admin)

Keep. Kings are automatically notable......
_ Eastmain

Admin who participated in second AFD Relisting comment:

I'd like to see an evaluation of sources brought into the discussion before closing this discuasion. And from what I can see, this is not a "hoax" but falls into the realm of legendary. We have plenty of articles on legendary figures from different cultures so that shouldn't be a pivotal reason to delete.
_ Liz (2nd AfD Relisting admin)

~~Spworld2 (talk) 4:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the almost-unanimous result. The appellant's claim that the article was "kept" in the first AfD is false. The result of that AfD was no consensus. The appellant already brought up all these arguments at the AfD, and they were soundly rejected. This extra kick at the can is a blatant waste of DRV's time. Owen× ☎ 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  In the first AfD, "no consensus" meant "do not eliminate", which was later retained.

  Sock puppet account were shared in the discussion and the discussion was not discussed further Spworld2 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Relist I'm not 100% sure but feel that we probably need to discuss this a bit more. It feels like there was an overemphasis on the word Thajuddin in the discussion rather than Cheraman Perumal. I'm not any kind of expert but it looks like that's another name for the same person. If that's correct then there are peer reviewed papers and books about them. I've found others in addition to those mentioned above. To me the suggestion that the character is mythical or a hoax is irrelevant if we assess that the sources are sound. I don't think there is sufficient discussion of the sources (for good reasons including problems with socks) in the discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was only one non-sock account supporting keep. The overwhelming, policy-based consensus was correctly interpreted and the appellant's views were debated extensively and did not convince other participants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Closer's note: I was suprised there wasn't more disucussion about the sources because it's my experience is that is typical when the type of sources given here are presented. But there wasn't and my job as closer is to just reflect the consensus. I think Liz correctly relisted to give more time but it ultimately didnt convince and I felt it important to act on the consensus present before and after the relist. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• I completely understand the frustration and why this is at DRV. Every single delete !vote appears mistaken - either that this is a hoax or that GNG isn't passed. The possibly incorrect name of the person in the title doesn't help. Looking through the sources, it definitely seems at least possible to have an article on this person, even if it's not immediately clear from some of the sources presented, and I haven't looked into reliability of the ones which I have seen. But there was almost no source analysis in the AfD. I'm really not sure what course of action to propose here. I'm not sure anything AfD related will be helpful, so probably draftify to allow sources to be added back into the article and then allow it to be moved into mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse AfD. Reject this DRV nomination without reading through due to it throwing up irrelevant information. Read advice at WP:THREE. Choose the three best sources, no more. Write a draft, featuring those three best sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the closure of Delete as the right conclusion after a consensus to Delete. The AFD was a mess, and the closer did the best that they could from a an AFD that wasn't a train wreck but was a wreck.
  • The AFD was corrupted by sockpuppetry.
  • Both the Delete arguments and the Keep arguments were misguided.
    • There were Delete arguments claiming that the article was a hoax, when the question should have been whether the subject was legendary rather than a real person (and legends reported by reliable sources may be notable as legends).
    • A Keep argument cited royalty noability to say that kings are always notable, but royalty notability is a failed proposal, not a guideline.
  • There was no source analysis, although the relisting admin asked for source analysis.
  • Sometimes a closer really should count votes. In the absence of plausible arguments to assess the strength of, the closer counted votes rather than supervoting.
  • Allow Submission of Draft for review. The submitter should be aware that citing royalty notability insults the reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I don’t see how anyone can !vote endorse when the arguments given were not policy based and there was no effort to engage with the sources offered on the page or elsewhere.

  Counting votes is never acceptable, this is not a beauty contest we are trying to reach consensus.

  I accept that points made by !keep and !delete were both spurious. But it’s a ridiculous position to then make that it was correct to delete the page. We literally do this stuff thousands of times a week - we tell new people it isn’t about majority !voting and it is about following the policy. And usually that’s the GNG, which can only be determined by assessing the sources.

  Furthermore I don’t see how we can say that we “allow submission of a draft” as a remedial step. If we do that, the page remains deleted, which in turn is likely to affect AfC reviewers because the new draft would closely resemble the deleted page. I mean how can it not? The page has been deleted for bad reasons, a good faith editor could start from scratch and write a page using the same sources and see it deleted (or not moved from draft) for the same reasons.

  In my view the only real options available a) are to strike the delete and reopen the AfD for further discussion or b) send to draft as it is. Anything else makes a nonsense of these processes and the time we all spend trying to make judgements on topics against the notability criteria, policies and guidelines. JMWt (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) : Closer was correct in their assessment of the consensus. Although many bare urls were posted , most of these "sources" were unreliable, WP:UGC, WP:SPS, or WP:RAJ, and nobody explained how they provided the required significant coverage or any coverage at all about the topic. No source assessment was provided by the keep voters either. In the end consensus was not favour of keeping the article. Nxcrypto Message 14:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

16 January 2025

Chakobsa (Dune)

Chakobsa (Dune) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think the process was fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it. Other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. Khiikiat (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Relist (involved) because 1) contested NAC, and 2) the close turns in part on a subtle question: does the article in The New Yorker (and, to a lesser extent, Al Jazeera) constitute RS coverage even though it doesn't mention the word "Chakobsa", and 3) is a NOPAGE argument sufficiently policy based to overcome a topic with adequate reliable sourcing (NYT, New Yorker, Variety, etc.) Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The content of the page is irrelevant. What the AfD examined is the notability of its subject, which is the same whether the article is fleshed out or empty. It was closed correctly by an experienced and capable non-admin. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist The content of the page which was based on secondary sources at the time of the closure had grown just above the level of a stub (taking 250 words as a vague threshold), which in turn demonstrated that the subject had received just enough coverage to fullfill the notability requirements. I feel that the WP:HEY argument has not received enough weight in the closure decision, seeing that all Redirect !votes were made when the content based on secondary sources was just below this stub threshold. Daranios (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - The substantial expansion of the article during the seven days that the AFD was running warrants allowing the previous Redirect !voters to consider whether to change to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment To be honest, save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion, as an active participant at articles for deletion, I do not see a WP:GNG pass here at all. I mean, I would nominate an article like this for deletion discussion. I went through every cited source, I do not see any of them that satisfy the three required criteria for GNG, they're mostly satisfying only one or two, it's either a source is not reliable, but is independent, or the source is reliable but does not provide substantial coverage of the subject (mostly citation #1 to #8). Relisting this would be unnecessary, why? Well, because even the reworked version is still evidently not passing GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion, which is what DRV is here to determine. Three additional redirect !votes were made after the WP:HEY argument was made and after the additional material was added. It is incorrect to suggest the redirect !voters had not considered the additions. They were just not convinced that the sources were significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the subject. I note that one of the three additional !voters was a new user but two were well established and experienced, and the consensus of that discussion was clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. It was not a WP:BADNAC; an experienced AfD participant conducted a NAC with a clear consensus, so this is a bit of a red herring as a ground for appealing. Several !voters supported redirection even after the improvements to the article. GNG is not merely a matter of sourcing; it's a two-part test and participants clearly did not believe this topic met the second test of WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist The closer's statement above makes me think this was indeed a WP:BADNAC, even if consensus was correct. Closing a discussion is about evaluating what others have said, not inserting your own judgment. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer You entirely misunderstood my comment then. My closure and assessment of the discussion has nothing to do with what I just said, that was why I said save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion. This is not the first time I’m assessing the consensus in a discussion and it would not be different. I am fully aware that closing a discussion is assessing the consensus from it and not your own opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whether you meant it or not, there is nothing more frustrating than a closer saying "I think this should have been the outcome." SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I guess you do not quite understand my well-intended comment, and that is perfectly normal. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I think it is worth it to mention that on 12 November 2024, I mentioned to an editor that my role as the closer is not to evaluate the sources myself, as doing so would constitute a supervote. My responsibility is to close the discussion based on the consensus established by the participants, not my personal judgment, so, the source analysis I just did had nothing to do with my initial closure. I hope this helps and also gives you context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I simply do not remember the last time a closer brought a source analysis to DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse clear consensus to redirect. This was not a WP:BADNAC and there is no requirement that the discussion be unanimous for a non-admin to close. The WP:HEY argument was rejected by three subsequent redirect voters as well. Frank Anchor 19:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion. That said, it is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources cited in the article or the sources in the discussion. It is the role of the closer to summarize how the participants viewed the sources and the strength of the policy arguments. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  So I'm going to push back on this. When Sandstein did his own incorrect source analysis on Principal Snyder (Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27), we endorsed his conclusion. Now, you're saying we should forbid the closer from doing their own source analysis in this case that would have shown the redirect !voters to have been incorrect. Which is it? This is not a WAX argument, just a plea for consistency in whether closers are expected to do, or not do, their own source assessments as part of assessing rough consensus, by assigning less weight to incorrect assertions. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is the same position I took with Sandstein's close, and just as here, I criticized Sandstein's characterization of the sources. I do not believe that a closer should evaluate the underlying source(s) brought up during the discussion. However, a closer can, and probably shoud, especially with a contentious nomination, characterize how participants discussed the sources. - Enos733 (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

EV Group

EV Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The editors seem to have shown undue hurry to close the issue. Please see given link which mentions that the said company alongwith one more (from same country Austria) - they both together hold 82% of world's GLOBAL SHARE of wafer bonding for chipmaking using silicon wafers (https://www.ft.com/content/1c4fe3f0-7d44-4346-833b-e1beca9298c9) - is there anything more needed for NOTABILITY - apart from another internet find earlier given in the deletion discussion already. Another user @Cameremote had tried to burnish the article - but no editor seems to be willing to listen and just reverted. I have nothing to do with this company or their product - and I simply came across this article - because probably what caught my eye was the text "2nd nomination for deletion". Jn.mdel (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd have just reverted Cameremote's edits too. They took a neutrally-written article and turned it into something I'd have speedied as spam if not for its history (choice sentence: "With a global presence, EVG is recognized for contributing to the semiconductor industry and delivering cutting-edge equipment to fabs worldwide.") —Cryptic 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Also, I think you may be confused about the term "notability" - it's Misplaced Pages-specific jargon in this context, and doesn't have its usual meaning of "worthy of note". The short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nearly every word of that is jargon too: see WP:Notability for the long version, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for how we specifically apply it to companies (short version: more strictly than for most subjects). —Cryptic 11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks for replying - I cannot now see /access what Cameremote may have specifically updated - but if as per you the article was neutrally-worded before those updates (which were later reverted) - then so be it.

    My limited point for this review request is that the company seems "notable". Jn.mdel (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. The AFD fell into error in failing to consider the historical versions of the article before the rewrite; I think between it all there is sufficient evidence of notability. Accordingly the deletion process has not been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Stifle Incorrect; the nomination statement was based on the original version of the article and included an analysis of every source in the original version. My comment below includes my analysis of every added source in the rewrite. I agree with @Cryptic that Cameremote's rewrite did not really improve things but the original did not have any qualifying sources either. It would perhaps be helpful for an admin to undelete the revision history so DRV participants can review it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  (And when I say "original version," I mean the version that existed after it had been recreated on 5 January 2025 in a series of several edits that day; not the version that preceded the 2015 "delete" AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (involved, as nominator). I confess I am not sure what grounds this is being brought on? If undue hurry is the objection, well, it ran for a full week and attracted several !votes and comments. It seems like there's a nod to DRV#3 by bringing up the FT article, I can't view it because I don't have a subscription. From the limited view I have it seems to call the company "EVG", which is perhaps why it didn't come up in a search.) However, in the discussion, no sources were deemed to contribute to WP:NCORP, so bringing up a single source on appeal would not alone be able to get an article to NCORP even if it were WP:SIGCOV, which I can't tell either way. I also sincerely question the appellant's ability to evaluate whether it is a qualifying source, considering they argued in the AfD that a primary source press release from a competitor counted toward notability, and indeed in the discussion above the appellant is coming back to the company seems "notable", which is not grounds for appeal or for keeping. As for the consensus, during the discussion, there were three in favor of deletion and two in favor of keeping. But Owen correctly weighed the contributions. Cameremote tried to improve the article but did not convince the other editors with the new sources. They did not cast a !vote, and seemed OK with deletion in the end. The appellant cast the only true keep !vote, but did not rebut the source analysis I provided and offered only a single defective source as discussed above; I and another editor discussed why this source was unconvincing. Owen could have relisted to generate a stronger consensus, but I think a sufficient delete consensus existed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  My grounds for review request were mainly two:

  1. An independent business magazine reference was required - I found : https://www.adhesivesmag.com/articles/87890-3m-and-ev-group-settle-patent-infringement-suit

  But meantime did not get a chance to post it

  2. The FT article is visible and clear about the global share of said company - if some of you cannot read on the link - I can upload a pdf print of that webpage also - but i am sure some of you can read it too - 82% global share between two companies from Austria of wafer bonding for chips which power almost everything in our today's world is not a joke

  But all said and done - from my completely neutral point of view of someone who has nothing to do with that company or that product or that country - my submissions highlight that we need to be more open to giving a chance to a submission Jn.mdel (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Adhesives Magazine is a WP:TRADES publication and thus generally not considered independent. Please do not upload the FT article text as that would be a copyright violation. As for your final point, this article has been created twice and now deleted twice. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We have standards, you may disagree, but coming here without a valid reason to overturn the deletion decision is wasting the time of the community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I believe let the community decide on the validity of the reasons given in my replies Jn.mdel (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  You seem to be treating Deletion Review as a second shot at having an AfD discussion. That's not what it is. It's for if there was an error by the closer or one of the specific grounds identified at WP:DRV. OK, that's my last response here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I could not help but respond to the nominator's last post - so as to clarify the original nominator's post and the statement - "They did not cast a !vote, and seemed OK with deletion in the end" - i guess you all are way too senior to be argued with :

  1. In the AFD you asked for an independent business magazine source - I got it here as didn't get time to post in AFD before it was closed - to that you now say this is "generally not considered independent"

  2. I then give you the FT article which names the company as part of two having 82% global share - you say - ”would not alone be able to get an article to NCORP even if it were WP:SIGCOV"

  3. I bring out the fact that same company is covered on German wiki since 2010 - then someone chips in "will still have to pass our notability guideline" - implying German wiki is non-judicious.

  4. And last but not the least from where it all started - that a competitor like 3M is publicly settling their patent infringement with this company way back in 2008 (for which not only 3M's PR but even US court link was probably provided by camerote) which surely implies distinct specialisation of the company - and which then also seems in sync with the more recent FT article of 2022 too.

  I am not sure whether we appreciate that knowledge-driven companies may not be given to press or publicizing about their intellectual property/ patents etc.

  Do give it a thought - and maybe cross-referencing / cross-validation from other language wikis too may not be a bad idea - unless the statement made by someone about "our notability guidelines" means that you are separate from others wikis - although I thought we all are editors on the same platform - but offcourse you people have much, much more responsibility, experience and duties as administrators to fulfill & decide (because sanctity of information and validation of correctness is indeed of utmost importance). Jn.mdel (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse, the AfD did run for a full week, and, while low participation could have warranted a relist, closing it was also reasonable. The nominator's original statement did address the version prior to the rewrite. Seconding Cryptic's comment that the rewrite itself was also far from an improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak endorse I finally settled on endorse after considering relisting or overturning to no consensus, which would also be good options here - the keep !voters (yes, HEYing an article, even promotionally, should be treated as a keep in my book if you don't specifically bold your !vote) had their sources dissected enough that I think the close is reasonable, but I have absolutely no objection if this is relisted or overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I want to commend the nominator for a very thorough review of extant sources. Whatever the outcome, this is anything but a lazy nomination. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am not sure whether as an earlier participant in afd discussion, I can vote here or not - otherwise it would be "OVERTURN" in my view.

  Anyways, one last bit of addition from my end - this same / similar article has been on German wiki since 2010 (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/EV_Group) - hope this helps alongwith links given earlier in my replies and original afd discussion. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Simply having an article on another Misplaced Pages project does not establish notability by itself; the subject of the article will still have to pass our notability guidelines. Lectonar (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks - as you all wish. Jn.mdel (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as a reasonable conclusion from three Deletes including the nomination and one Keep. A Relist would have been reasonable also, but was not required. It may not be directly relevant that the rewrite of the article that was in progress was introducing marketing buzzspeak, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, but no progress was being made to bring the article closer to corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse. No real challenge to the deletion has been made. There was a consensus regarding the lack of notability. Everything was done correctly. I am separately noting that Stifle wrote that the AFD fell into error in failing to consider the historical versions of the article before the rewrite, which would have been a serious challenge, but that is not what happened. —Alalch E. 18:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Aria (Indian singer)

Aria (Indian singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This biography needs an independent page (Article), opposes being merged into another, requests to restore this page to its current state

reason :- The deletion discussion of this page ended quickly, could not participate in the discussion,

another one did not participate in this more editors, the editor who raised the redirect argument did not say the reason. the editor who raised the keep argument brought references but the closing editor did not consider it.

This living biography was born and raised in India, acted in Malayalam cinema in India, and has references.

Another, biography is a notable K-pop (X:IN) singer , dancer and Idol in Korea (WP:SINGER WP:NACTOR) - -

reference:-

~ ~ Spworld2 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse redirect. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It does not consider requests that merely constitute an assertion that the AFD was wrong and seek to re-argue it. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would also endorse what Jclemens said below about spinning back out the redirect as a normal editorial action if sufficient sourcing is added. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  AfD was a mistake, doesn't mean. It was mentioned as a fact, this is not a reason,

  I could not attend it, so I could not argue, the editor who voted to 'redirect' on AFD did not give a reason for it,

  It is a fact.

  I request to restore this, this should remain an independent article, X:IN is a music group (K-pop) in Korea , both are different, this is an Indian singer, dancer and Actress working in a Korean music group, and this biography is also about an Indian film Actress in (Malayalam cinema), the notable being WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR Pass. Spworld2 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, the fact that you do not agree with the AFD outcome or submissions that others made is irrelevant. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Relist Nom, and one each delete, keep, and redirect makes consensus rather iffy to call. Now, if that were after 2+ relists, I'd see the NC close as more reasonable, but the appellant here is asking for more time on an AfD closed without a relist. Alternatively, anyone can edit the redirected page, expand sourcing significantly--and I would warn against poor quality sources here, which seem to plague Asian pop culture--and undo the redirect without needing DRV consent. Again, this is to improve the encyclopedia, not a shortcut to get one's own way. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist. The nom and one delete vote assert there is no WP:SIGCOV. The keep vote provides a few references which I do not believe are adequately refuted. There is also a redirect vote that had no substance to it whatsoever that should be discounted. A relist will allow for better analysis of the sources brought up both at the AFD and here and for consensus to form. I currently do not see any consensus in the AFD. Frank Anchor 14:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging AfD participants: @Paper9oll, Bakhtar40, Darkm777, and CNMall41. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect as stated by Stifle. I don't think a relist would changes anything given that the concern of WP:NEWSORGINDIA sourcing (some were included above) wasn't addressed and/or ignored (topic change) completely. Also noting that a Korean sourcing was included above, which, inadvertently strengthens my AfD's rationale on WP:PASSINGMENTION. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

NEWSORGINDIA is not a policy or guideline, but rather an information page. Frank Anchor 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I know that however NEWSORGINDIA was added (diff) per an RfC on RSN (permalink) that coincidentally also derived from an AfD on Indian BLP hence I don't believe that doesn't carry certain weight compared to a typical information page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse I think a relist would be fine here as well, but redirecting was a reasonable reading of that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - I disagree with the closing statement that the redirect is A sensible, unopposed ATD. It was opposed by the editor who said to Keep. With a sloppy closing statement, it seems better to relist both to attract more opinions and to get a different closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral- I don't think extending the discussion would result in a different outcome; however, not opposed to letting the discussion run just to see. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - I am not convinced with the statement. The Relist of this article on X:IN is correct. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Reasonable close, no corrective action needed. The article can be restored as a normal editorial action by saving a version with the changes made to it needed to overcome the reason why it was deleted. But when you do this, apply a wide margin so that the content speaks for itself and a new AfD seems clearly unjustified.—Alalch E. 18:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - I was the sole Keep voter. I believe the subject has enough coverage to qualify. We need a relist to get more votes in.Darkm777 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent discussions

14 January 2025

Peter Fiekowsky

Peter Fiekowsky (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article is still in the simple english version, what is the problem? On the search engine Bing, Peter Fiekowsky has more than 2 million views, and it is just about having this valuable scientist and author on wikipedia: the article started as follows: Peter Fiekowsky is an American author, physicist and founder of the field of climate restoration and author of "Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race" (Rivertown Books, 2022). He has founded the Foundation for Climate Restoration, Methane Action, Stable Planet Alliance, the Climate Restoration Safety & Governance Board, among others.'

I contacted the administrator who deleted the article, with no answer from him or her. Is it an action of hostility towards the climate policies? Thank you if you can help to restore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adumoul (talk • contribs)

• Procedural Close - The statement that there has been no answer from the deleting administrator is incorrect. User:Deb has replied, and says that the originator of the article was a sockpuppet, and the article read like a CV. We review G11 deletions, but we don't review G5 deletions when the opening statement is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Nothing to do here unless someone can make a convincing argument neither G5 nor G11 applied. The title isn't salted, so any user in good standing is welcome to write a non-infringing article on this person, which will be subject to future deletion processes normally. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• I'll endorse the G11, but its author wasn't blocked until months after creating this. —Cryptic 07:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion because G11 applied, judging by the allegedly same article on the Simple English Misplaced Pages.—Alalch E. 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The article here had very little in common with the one at simple:Peter Fiekowsky - the Education section of the first few revisions was sort of similar, but that's about it. Ours was much longer and much more promotional. —Cryptic 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Looking at the temp undeleted content, there is no basis for overturning G11.—Alalch E. 19:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Request temporary undeletion. Both the G11 and G5 justifications are in doubt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Overturn G5, but note that it is a discovered UPE product.

  Mild overturn G11 to Draftify. It is not obviously G11 eligible, only close, better to send to AfD, where I would be leaning “delete” or “Draftify”, but go straight to “Draftify” due to it being WP:UPE product, and like any COI it must use AfC. I have not examined every reference, but those I have are unimpressive with respect, particularly to independence, in meeting the GNG. Possibly all the defences are not good, as happens with WP:Reference bombed paid product. There are claims to notability, but WP:Notability is not clearly met. I considered “Redirect to Climate restoration” but the subject is a mere tangential mention there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Possibly, this is a case for WP:TNT. Encourage User:Adumoul to start again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Request temp undeletion per SmokeyJoe. Hobit (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • overturn speedy, greatly truncate Clearly not a G5. And while spammy, it doesn't raise to the level of a G11 (This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles). We wouldn't (shouldn't) allow such an article to be forced into DRAFT, we shouldn't allow a wrong CSD to get there through the backdooor. The right answer is to clip it and let people fix that way rather than losing an mainspace article on a notable topic. If the closer is good with this option, ping me and I'll take care of it (it will be much shorter...). Hobit (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• I've temporarily undeleted. This clearly isn't a G5, but for Cryptic's reason (created in October 2024, earliest sock blocked January 2025) and because Adumoul's edits are substantive enough to make G5 not apply. It does look very spammy, though, so inclined to endorse as G11 only. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  User:Adumoul’s edits are moderate, and Abumoul should be invited to rescue the page in draftspace. It was written spammy, and would need work to rescue, probably throwing out most of the content. It’s possibly unsaveable, but determining that is work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse G11 speedy. The deleted article reads like a promotional brochure or a CV. Sandstein 09:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

1960s in history

1960s in history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

i just want the page to please be added to my user space, so that i can edit it. i thought the deletion would be a redirect, so that i could stil edit the pages. this is also for 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, and 2000s in history. Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Question - Did the filer request refund to their user space? The titles have not been salted. The first stop in this case should be Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: Yes, they did, and it was declined at RfU - permanent link. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Daniel, understood; i have now notified the admin who deleted these. Sm8900 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm fine with user spacing these. I think my issue is that the "(decade) in history" titles are redundant, though, so would prefer reworking to restoring. SportingFlyer T·C 05:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: I don't think my interpretation of consensus is being questioned here but having re-read the discussion I stand by it. If there are questions I'll answer. I have no opinion about whether or not to userspace refund and since SM8900 skipped that part of the instructions at REFUND, I don't need to come up with one and I can leave it to the editors here to find a consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Refund to Userspace although I will again wonder why editors are so intent on getting deleted articles restored to diddle with. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  There was some sense in the AfD that maybe they could be merged. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Sm8900: Please elaborate on so that i can edit it. Namely: edit to make which changes and for what purpose.—Alalch E. 17:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  i would like to take these articles, improve them, rework them, and then put them into draft space, to get communuty input on a new approach to these articles. Sm8900 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  to elaborate further, i would like to accept and accomodate all of the concerns raised at the AfD discussion. and then make sure to present this intially only as a draft, in order to gain input from the community. Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. So you have an idea about a new approach to the "X decade in history" articles and would like to present this idea to other editors using the drafts as a proof of concept? What's the new approach? Where would you present the idea, in which forum, on which talk page, or via which process?—Alalch E. 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Decline the request to undelete. It's time for Sm8900 to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Decline undeletion. It does not appear that the reason to seek undeletion was merging; instead, the reason was to facilititate future recreation. The reasons why these articles were deleted can not be overcome by working on them in draftspace or userspace. Editors were categorically against the articles as conceptually bad. This is due to being seen as redundant, on a conceptual level, not simply because of what they contained. Working on this content to prove that the articles are not in fact redundant does not seem like a productive endeavor.—Alalch E. 18:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Decline undeletion It is not clear which purpose undeletion would serve, other than restoring the articles, which it appears community consensus is against. Sandstein 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• If we're concerned the article could be recreated if we userify... could we userify and salt the title? SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

13 January 2025

11 January 2025

DJ Hollygrove

DJ Hollygrove (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DJ Hollygrove grammy winner https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/hollygrove-of-the-chopstars-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-news-photo/1463285516?adppopup=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Create as a redirect to The Chopstars (the page is salted), and we'll see what happens following that. About "grammy winner": This individual did not win a Grammy.—Alalch E. 02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  clearly it says "Grammy Winners" on that publication

  https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true <== does it not say this? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The producers were there at the ceremony because the entire marching band can't fit in. They accepted the award on behalf of the band. But some of the producers and the engineer have got a mention on the Grammy website: The official 65th Grammy awards page has the following: "Winner: 'The Urban Hymnal'; Tennessee State University Marching Band; Dr. Reginald McDonald, J. Ivy, Prof. Larry Jenkins & Aaron "Dubba -AA" Lockhart, producers; Audri Johnson, engineer/mixer". No mention of DJ Hollygrove. DJ Hollygrove is not a Grammy winner. —Alalch E. 12:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually this is FALSE, the grammy only listed to EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, they didn't list the over 100 instrumentalist that played on the album, non of the vocalist either. DJ Hollygrove was one of 10 producers whoh were apart of this project, that is why he is HOLDING the Grammy trophy is MEDIA area backstage at the awards. NO ONE is allowed to take photos with trophy unless they are winner. Should I reach out to DJ Hollygrove so that he can send me a copy of his certificate from recording academy? Would that help? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE, no, this will not be helpful.

  To have a meaningful conversation with you, it would be helpful if you would WP:Register.

  Would would be helpful to adding coverage of Hollygrove is coverage of Hollygrove, meaning comment on Hollygrove not just facts, published in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages only covers what others have already covered. Find what others have already publish, and Misplaced Pages will cover it too. Misplaced Pages will not lead in the coverage of anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  So IMDB isnt a reliable source for what films/tv programs he's been apart of? I just see too may of our texans legends not getting credit! Same with BeatKing! TexanTone (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Before asking if IMDb is a reliable source in the context of proving a topic's eligibility for a stand-alone article, we should consider whether IMDb even counts as coverage. IMDb is not coverage because it's a database and databases do not provide coverage, they provide data ("just facts"). And it's not a reliable source because its data is crowdsourced, and Misplaced Pages does not recognize such websites as reliable sources. About Texan legends getting credit, Misplaced Pages is not for making sure people get credit for their accomplishments, that is not its purpose and mission. —Alalch E. 13:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  IMDB hosts user-generated content, and as such is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. See WP:RSPSS for comments on lots of sources.

  Maybe you should be contributing to IMDb. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  If this comment isn't clear about salting/protection, I am saying: no protection yes protection (create a redirect and protect it; changed my mind on this after seeing Draft:DJ Hollygrove and reading the DRV nom's comments here) —Alalch E. 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2008 AFD close, but this doesn't seem to be a request to overturn the 2008 result. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  so how do I submit a RFPP for DJ Hollygrove 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: I don't see a 2008--or any--AfD. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 12:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove —Alalch E. 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! I added the link to the DRV template above. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Allow Creation and Review of Draft - The album, The Urban Hymnal, won the Grammy, which went to the Tennessee State University Marching Band. The Chopstars were involved in the production of the album. If the draft shows that DJ Hollygrove satisfies any of the musical notability criteria or satisfies general notability, the reviewer can submit a request to RFPP to unprotect the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  It can't be a red link in the meantime because of the need to at least have a redirect. And provided that the page exists as a redirect, since there is no ongoing basis for applying protection to the page, there shouldn't be a need to use RFPP. —Alalch E. 11:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Unsalt immediately There was never a finalized deletion discussion. There was one PROD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove was closed A7, then once G4, twice as A7, and then almost 14 years ago FT2 deleted it as PROD again (out of process) and salted it. In that time, it doesn't look like anyone looked at the whole process and said "Wait, did we do this right?" because... we didn't. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't have a formal opinion on what to do next after unsalting, but certainly no objection to the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the AfD and other deletions and the create protection. Create the redirect to The Chopstars, but protect the redirect. For anyone who might wish to recreate the article, use draftspace first, and follow advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Take no action. The DRV request is unintelligible; it consists of two words and a link. An actionable DRV request should indicate which action should be taken and why. This is lacking here. Sandstein 08:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  This DJ is a well known DJ, works on Shade 45, was featured on Vice TV as well as a producer on Black Market with Michael K. Williams. Formerly a DJ on KQBT Houston, is a Grammy winning producer with Tennessee State University Marching Band. He more than meets musical notability criteria. 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I suspect he may be notable. I can find no reliable source, however, to say he won a Grammy. He is not credited on the album as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• No action per Sandstein. Unintelligible request. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Archive

Some notes:

• This explicitly makes DR have the same "rough consensus" that AfD has, with the same tendancy to maintain the status quo. It also purposefully does not introduce any vote counting complexity of the "purgatory" type discussed above.
• It also explicitly makes DR able to "eat its own tail", although I'd think that trying to get it to do so would make one very unpopular.
• It explicitly does allow discussion of content, but places the focus on "new information" rather than "I didn't see the discussion" or "I didn't like the outcome".
• Problems with it's application to speedy deletion would more properly be dealt with in the domain of speedy deletion itself. If that area were made watertight, than a speedy deletion would be treated just like any other deletion. Note that an overturned speedy would go to AfD by default!

brenneman 07:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Question 1

Who gets to determine whether or not there is rough consensus on the Deletion Review? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I was ready for that one, actually. Warm-up question: Who decides now on VFU? And, perhaps more importantly, how are these closings tracked? As it is, they simply vanish from the VfU page, and if you don't watch closely, you might miss something.
  • That's why I've chosen to make point four explicit: The same rules would apply to closing DR as to closing AfD. Thus any editor may close out a discusion that required no application of god-like powers, and admins must close out any others. Close calls might require more effort and/or intestinal fortitude, but if they are done incorrectly, back they can come to DR.
  • To make everything more transparent, it would be better to have a structure that kept all old DR discussions, and where a closer may make their rational clear to any and sundry who come along.
    brenneman 11:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason I posed that question was to illustrate a point (but hopefully in a non-disruptive manner): What if the closure of the DR debate is disputed? We will be back to square one. In general, the current rule for VFU is that things get undeleted if (and only if) there is a simple majority favoring it, reasons provided serve only to influence other voters and not the closing administrator. Although pure vote counting has serious drawbacks (inflexible, sometimes unreasonable, etc.), the main advantage is that it is very objective: either the vote meets or there doesn't meet the requirement. If we allow DR closing admins to use their discretion when closing these DR debates we might find ourselves merely moving the problem from AFD to DR. But since you already made a good stab at answering one question, I will make a second question. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We should certainly be trying to avoid moving the problem from one place to the next. Fuzz is all well and good in AfD because some discretion can be needed in interpreting the debate. But DR is (or should be) principally about examining whether that interpretation was reasonable and not whether you'd have reached the same interpretation necessarily: there should be little left to interpret, so much less need for fuzz. -Splash 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Question 2

Approximately what vote count constitutes a "rough consensus" for overturning (a) a debate closed as a "keep" and (b) a debate closed as a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll try answering my own question, but I would also value other input. On (a) I think the bar should be set at 75%, perhaps higher. On (b) I think the bar should be set slightly lower (Two thirds or maybe even lower). A simple majority should not be able to use DR as a way of overturning a validly closed as a "keep" debate. On the other hand an AFD debate with a slight majority but far from consensus (say 13d-11k) closed as a "delete" should not be too difficult to overturn. If the 13 original "delete" voters turn up to vote "decision valid" do we really need 39 others to turn up and say "overturn"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Assuming that "would also value other input" means "let someone else get a word in", I'll give my spin on this and then yield the floor.
  • It's a mistake to set the bar depending upon the outcome. We should have internal consistancy for (at least) two reasons: it avoids the appearance of any "agenda", and it simplifies the verbage required.
  • Here's my leading question: Why don't we have hard and fast rules on AfD?
  • This is aligned with the recursive clause. DR has a smaller audience with (hopefully) wider knowledge. Thus if transparency and accountabilty are maintained, any closure with byzantine interpretations of "rough consensus" won't last long. Moving the problem from AfD to DR is a good thing.

brenneman 14:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• We do not have hard and fast rules on AfD because 1)we're too scared to make any and 2)discretion is, in fact, needed since there can be subtleties to the debate that need accounting for. That the standards vary quite so much from admin-to-admin and within-an-admin is (imo) a problem because it leads to endless irresolvable conflicts. But it's the way things are and it does seem to work quite well most of the time — it will work better with a means to re-examine the more questionable among the decisions. -Splash 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• That it would be possible to overturn debates simply by weight of numbers is why the process here must examine the closing decision and not the article: that way, DR reasonings that say "oh, but it's just such a cute article", or "schools are non-notable" can be dismissed out of hand. -Splash 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• We could say something like the majority (gasp!) needed to overturn any debate must be at least as large in percentage terms as that which originally lead to the result allowing for any discounted comments. This does not return the whole process to one of mere numbers since that supermajority must be achieved on process-based votes which consider the validity of the closer's actions. The closer is still free to set their own notion of consensus-or-not: the question asked here is "were they reasonably to do so?". -Splash 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the defination of consensus depending on the outcome. In fact I almost think the status quo is better than that. I also think that 75% is MUCH too high. When a simple majority think that the previous process has not been handled correctly, some action really ought to be taken. That is why the "purgatory" provision in my suggestion above is so important. Really that is the wrong term, because it encourges looking at things from the wrong way. if a majority of those expressing an opnion on the process think it was in error, some action must be taken. But if there is not a clear consensus on what action to take, either because the majority is less than a consesus, or because there is a consensus to overturn but not on what action to take, then relist to allow a proper consensus to be formed with a proper process. DES 15:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• I really think this watering down of my draft above is not an improvement. DES 15:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• I second the opposition to determining the outcome of DR according to what happened at xFD. I'm going to throw my hat in and say that a 50% consensus is required to relist the article, while a 75% (I'd like higher, but I'm not going to whine over it) is the bare minimum for overturning the decision. Keep it sweet and simple. Titoxd 21:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That works for me, but not that a delete must be temporarily undeleted and in a sense overturned to be relisted. and in another sense any relisting is an overturn, as the previous closer's decision will nolonger be final -- the result of the relsitign discussion will be. but this is just nomenclature. DES 01:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This works for me too — something happens if most people think it should, and that something need not necessarily lead in any particular direction. Then a more serious something happens if a very clear proportion of participants think it should. Setting the bar any higher is too high, imo, the minority can tyrannize as effectively as the majority. Good-faith etc etc, but we all know that "if it's possible, it's probable". The scheme should be clear, definitive, and effective. I can't imagine how this scheme wouldn't be. If the exact numbers become problematic, we can change them later. DES's orignal suggestion says 70%; others have said 75%, and I think DES has said he can go with that. Aaron? -Splash 20:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not going to argue over the difference between 70 and 75% (in my draft 70 was proceeded by "say" and was in parens, to indicate the provisional status of the number). What I see as vital here is that if more than 50% thinkl there is a problem than some action must be taken. if that number is less than a consensus (however qualified or defined) or of there is a consensus that there is a problem, but not on what final action to take, then relist. Don't call this "purgatory" it is more like the "no-consensus, so keep" on AfD -- on DR when thre is no consensus on what final action to take, relist. DES 21:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, as I understand the interaction between the simple version that Titoxd suggests and the version from DES is that DES's is just spelling out the same thing that must necessarily be spelt out in Titoxd's version: there may be a consensus to relist, a consensus to do impose some other result, or a majority that AfD should give it another go. The only difference is 70% or 75%. Right? -Splash 20:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Titoxd's version could have been read to say that no action at all would be taken unless a consensus (however defiend0 was reached. Soem others have surely proposed that. That is the idea I really object to.
      • Feel free to correct any ambiguity, it's a Wiki after all. And yeah, Splash, it's fair to say that what you say was implicitly implied in my proposal. Titoxd 01:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        • <thinks> "...what I said can be said to imply what was implied..." :) Splash 02:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Setting the lower bound - relist

If we try to imagine the type of deletion review that's going to get a majority but not a rough consensus, we're almost certainly thinking about contentious closures. (Anti-polonism, Religious persecution by jews, CommonLang2, etc.)

One thing I'd like to avoid is discouraging people from doing difficult closures. In parallel, there should be something to be said for simply getting there first. Thus I'm in favor of weighing the numbers slightly in their favor (e.g. +66% as opposed to 51%).

First BraveAdmin has stepped up to the plate and made the closure. (Almost certainly receiving lots of talk-page abuse whichever way they have decided.) Then they are raked over the coals by their peers at DR, and their closure is overturned with a simple majority and relisted. Then we have another, almost certainly more complicated XfD. Who is going to step up the second time, seeing BraveAdmin with their tail between their legs?
brenneman 01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but a "relist" result should not be taken as censure. My view is that if a majority of discussants on DR feel that there was a procedural error, some action simply must be taken. Otherwise I'd prefer to saty with the current VfU where a majority can and does overturn a deletion and relist. This has worked well -- let's not change it. It hasn't scared off closers yyet, AFAIK. DES 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, DES is right. As it is, VfU works (surprisingly, as with most WP processes). A tiny fraction of closures come to VfU at present, and that is unlikely to change much. Even if it doubles, we'll be averaging one a day or so. I concur that a not-necessarily-reversing something should happen if most people are uncomfortable with the original procedure. It need not lead to deletion, or keeption or anything else. But it will be another shot if DR is unable to reach a conclusion on what should have been done, but thinks that what was done needs verifiying at the least.

I'd like to suggest that keeping things as non-fuzzy as possible is the way to go.

Aaron — is your desire for a statement of "consensus" overriding, or can you go with some clear cut counting? We should try to reach an agreement here as soon as possible: the longer this is allowed to drift, the more it will...well...drift. -Splash 20:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Setting the upper bound - action

Again, what's contentious are those Overturn and (action) that fall into that area between "rough" and 75%. For many admins, this area does not exist. For those who are willing to close a normal XfD in this zone, they'd have to be pretty sure of themselves to commit (action) in this very public venue. Thus this is a non-issue to me compared to setting the lower bound.
brenneman 01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Question 3

Never cropped up yet but How can one overturn a disputed "merge" result into a "delete" when the closing admin has gone ahead and merged the articles? Revert the merge (which has since possibly been heavily edited)? Delete those versions with the merged content from the history? Or what else? Shall we just say that "merge" results cannot be disputed at DR? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer this one. Delete the article per the DR ruling. After that a merge is just any other edit to the other article. Keep it or revert it per that article's discussion. (It has nothing to do anymore with the deleted article.) The ruling to "delete" versus the old ruling to "merge" really only changed a "keep" to a "delete". The other article would have to be discussed separately if you wanted to undo added content. - Tεxτurε 14:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and the GFDL-isms with merges can be cleared away with a history copy-paste to the talk of the target article. This does still seem to allow someone to say "oh, this is a delete but I can't bear to, so I'll merge it instead" and be able to override the consensus to remove the content completely which is a bit concerning. -Splash 14:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed "rough consensus"

Ok, I've altered the text as per suggestioned. My feeling is that it is incorrect to state the XfD paradigm as "no consensus, so keep". It is far more accurate to say "no consensus, do nothing". In fact, we've had some bitter disputes in the recent past over this very matter with regards to how non-consensus closures should be recorded. I also would have liked wider participation in this. (Tony has said he's not interested.)

I'm swayed by Splash's need for speed and DES' and Titoxd's desire for a lower threshold to relist. I've created a template (it's used above) and added it to the page... in comment wrappers. However, I'd like to make a date in either three months or when it rears its head to talk again about "rough consensus" vs. "50/75 consensus".
brenneman 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• We can always come back and look whether the numbers work or if they should be tweaked. Titoxd 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I have a need for pace, rather than a need for speed. I also have a need to be sure we have backing for this. We certainly do for the core proposal, and I think there's a good chance that the mechanics will get support too, as long as we include a prefacory sentence that gives our rationales. So, I would propose that, after giving this a few hours simply to settle here, we create a new section, subst: in the template, and then drop notes to the previous participants' talk pages (including Tony Sidaway, in hope he can be persuaded to join in, even if to oppose) enquiring if they'd like to comment on the mechanics, including a #'d link to the section. Also, the usuals of VP/P, RfC. But, give it a few hours here, first, just in case anyone wants to chip in. -Splash 02:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• We can of course revisit the details at any time. The first time we get an interesting debate would be a good opportunity. -Splash 02:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Slight pause. If past performance is anything to go by, E's input will be worth waiting for.
  brenneman 05:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so Encephalon appears to be busy, and I am not minded to wait much longer. I thus propose taking on board one of his changes (see Aaron's talk page) which is to remove the tail-eating clause. With the clear numerical basis, it is unnecessary. I'm inclined to think that if we need a supreme court for people who can't (or won't) count properly, then it's AN/I rather than endless bickering here. I do not propose the removal of the graduated outcomes, because I do not think it will lead to "havoc" — moreover I think it provides a good way to avoid getting the answer wrong in all but the most serious cases. It also takes things back to AfD unless the community is very sure of itself which addresses at least part (though not most) of some objections to the use of DR/VfU at all. Do people disagree with me deeply on this? If not, I would suggest we do something community minded once the 3 or 4 of us here have nodded. -Splash 01:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't follow. Which one is the "tail eating" clause? Titoxd 01:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu mechanics. It's the 4th point: that DR can review DR. -Splash 01:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If we're going to use a numerical approach to this (50% = relist, 75% = overturn), then there shouldn't be any need for it. Titoxd 01:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just give and give (*sob*). Yes, I agree that the fourth point is not required if we make this more a pseudo-vote and less "hazy". Take it out (*sob again*). I'll make the change. ^_^
brenneman 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out as I did in Wikipedia_talk:Undeletion_policy#wording_change that currently Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy]] is in blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policy since[REDACTED] is not a democracy, and every attempt I make to bring it in line with existing policy is reverted. Jtkiefer ----- 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you would take a moment to read around, Jtkeifer, you would have quickly noticed that changes to Undel policy are currently being discussed, with wide support. They will be more in line with your favourite policy once the discussions conclude: there is no hurry. You should join the discussion rather than complaining about undiscussed changes being removed. -Splash 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all at least have the couretesy to get my name right, secondly it's not my favorite policy (ignore all the rules is) it's just policy and I like you and every other user is bound by it, and I don't see why VFU should be an exception to the rules. Jtkiefer ----- 17:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the misspelling. You must get it quite a lot. My hope is that VfU will not be the glaring exception to consensus policy it currently is for too much longer, although it will not comply completely with the usually-fuzzy notion of consensus. -Splash 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward

Most people who have commetned seem to support, or at least not oppose, the current proposal and the current version of the mechanics. Have hwe had enough participation and enough time to consider this a consensus to make this change? I suggest that the currently edited proposal and mechanics be reposted (so it is clear what is current) with a date (say in a week?) when we think they should go into effect, absent further opposition, and post renewed notices at the pump and other places where people will see them. On the specifeid date, fi tehre stil seems to be consensus, this page will be moved and the nned alterations will be made to the instructions and other sectiosn of the page, and to appropriate pages that link to . Does this seem like a reasonable way to proceed? If not what does? DES 21:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I have only just seen this. See my comment at the Village Pump/Policy, and take yourselves over to Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal. -Splash 01:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Meta-mechanics

How about raising the sophistication level of the page to something like AfD? It's a trade-off of more complexity weighed up against better history, accountability, etc. I'd also propose the the slightly strange and barely used {{vfu}} be revamped, as it could more correctly be put on XfD debates, not on articles.
brenneman 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to make DR recursive, then sub-pages should be implemented so we can look at what decisions we have taken before and check if there are any problems still left to consider. That also gives us the advantage of employing various bots if necessary.

As for {{vfu}} (which I created): it was originally intended for xFD debates, so I agree completely. I tagged that page because I didn't know how else to identify that it was being considered for re-deletion. I welcome any debate and improvements on the template. Titoxd 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

These are, I presume, side-issues. I'd avoid mandating subpages from the outset: they're impossible for newbies to set up without following a 1-10 of instructions. We should just archive the debate in a subpage once its done, or something. Or do what TfD does and copy-paste it to a single Log page (or two) per month, with a note in the relevant places. The renamed {{vfu}} can be added to either the article, or the AfD debate as appropriate, though frankly I wonder how many people carry on watching a closed AfD. On the pedantic side, the current vfu header and vfu mechanics should more properly be transclusions than templates, but we can repair that later. -Splash 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's a different issue. I'm having a hard time keeping my thoughts straight today, so I'm heading into bullet land:

• I personally don't take old XfDs off my watchlist, so putting a notice there would attract my attention at least.
• As to the complexity of adding subpages, I've heard it mooted that that's a good thing as it served as an initial hurdle.
• To continue in that elitist vein, I'd avoid placing a DR notice on the article X itself as we'd probably end up re-running the XfD, and the scope is intended to be review of the XfD, not the X.
  • The problem with that is the possible XfD-> Keep decision-> DR-> Overturn(Delete) ->Article seems to simply vanish. Thus I'd propose that a {{deleted page|vfu}} be placed in this case and the page protected.
• Ignorance alert: what's the differance between transclusion and template? My understanding had been that {{foo}} was the template and {{subst:foo}} was the transclusion?

brenneman 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The template is the page with the template contents on it, like Template:Foo (which I've just deleted as it turned out to be a newbie test. Good thing you asked this question). Transclusion is putting {{foo}} i.e. including the templaet so that changes to the template also change the page it's transcluded in. I'm not sure what substing the template in is called, short of substing it in. --fvw* 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

They're substitutions. Titoxd 23:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Am writing a paper tonight, so can't stay long, but: I meant that the header and mechanics should really be in Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Header and Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Mechanics which would then be {{transcluded}}, whilst not being templates. -Splash 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I understood that Template:Foo was the template, I don't didn't understand the "pedantic" comment above /Points up. (I appreciate a pedant, by the way!) In retrospect, it's clear that these "oneshots" should not be templates. Mea culpa!
brenneman 00:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation) I've moved those pages from templates to subpages. If this page does get moved to DR, will the subpages move along with it? (Should have asked that first I now realize.) brenneman 10:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Going back to the mechanics again: we have {{TempUndelete}} (which should be revised too) to put into the article, and we should put {{vfu}} at the deletion debate. But whatever we do, it's horrible to have to look into VFU's history to find the outcome of an old debate, so for the future, we should use some sort of subpage system. Whether it's the bot pages or the TFD log style, it should be done. If the TFD log is adopted, we could have either Votes for Undeletion/kept, Votes for Undeletion/deleted and Votes for Undeletion/relisted, or Votes for Undeletion/overturned, Votes for Undeletion/stands and Votes for Undeletion/relisted. Look that relisted is a present in both of my ideas, because we need to show that we deferred the judgement to a lower court because it fell in that gray area (50-75%). Titoxd 23:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I laughed out loud when I saw the vfu template.... that thing is really silly :) Ryan Norton 01:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Owie... runs away and hides. Ok, a little bit more seriously, I went over {{vfu}} and I tweaked it a little bit. Check over the edit to see if it is acceptable. Titoxd 02:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Terminations

Neutrality has been kind enough to provide us with some fodder for discussion in the last few days. - brenneman 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal (e.g. improper listings)

What's a "proper" listing? What should be done with one that's not?

• All listings are proper unless a newbie makes a mistake and requests restoration of a not-deleted article (happens sometimes). Ergo there is no answer to the second question. When the change to DR is made this does not change — whilst there is in both cases a clear preference for prior discussion, it is not and should not be a prerequisite for coming here. -Splash 01:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Before my "remove from page" comments stir things up any more, I'd like to clarify: I'm neither asking for nor would I expect a formal requirement for discussion prior to bringing an issue here. I'd suggest that it be made clear (via social pressure) that talk is the preferred channel, but that's all.
  • I was actually asking a more general question: When could a DR request be removed? Obvious bad faith seems like one example (e.g. I go to Special:Contributions/Splash and find every XfD he's closed in the last six months). The newbie mistake mentiond above (e.g. Davien Crow) is another. Are there other situations that might not be so clear, but where it would still be a good idea to remove a nomination? Suppose that the nominator decides to withdraw it - that couldn't shouldn't end an XfD discussion, but what about here?
    brenneman 02:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, I'm pretty sure you don't mean it that way, but listing Splash's contributions could easily be misinterpreted as a personal attack, especially by someone who hasn't followed the discussion since the beginning. What do you mean by that? Titoxd 02:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh man! I meant that if I sniffed around, found every XfD he'd closed and mass listed them for Deletion review it would be obvious bad faith on my part and should be removed. Hee.
        brenneman 02:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, I don't see it that way. -Splash 02:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Neither did I, but I just wanted those who end up reading talk page archives to know the same. I'm playing devil's advocate for a bit. Titoxd 02:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think social pressure will work as effectively here as it does on AfD. You could equally well AfD every article I've ever edited or written. I'd expect someone to stop you in your tracks pretty firmly if you did. This page gets, and will continue to get, very little traffic (usually), so there is no pressing need to remove much, really. Once something is done with, it could be removed, but at present I (for I seem to be doing this at present) don't bother to do so, just in case anyone has an extraneous or otherwise tangential point they may wish to make. If we had the whole of AfD on one page, I'd do things differently. Imho, there is only very rarely such a thing on Wiki as a withdrawn nomination, save for one which is a pure accident, which should be plainly obvious. -Splash 02:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Early closure

Aside from the obvious (self-revert) ones, when could a debate be closed early?

• Per the undeletion policy, when something was "obviously deleted out of process". Thus AfD closure almost never unless plainly in bad-faith. Speedies sometimes. Since this typically requires undeletion, it can be left to the admin's judgement. It should be generally discouraged unless the word "exception" applies. It is frequently shortcircuited by admins who either do not like VfU or are not aware of the VfU debate (or who are aware of it but pretend not to be). That does not make it ok to do so, unless we are in exceptional circumstance. Deliberation and patience are good antidotes to unilateralism and bewailing admin actions. The change to DR affects this stance very little since it is probably philosophically tricky to keep an article out of-process, and we should almost never summarily delete articles that do not meet CSDs (unless they're copyvios or highly damaging for some reason). Taking time to deliberate over a deletion or a keepdeletedtion is important. -Splash 01:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Which brings the question, when can a Deletion Review debate be closed early? Titoxd 01:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I intended my view on that to be contained above. No, basically, unless there are extenuating circumstances similar to those currently employed on VfU. And probably almost never if the early closure were to result in deletion. The exception to that would be e.g. an anon closes a unanimous delete as a keep, or something. Again, with so little traffic here, and most outcomes require admin intervention, I don't things will go badly wrong if we exercise careful judgement on a case-by-case basis. This is, really, the meaning of the oft-slung-around admonishments against instruction-creep. -Splash 02:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Why would we even list an anon closing a clear delete as a keep here in VfU? I would just consider it vandalism and close it properly myself. But I agree with the overall principle you're describing. Titoxd 02:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, an early closure could be interpreted as if we were trying to hide something, which we are not. So it's better not to close early and try to contain the flame wars if necessary. Titoxd 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Notability proposal

Misplaced Pages:Notability proposal is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Misplaced Pages articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit Misplaced Pages talk:Notability proposal and express your view on the proposal. DES 23:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From WP:RM

Copied from WP:RM

• Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion — Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion → Misplaced Pages:Deletion review – This has been proposed by several editors in line with the above. Uncle G 23:51:49, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
• Or Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion — Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion → Misplaced Pages:Undeletion. Simpler and less ambiguous. Septentrionalis

Moved from WP:RM Discussion should take place on the Talk Page of the page to be moved (Philip Baird Shearer):

• • I think the goal is not to make this simply another VfU but rather a review of both deletions and undeletions. We need a page specifically to review admin actions regarding a vote. - Tεxτurε 14:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I support expanding the current VFU to be a page to discuss disputed "keep" results as well as disputed deletions, and I therefore also support such a name change. The situation of an admin overriding another admins AFD closure is as of yet not covered by policy, such actions remain very controversial, and we need a process to handle it. Since such situations should remain rare I don't see the need for a separate page, and I think both types of disputes can be consolidated into one page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - in case that isn't clear - Tεxτurε 16:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what the previous Support votes are supporting.

• Support the move to Misplaced Pages:Undeletion as an immediate measure, Oppose expansion of the page's role. I think this requires further discussion on a separate project page, since we already have a confusing vote with so few comments. I think the whole deletion/undeletion mess belongs under the Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment branch of the community tree anyway. Unfocused 03:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• PLease note that this change has been discussed for soem time at Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU and then at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal, bother of wich were announced at the pump, at the WP:RFC surveys page, and on onther relevant pages (including the talk pages of AfD, TfD, and CfD). The proposal first grew out of discussion associated with the VfD->AfD move, i think. By the way i support the proposed move and the expansion of scope, as will be cler from my comments on the above pages. DES 15:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support the rename, and note to Unfocused that the expansion has been discussed for over a month now and I do believe it has consensual support. Radiant_>|< 13:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This is essentially a repetition of a very small part of the debate further up the page. I'm not sure why this has been copypaste-dumped in here, unless that is always the way RfM does things. -Splash 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussions on a WP:RM take place on the talk page of the page to be moved (not on the WP:RM page). As there is no delete involved whether the page is moved or not moved the record of the discussion can be kept on the relevant talk page as is all other talk about the article in question. If you think I have copied it to an inappropriate place on the talk page then please move it. Philip Baird Shearer 13:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Images for undeletion

Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy mentions that images can be listed in Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion but I didn't see any image listings here. Can images for undeletion be listed here ? Jay 07:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's peculiar. Images can't be undeleted — it's a technical thing rather than a policy thing. There is the possibility, in particularly vitally extreme cases of having someone go through database dumps to find it, but, in almost all cases, you'd need to upload the image again. -Splash 11:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I beleive the primary effect of a successful image listing on VfU would be that a new download of the image would not qualify for speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. --Allen3  11:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Allen, and I would like to add that it is possible to find the images through one of our many mirrors and forks. Lost images deals with these kinds of things. Titoxd 16:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

disputed statements in SB comments

I've labeled as disputed, several deletions within my comments that were replaced with <personal attack removed> labels. The ones I disputed unfairly and exageratedly characterize my comments, which were more in the nature of accusations, such as might be done in an RfC or an ARBCOM case. Removing accusations such as these, and then characterizing them as personal attacks will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who would bring abusive behavior to the attention of the community, and would harm the communities ability to openly police itself. I did not dispute a couple of statements, that while they would not be personal attacks if they were true, since I was mistaken and they are false accusations which have I apologized for.--Silverback 05:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The accusations remain in the page history, so there's nothing to worry about. Titoxd 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved

I've moved this page to Deletion Review, per consensus in the above discussion. Radiant_>|< 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header

Serious problems

• Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The problems are pretty obvious. The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, do please stop being unreasonable. You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page or block you for 3RR. Since you've come nowhere near to breaking the 3RR, and I have no intention of doing so, and I have used the talk page whereas you have simply taunted me in edit summaries, it's becoming utterly surreal. I'll have another go at reformulating a policy-compatible version of the wording here. Do please try to discuss instead of edit warring/ --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, please do stop trying to muscle over what's been worked out quite congenially. If I didn't make myself clear: I will continue to revert your bad-faith attempts to undermine other contributor's effort up to and beyond the 3RRR limit. As I'd be doing it for the good of Misplaced Pages (in my own opinion, of course) I'd simply be following the example that you've set in ignoring all rules.
brenneman 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. Would you care to explain why, or is "Tony Sidaway says so" sufficient? --Calton | Talk 03:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I do believe that Aaron's version has been arrived at through consensual discussion, after a recent series of controversies that made a number of people somewhat upset. One of the points of this page is that admins can and do disagree about deletions. "When in doubt, don't delete" is a good principle, but it does not imply that if one admin is in doubt, no admin may delete the article.
• I should also note that in our undeletion policy, "Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is listed as a reason for requesting undeletion on this very page.
• An admin may have good cause for reversing another admin's actions, but should always consider that said other admin likely had good cause for taking action. If there exists controversy about whether a user should be blocked or not, we discuss it at WP:ANI. If there exists controversy about whether an article should be deleted or not, we discuss it here. It's the easiest way of resolving issues between admins and putting them to consensual view.
• By ignoring discussion and acting unilaterally, an admin would be sending out signals that he doesn't care about consensus but simply thinks that he is right. And doing that too often is frowned upon, to say the least, because nobody is always right. Radiant_>|< 11:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My memory of this is that there was detailed discussion on this very header about a month ago, and that a fair summary of the discussion would be "just about everyone who participated in the discussion, except Tony, agreed with the version that Aaron is reverting to." So if bowlderizing and mutilating the header to remove one of the most central points discussed (namely Deletion review applies to administrators also) without even bothering to come to the talk page first is "consensus-building", then I am Marie of Roumania. There is a line between "bold" and "reckless", and I think Tony is crossing it. Nandesuka 12:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review is a sub-policy of the OFFICIAL Undeletion Policy

As a sub-policy of the official undeletion policy, the instructions on "Deletion Review" (or "VFU" or whatever it's being called today) cannot contradict the official policy that it falls under, regardless of any discussion or consensus found on the sub-page's talk page. Official policy cannot be undermined by consensus regarding related subpolicies. To do so is to commit a fiat of the official policy. Any time that a subpage is out of sync with the policy it falls under, for any reason, any editor is performing properly when they correct the subpage to conform with the actual policy. Please find consensus to change the official undeletion policy before inserting further nonsense about this being about "process only". Unfocused 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This was a widely announced policy proposal. It specifically purported to alter the undeltetion policy. It attaind what ZI think was a clear concenssus during a long and well-announced discussion. Where exactly is it stated as a policyu that policies can only be cahged by proposals on their "own" pages, and where is it stated which policies are primary and which are "sub-policies". I think creating the category "sub-poilicy" and to create soem sort of official hierarcy of policies as the above comment implies is one of the more extreme cases of "instruction creep" I have seen on wikipedia. The phrase "process not contet" was supported by a clear consensus during these discissions, and is therefore now policy. TYhose who dislike it should start a proposal to change that, and seek consensus for it. DES 16:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that this page is merely implementation of the official policy. Look at this policy any you'll see that it does not have the {{policy}} tag on it, because it is not official policy. You cannot change official policy by fiat, attacking the mechanism that implements it. Official policies overrule guidelines and process decisions where they conflict. You failed to find consensus to change the official policy, which is the overriding factor governing this procedure. Unfocused 16:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A proposal can change both policy and its implemetation. This was a widely discussed and advertised proposal. The proposal specifically said that it was changing the undeletion policy insofar as that policy disagreed with the new implementation principles. That makes it a policy change proposal. the proposal received consensus in a discussion held after being widely advertised. That means the policy has in fact been changed as muchas it needs to be. DES 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless you have consensus to change official policy on the official policy page, then you haven't actually changed anything. Rewording the implementation is fine, as long as it is 100% consistent with the undeletion policy that covers it. I'd suggest discussing your proposed changes on the undeletion policy page if you intend to change undeletion policy, because that's the "master key" of undeletion, and is the page that is on everyone's watchlist. As long as the master policy that regulates undeletion doesn't change, a whole lot of people (including myself) don't really care that much about the implementation, which is why my participation in the implementation debate, if any, was minor. It's also why I've made the changes here, because you're trying to insert changes that are incompatible with the actual official undeletion policy. Change that, the official undeletion policy, and you won't find conflict. Whenever two policies are in conflict, the one that isn't official must be adjusted to harmonize them. Changes in the official policy by fiat are improper; they should be carried out on the official policy page and propagated downward. Unfocused 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages isn't anywhere near as bureaucratic as that. Policy pages are updated and amended all the time, especially after a consensual debate such as this one. If we didn't want that, we would protect them, and {{policy}} wouldn't be worded like it is now. However, I'd like to hear what particular contradiction you're referring to. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Where exatly is the policy that says that a proosal to cahnge a policy isnn't valis unless the proposal takes place on "on the official policy page". Indeed zi claim that the consnssus establish on this issue durign this discussion is quite sufficient ot justify editng the "master policy page" to make it clearer that it is in conformance with the newly adopted implemtation. Would anyone object to such an edit? anyone other than Tony and Unfocused?

If you think you have the consensus to change the official policy, then change the official policy, THEN change the implementation of that policy. Otherwise, you're changing policy by fiat, which is no better than simple vandalism. Unfocused 00:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"If in doubt, don't delete"

There is currently some controversy about the meaning and relevance of this phrase, and its suitability for inclusion on WP:DRV and WP:DEL. The controversy has manifested as an edit war on those pages (see for example , , , , , ), and a short block on two editors . I believe it might be helpful, in efforts to resolve the dispute, to look at the phrase's history and intent.

History

Tony Sidaway, SimonP and others are correct when they say that the phrase has been with WP for a long time. Its earliest use that I know of was in the document that eventually became WP:DEL. The original page can still be seen; it dates from February 25 2002, but was actually written in November 2001 in the old software.

That page was an instruction to administrators. In the old UseModWiki software, page deletions were qualitatively different from page deletions in our current system: once a page was deleted, it was completely removed, such that it was "impossible to restore from within the system." The present day equivalent is removal of the page history from the database by a developer.

This permanent quality of deletions made it imperative that any deletion decision was made with particular care—there was no such thing as "undeletion" at the time. The rules were a reminder to anyone about to delete a page what was generally expected of them; to wit, these were "some rules that those tasked with permanently deleting pages can generally be expected to follow in making the decision to delete or not."

On September 20 2003, more than two years ago, old time user Cimon avaro moved the instructions to a very appropriate, newly created page, Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators. You can see the original here.

Meaning & intent

The above history makes the meaning of the phrase in question crystal clear. It is an instruction to administrators (ie. to people who can delete pages) to be careful when commiting that final act, and to desist if they cannot make up their minds about whether they should delete a page. The phrase is an axiom for individual administrators to bear in mind when they make their delete decisions. The Deletion guidelines for administrators also provides other helpful tips to administrators. For example:

• Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Misplaced Pages participants.
• As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.

These are all sensible rules of thumb for administrators to keep in mind as they consider their closes; "if in doubt, don't delete" is one among them.

(Mis)use

I have noticed that this phrase appears to be often misused these days. The clearest misuse happens when someone uses it to proclaim that another admin's close was invalid, because it was closed at a rough consensus standard that they believe to be unacceptable. This is often expressed with something like: "You should not have deleted that page. It was too close; two-thirds isn't a consensus. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'"

This is the sort of thing that makes you go "Whaa—?". It's a misunderstanding of the axiom. IIDDD is not intended to call into question deletion decisions made in perfect accordance with the criteria in WP:DEL and WP:CON by an administrator who had no doubts as to the validity of the closure.

Another misuse of the axiom is the idea contained in the following: "You should not have deleted it because there was doubt. The very fact that I'm disagreeing with you proves that there is doubt. Remember 'if in doubt, don't delete.'" This is incorrect, for what should be very obvious reasons.

Tony Sidaway has recently made several edits to the VFU header page, in which he characterizes IIDDD in an interesting way. He writes,

Deletion can be challenged under two policies:

• Deletion policy the chief precept of which is "if in doubt, don't delete"

and

This page operates within two policies, both of which deliberately adopt a very permissive approach to Misplaced Pages articles:

• deletion policy, if in doubt, don't delete.

It is unclear to me how an instruction to administrators to be careful when performing deletions became "the chief precept" of WP:DEL. The deletion policy is a document that specifies what things within WP may be removed. Where the main namespace is concerned¹, what may be removed are

• pages which conflict two of the article policy trifecta (ie. WP:V and WP:NOR),
• pages on or containing a number of things deemed unencyclopedic by long-standing tradition, which are noted in WP:NOT, and
• pages contravening WP:Copyrights.

These are the bases of article space policy and the fountainhead of deletion policy—they are what the deletion policy was written to enforce.

The axiom IIDDD on the other hand is merely a simple reminder to admins who're on the job not to be trigger happy. It is most certainly not "the chief precept" of deletion policy, just as "don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" is not the chief precept of deletion policy, nor any other of those little, if helpful, reminders given to admins who're working on deletions. The idea that IIDDD makes WP permissive is also misleading, I believe. It neither makes it more permissive nor less. What goes and stays on WP is determined by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. All else are secondary, and all else are derivations. In this editor's humble opinion, at any rate.

Perhaps the intent is to emphasize the open nature of the wiki. This is a fair point, but:

1. if so, that point should be properly expressed. This phrase does not express that idea, despite many people apparently believing it does. It simply cannot: its very construction shows that.
2. the openess of the wiki is subservient to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:Copyrights. As I said earlier, these foundational principles form the basis of the deletion policy, and together with WP:NPOV they dictate what is and is not allowable in the mainspace.

Where should IIDDD be placed?

This brings us to the question that started all this. Should "if in doubt, don't delete" be placed in WP:DEL and WP:DRV? This seems to be the source of much dispute, but that is only because IIDDD is misunderstood. Personally I will not strongly object with listing the admin reminders on the deletion page, because I know what they are and what they were written to for, and putting them there will not make me treat the article-space policy any less seriously. However, I do see the point that they're out-of-place. WP:DEL is primarily written for users and editors of the encyclopedia, not sysops. Placing IIDDD in such a page, in the way it has been placed there now, does sound odd—because non-sysops can't delete, whether they are in doubt or not. IIDDD is directed at sysops, the folks who do the deleting. The correct place for it is Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators, where it fits perfectly and where it has been placed since the inception of that page. (Yes, it was also in the page that eventually became WP:DEL, but that was when that page was in fact directed at admins. You can read it [http://here.)

What about WP:DRV? The same applies. Wherever the thing is placed however, I would ask that it is not misrepresented, or written in a way that gives a misleading account of article space and deletion policy on Misplaced Pages. If I've been wrong in any of the above, do correct me—it will not be the first time, nor the last :) I do believe that this issue needn't divide us as it has. Kind regards encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Note

¹ There is one more class of item that can be deleted from the mainspace and which is not covered in the above policies, and that is the "useless redirect," normally deleted via WP:RFD. I have left it out from the above for simplicity. encephalon 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well-written, Encephalon. I'd agree that the best place to put IIDDD is in the Deletion Guidelines for Admins. Some people have been misusing the phrase as a mantra to mean that "since somebody disagrees, there must have been doubt, and you should not have deleted such-and-such". That is clearly fallacious. Generally we should assume that if an admin deletes something, he likely knew what he was doing. Radiant_>|< 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Header wording "Process not content"?

Since thare are soem cases (contested speedies) which are laregely content issues, and others in which content is relevant to determine whether the process was correct or not I propose altering this wording from "This page is about process, not content." to "This page is primarily about process, rather than content." to avoid the implicatiuon that any discussion of content is banned, and, i hope, to make things more agreeable to those who object to the current version. DES 22:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem with the old wording, as reviewing the content of speedies is part of the process. The wording is meant to discourage AfD 2nd. Ryan Norton 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, and to be honest I don't have a strong objection to yours either, if that helps. Ryan Norton 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the purpose, and was one of the advocates of putting this phrase, often cited in VfU discussions, into the written purpose statement. But some people seem to fear that it means that any mention of content is off-limits, and I hoped to clarify that. If others don't think it helpful -- well it was just an idea. DES 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• The phrase could be clarified. What we obviously want, is that WP:DRV can be used if you have important information to the subject that was not previously mentioned. What we obviously don't want is a repetition of a previous AFD debate. So, "undo this AFD because I disagree" is not grounds for using DRV. "undo this AFD because you were unaware that the guy wrote this-and-this book" is a very good reason. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears you're now making my argument for me. Process is NOT the ONLY reason to bring a VFU, yet that is the only instruction that I've been removing (and getting reverted for). If the second item in the undeletion policy has consensus to be removed, then the editors reverting me are correct. Otherwise, they are wrong, because the undeletion policy CLEARLY shows other reasons to bring an article to VFU. Unless undeletion policy is first changed, then consensus on this page's header doesn't matter at all; "official policy" always trumps "consensus procedure" where there is conflict between them. Unfocused 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfocused you most likely did a 3RR with that last edit. Anyway, I made an attempt for a comprimise. Ryan Norton 03:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit is closer to the actual policy and I appreciate it. However, nothing about Misplaced Pages articles is ever truly about "process but not content". Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in social democracy, remember? Unfocused 03:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the whole of DR is about content mainly; review of the process may be involved but the undeletion policy makes it plain that we're asking: is Misplaced Pages a better place with this article? I've also incorporated a reference to the undeletion policy's exception for remedying out of process deletions, which has been omitted from the header. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages deletion
• Misplaced Pages maintenance
• Misplaced Pages processes