Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 9

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning." So what process should be used if you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning? --The Cunctator 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess this is supposed to mean "If you dislike the outcome but can't find fault with the process"... ~ trialsanderrors 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The best way to get an article undeleted if there were no problems with the debate is to rewrite the article to correct the reasons it was deleted for. For example, if an article was deleted as being unverifiable, find reliable sources that back up the information in the article and cite all the facts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a very valid question. You see if Deletion review is not "AfD round 2" and it's wrong to recreate deleted content then how could a deleted article ever come back. We mustn't forget WP:CCC. --WikiSlasher 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a very valid question, and that's a very valid answer (the only answer, as far as I know). Userspace can be used (within reason) to work on fixing dead articles and bringing them up to scratch, as can other wikis or even one's own hard drive. If the deletion was procedurally valid and grounded in solid principles (WP:V, etc.) then the best way to ressurect an article is to show that those concerns have been dealt with, either by changing circumstances or by fixing the article. It's happened many times before. One example off the top of my head is Keyra Augustina, who was deleted when she was just a name attached to a bunch of photos floating around on blogs, but was re-created after being featured in Maxim magazine, thus creating a verifiable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between bringing a deleted article back and writing a new article on the same topic. If, in order to be sure that you are creating a different and better article, you need to see the old version, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Content review to receive a userfied copy. DRV does not need to get involved in the process of recreating articles unless either 1) the page was protected deleted due to repeated problem creations, in which case we usually want to see the promised new article at the start of our review or 2) the new article is speedy deleted as a recreation, in which case the admins here will evaluate whether it was a recreation that didn't solve the problems or a new article that did solve the problems. GRBerry 16:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Starting with the December 1 log we'll archive deletion reviews directly on the log page, using {{drt}} and {{drb}}, similar to closing AfD debates. Here is a quick run through the mechanics:

====[[Header]]====                            ← The header can be removed when the discussion above this one is already archived
{{subst:drt|[[Header]]|DECISION}}             ← Add top template
  Header (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ← If this is missing from the discussion it should be included for archiving.
DISCUSSION                                    ← Body of the discussion stays unchanged
{{subst:drb}}                                 ← Add bottom template

There'll be some shifting around and some sandboxing over the next couple of days, but once it's road tested it should be much easier for both closing admins to archive and for editors to review archived discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This method messes up the edit section links. For example, the review for Megan (on December 1 log) was closed using this template. The section edit links before and after it appear at the "1 December 2006" and "List of idioms in the English language (A)" headings. When I went to click the section edit link next to "List of idioms" heading, the section edited was the review for Web directories. Clicking the edit link for "1 December" edited the correct section - quite confusing. Kimchi.sg 06:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than that, it works okay. Kimchi.sg 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was getting too ambitious and tried to shrink the header size in transclusions using "===<includeonly>=</includeonly>". Turns out this has this odd effect of linking the edit buttons to the wrong sections. It's reverted now (and had nothing to do with the templates themselves). ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Was this related to the way the GNAA drv's table had eaten the rest of the page until a minute ago? --tjstrf talk 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No that was hand-coded. ~ trialsanderrors 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just wondering, do you think it is a good idea to append the closer's name as well? - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we only have to do that once it's more than two admin closing the discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess most of the regulars don't even look at the instructions on the DRV main page anymore, but for inexperienced users the instruction creep is pretty hard to navigate and frequently leads to misplaced nominations. So I'm trying to start a drive to cut down the clutter. I already made a couple of changes due to the new way of archiving, but some other things could also be uncluttered. A couple of ideas on which I'm looking for feedback:

1. Which elements should appear on the main page, besides Instructions?
   • Active discussions
   • Recent discussions (closed and unclosed discussions older than 6 days)
   • Archives
2. Should the "special cases" (content review, prodded deletions, history-oly undeletions) be folded into the general discussion section?
3. How can adding a new discussion be simplified or mechanized?
4. Cut down on the instruction creep in general?

Thanks for all comments. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The active discussions list in the box is too long; the recent discussions list we probably don't need. Similarly, active discussions are not being included in Wikipedia:Deletion review. Wikipedia:Undeletion policy says that reviews remane active for ten days. See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins). After five days, if there is adequate consensus to undelete, we may undelete and close the discussion. After ten days, we shall close the discussion and either undelete, relist, or endorse. Right now we only have the current and five prior days on the deletion review page, so we are missing almost half the days eligible for live discussions. Or, alternatively, we should change the undeletion policy to match the new process here, if that is widely agreed upon. Since I don't recall a discussion of practice change here we should have that before changing policy. GRBerry 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a bit more of a system to it than you give it credit. First, the Active log lists 6 days because the discussion at the top of day -5 still haven't run for 120 hours, so we can't close them yet. WP:AFD does the same. Anything that moves from Active to Recent can be closed if it has garnered enough opinions. Second, the ten day provision is pretty much applied similar to AfD closures: Any discussion that has run the required five days is closed as soon as it has garnered enough opinions so that consensus can be determined. This could be after seven, eight or ten days or, if there aren't enough opinions after ten days, could be relisted. Technically there should only be five days on the "Recent" log, the sixth day is for the closers' convenience. But it could be replaced by an Archive link and the Archive column on the right removed. Third, we have had an increase both in nominations for review and amount of discussion each review gets, so keeping all open discussions on the main site is starting to become unmanageable. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So you are saying that what we should update is Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins), because it says that after 5 days we have the option to close and undelete, but all other closures should wait the full 10 days. What you describe fits my memory of the usual practice prior to reformatting the pages, so we probably should update the policy... I don't recall anyone ever objecting to obvious consensus closures by Xoloz before 10 days were up. GRBerry 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • i don't think anyone ever dragged out WP:UNDEL to contest Xoloz's closure in recent memory but it makes sense to update the policy to reflect current practice. ~ trialsanderrors 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• After ten days, we shall close the discussion and either undelete, relist, or endorse - or delete. The discussions between 3rd and 8th December seem to have disappeared. Where are they? Proto::► 13:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • They're still here afaict. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it, who really reads this stuff except people new to the process and trying to either comment or more likely list a new DRV. I tried to address this the other day and I think I cleared things up... the instructions for listing a DRV were quite effectively buried. Just wanted to chime in to say that design of the main DRV page should keep in mind what (at least in my opinion) most people will be reading sections other than the current DRV listings for. --W.marsh 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's one reason why I want to fold in the "special cases". ~ trialsanderrors 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I know they serve a function, but the "Content review", "Proposed deletions" and "History only undeletion" strike me as clutter in a way, they take up space in the TOC and these unfamiliar and complicated sounding sections might be distracting and confusing, leading users never to make it down to the DRV instructions. If nothing else, "instructions" should probably be moved up to below "purpose". Maybe these three sections should be made subsections. Just throwing this out there, if no one objects I will experiment with it, but I think Trialsanderrors is doing some larger work on the page and it looks to be going well so far. --W.marsh 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Let's try if it makes more sense to fold them into the main review section. I think what matters mostly is that the DRV regulars know how to handle those cases and can help out requesters quickly. Also, I've now turned Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log into a separate listing, it lists all nominations both in the "active" and "recent" section. So there are now three different ways of looking at nominations:

1. All active and recent
2. Active and recent separately, and
3. By daily log

So we could make WP:DRV an instruction-only page similar to WP:AFD and let users choose the view of ongoing debates they prefer. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I kind of personally prefer there just being the one centralized WP:DRV, with 3-8 discussions on a typical day I think it still works well. If three sections I mention above could just be integrated back into DRV and handled by the many admins who read the page, is that what you're saying? I don't know if I'd remove the sections entirely, they do kind of represented specialized and generally quick requests, which is different in nature than the average DRV. --W.marsh 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the old thinking on those three sections was that closing DRV's was cumbersome to do, so anything that can be resolved unbureaucratically should be moved out of the review section. But now since the closure has been simplified it doesn't make much sense to keep them separate, especially since about half of the requests to restore prods end up in the review section anyway. What we should stress instead is that before starting a review users should contact the closer first, and only use DRV if requester and closer can't come to an agreement. We have way too many debates that could've been solved on a user talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AJMS recently added commented-out instructions to the top of Wikipedia:Deletion Review, and a visible red-bordered banner to the top of this page, which says (to paraphrase) "Hey morons, don't do what you're about to do". Although the commented-out instructions are a good idea, I've removed the banner - a) the commented-out instructions should be sufficient, b) the banner is ugly and intrusive, and c) we aren't being overwhelmed by misplaced requests anyway. Posting here for further discussion if necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The box was my idea of bypassing the introductionary spiel for those who just want to add a new review. Sorry if it sounded different from its intent. Kimchi.sg 15:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the templates may not be on people's watch lists, A quick note to say I've made some changes to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Header and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Mechanics. Mostly cosmetic, but since no one acutally looks at these except people who come to place request, I thought the "regulars" would like to know. - 152.91.9.144 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two discussions waiting to be closed at December 5. Consensus is fairly obvious but I shouldn't close them as I commented in both of them. I usually don't have problems closing DRV where the consensus goes against me, but in those cases it would be good if someone can volunteer to act as backup closer as long as Xoloz isn't active. I'd also be grateful if some editors can patrol Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent and comment on the discussions with few comments. ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You posted this just as I came online. Closed. Kimchi.sg 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Respected Sir,

I recently knew about you when I went through your wikipedia pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales [1] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimmy_Wales [2]

I felt glad to read about you. When you were working on a small part of wikipedia in those days, today you might be remembering about those days. Great progress ! No doubt. I am right now in the same age group when you were on the starting stage at that time, when the wikipedia company was new. If I am not wrong, as everyone dreams, In those days you might also having dreamed of the position of wikipedia today.

Even I do dream ! I want to ask you that what is wrong in if some one has a dream to be like you, or if some one has a dream to progress like you or if some one has a dream to walk on the path you were sometimes in the past. Is it wrong if I am dreaming to be like you? Is it wrong if I have a dream to have my position and my company around the globe as of wikipedia today ? I know it's a big thing I am talking about, but my questions right answers can only be given by you.

If the founder of wikipedia has mentioned his achievements on his website, does it mean that he is self promoting himself? Does it mean that the founder of wikipedia is self promoting for self publicity, if his pages are found on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales [3] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimmy_Wales [4]

I am asking this because I am an Information Security Expert and from last 7 years of my life I have given to research. One more person exists in India who is similarly known in the same field - Mr. Ankit Fadia. If you go through the article of ankit fadia on wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankit_Fadia [5]

You will find that 60 percent of the matter mentioned in that article is wrong. But I have no objection on that as I have nothing to do with, what that person does. Here the question is of truth, fact and the reputation of wikipedia.

Now see this content, which I edited on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpesh_Sharma [6]

Is there anything wrong if compared with your page on wikipedia. I have just mentioned in simple words as your article is mentioned with your achievements. But the administrators of wikipedia are removing with any reasons all my articles. They are saying it's a self publicity. Then why Jimmy Wales and Ankit Fadia. Ok ! jimmy wales has atleast mentioned the truth about him. But Ankit Fadia article contains everything false for which I have many evidence. If you go through the google search for keyword 'Ankit Fadia' and keyword 'Kalpesh Sharma', you will see a lot of peoples have posted very bad and brutal language about ankit fadia. Even on one of my article on gather.com, personally ankit fadia commented bad words. So, for self defense to save my reputation created in past 7 years after hard work; I also started writing articles about him containing all the links on internet where this person was discussed badly. Now when I started self defense, the adminsitrators of wikipedia are saying that you are doing this due to jealousy ! I felt very bad on such comments by one of the reputed company's administrators. I felt as if a reputed person is tearing the reputation of another one. Because your reputation is the matter which no one other then you can personally understand. So do I for my reputation.

Actually Ankit Fadia is a self claiming and self promoting person. He is using honorable name of Wikipedia, President of India, Stanford University, FBI, CIA, CBI, etc. for his self promotional activities of his business. By doing this he achieved a lot of revenue in last 5 years through seminars, workshops, courses, etc. Please don't think that I am giving misleading information to you. I am trying to show the real fact behind this man. But this self claiming and self promoting name is being given by some of your company administrators to me, instead of Ankit Fadia by giving me name like jealous. I have saved the letters of such administrators.

I am here for justice from you to post my achievements which I am using for community interest, citizens of various nations and saving the information technology field from hacking and threats. So, that the dream of Jimmy Wales can be remembered in future, by the dream of Kalpesh Sharma.

Here is my article content which I and several members of my group tried to post and were removed by administrators:

copy and paste of article removed. Jimbo is able to review deleted content for himself if he wants.

That we have an article on Jimbo Wales is not self-promotion; Jimbo did not write that article himself. Moreover, Jimbo is clearly notable owing to having founded one of the most popular websites in the world; a discussion among editors found no comparable notability for this subject. If you have evidence that they did not consider and wish to challenge the deletion of this article, the page you're looking for is deletion review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kalpesh_Sharma. utcursch | talk 13:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am Kalpesh Sharma, I want to edit my following page on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpesh_Sharma because of a reliable source from himachal times which was posted by senior editor Mr. Chauhan. Check it here:

http://www.himtimes.com/full_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1166359894&archive [7]

Secondly, I also request to allow me to post my article on wikipedia due to following notable and reliable sources which are from print media and electronic media and the scanned copy of whch is posted by me on:

http://www.esnips.com/web/shriganesh33sbusinessfiles [8]

Please consider this for deletion review. Thanks.

From Kalpesh Sharma

59.95.217.129 15:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I read a deleted article to see I should vote on it being restored? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can try Google cache or request a temporary restore at WP:DRV. But then again, DRV discussion are about the closure, not the article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A longer answer because I was asked the same question on my talk page:

Well I wasn't an admin until just recently, and the inability to view articles can be annoying at times, you always feel at a disadvantage compared to the admins that comment at DRV. But it turns out this was only a problem with a minority of articles (mostly WP:CSD G4 deletions – substantially identical recreations). For one, in a good majority of cases it's an AfD decision to be reviewed, not the actual article, so you're in pretty much the same situation as the AfD closer who should make a decision based on the AfD discussion and only in borderline cases look at the article itself. Also, if it's a recent deletion, chances are you still find the article in a Google cache or in a Wikipedia mirror, just search for the article name and "Wikipedia". In some cases the Waybackmachine at archive.org works, although they only scan infrequently, so the version might be outdated (same with Google, but Google scans more frequently). Last but not least there is always the option to request content review, which is listed at the top of the DRV page. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does this page use permanent link archives, which are not searchable and more difficult to find? —Centrx→talk • 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? ~ trialsanderrors 08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Permanent link archives are one of the 3 talk page WP:ARCHIVE methods. The other two are cut and paste archiving, and move archiving.

As the name suggests, permanent link archiving basically consists of blanking the page and providing a permanent link to the old version of the page before blanking. Cut and paste archiving is done by blanking the page or sections thereof and pasting the content onto an archive subpage. Move archiving consists of using the move feature to relocate the entire page to an archive subpage and starting anew. (I personally use both cut and paste and permanent link archiving on my talk page, but that's just because I'm weird and obsessive.)

Given that the recent DRV closures have used a show/hide system to condense each day into a few lines of text, the permanent linking is no longer necessary and should be changed. Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6 for instance. It's 82 kb of text fully expanded, and fits nicely onto a single screen when condensed. --tjstrf talk 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I follow this correctly, we don't do permanent linking anymore (I assume this is what Centrx refers to). That's why we switched to the collapsible box system, so discussions are archived without permanent linking (such as the December archives). ~ trialsanderrors 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you got it. For December's page, I'd suggest we simply transclude the month's subpages onto one overview page. Since they're all collapsed it shouldn't cause any problems with length. --tjstrf talk 09:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what the December archive is right now. Of course length might become a problem because collapsing doesn't reduce the length of the html code. That's why I removed the collapse option from my proposal for archiving AfD debates (see WT:AFD). ~ trialsanderrors 09:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that when speedily closing a debate, the header should remain above the archive box (see note above) if the discussion above the speedily closed one is still ongoing. This is to ensure that editors who edit the section above the closed debate don't also open the archived debate. I remove all headers later when I close the remaining debates. ~ trialsanderrors 10:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence in the first section of the Wikipedia:Deletion Review, "Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there are sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.", should either the word "are" be changed to "is" or "justification" to "justifications"? I can't find it's use in the plural anywhere else. Recycledagplastic 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time you can be bold and fix it yourself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply/help. I tried to access "Edit this page" (twice), but it loaded a page only telling me not to post deletion review requests followed by a list of categories (no page content). Now, however, I can access the regular "Edit this page." Is there a reason this happens? Do you sometimes have to try to load the edit page several times? Do the wikipedia servers get too busy sometimes? Recycledagplastic 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, actually. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Recycledagplastic 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That text is actually contained in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Header, so that's the page you needed to edit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you too. Recycledagplastic 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with the current way of archiving closed debates. They each should have their own section even though they wont be edited. It is very hard to cite a spesific debate. Sections can be linked like this: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 9#Archiving --Cat out 12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the points of the collapsible navboxes is to make this unnecesary. In the worst case we had so far, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 14, there are nine archived discussions which can easily be surveyed at one glance. So a reference to the Template:Footballdatabase DRV simply needs to go to the December 14 page, and doesn't need a page anchor anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 5 was worse. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This rticle Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer has been recreated, after two noms for deletion [9]. I can't relist it, it defaults back to the old discussion, and DR is for UNDOING a deletion, not protecting a page from recreation. Can some Admin follow up on this? ThuranX 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles which have been deleted and recreated can be deleted per WP:CSD G4, unless the reason for their deletion has been convincingly addressed. You can tag such articles with {{db-repost}} to mark them for deletion, though I've already deleted this one. It doesn't merit protecting from recreation yet, IMO.

To nominate an article for a second AfD, incidentally, you use {{afdx|number}}, replacing "number" with "second", "third", etc. This automatically links to a new AfD. But you don't start a new AfD if the previous one still applies, you use db-repost. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I know, thank you. ThuranX 00:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

BIGLICKU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My page titled biglicku was deleted. I was told that it was not notable. Now what does that mean?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msubozeman2004 (talk • contribs).

Our guidelines on notability for web sites lists the criteria that a website needs to meet in order to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Your article would need to show that Biglicku meets at least one of these criteria. It was deleted because you have not provided any evidence that shows how the site meets one of the criteria. Gwernol 22:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There never was a site titled "Biglicku". ~ trialsanderrors 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because it was "BIGLICKU", all caps. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an assertion of notability, ALL CAPS, no? ~ trialsanderrors 10:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it seem likely that any valid assertion of notability is really possible. Based on search, this one is not only non-notable, it's practically unknown. Per the home page, site will launch in February. Wikipedia is not for promoting new, unknown sites, only documenting those already notable. Fan-1967 13:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the template people subst: to start a new day's log? I need to edit it. Also is there a list of all DRV templates and pages somewhere? --W.marsh 01:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/New day ~ trialsanderrors 02:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a gut feeling that we've been seeing an atypically high number of reviews of keep and no consensus closes recently. I haven't done an analysis. Does anyone else feel that these reviews are up? If so, does anyone know why? GRBerry 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think people are just coming around to the idea that a Keep close even can be DRVed. Most people probably assumed DRV was only for deletes, even when that wasn't quite true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make the deletion reviewers aware of an ongoing problem. I recently banned several sockpuppets of JB196, who has been on a disruptive campaign for the greater part of 2006 to aggressively delete non-North American professional wrestling articles. The sockmaster had been banned since September 2006 and has returned to evade multiple blocks, most recently at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_27#Chuck_E._Chaos.

Please exercise special scrutiny with new and low edit count comments on these topics due to the high probability that these are new manifestations of one persistent vandal. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... why? It really doesn't matter whether someone makes absurd arguments as a sockpuppet or not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close the remaining debates so that we can kick 2006 in the bucket? Thanks, ~ trialsanderrors 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Got the one I hadn't opined in. Two to go. GRBerry 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there might have been a sockpuppet infestation on that day. So some of them might have to be reopened. ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Caldari was closed as deletion overturned. I was going to look at the article because I was curious if it was written as well as the existing articles of the other groups but when I reached the article it was still protected against recreation. Checking the history has shown that there have been no modifications since the closure meaning that someone did not reprotect it after being closed. I also tried ctrl F5 to bypass the cache so I don't think it is a problem on my end. It appears that the article was simply not restored for some reason. Can someone please look into it and fix the problem. --70.48.108.229 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. ~ trialsanderrors 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the 7chan article deleted? Apparently because it hasn't been in the media, which isn't true, yet some of it's counterparts (such as 4chan) have articles when they are just as well known as 7chan. If 4chan is allowed to have an article, so should 7chan. 72.1.206.17 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the deleted versions weren't that great, none that I looked at cited any sources, some were outright vandalism. At any rate, if you can point to a source or two (see WP:RS) I'll undelete personally and let you have at it. Or draft a page in your sandbox to stave off speedy deletion. --W.marsh 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7chan which basically deals with the lack of sources.--W.marsh 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to participate in a few of the deletion reviews, but sometimes find it difficult because i'm not an admin and can't see the deleted history. Is there any way people like me can get around this problem? Fresheneesz 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See Review process discussion above. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi (talk · contribs) has more or less nominated everything in the Gundam category for deletion and seems to have a lot of the same few people running about and voting Delete in the AFDs. I believe these nominations are baseless and made in bad faith, but I'm not sure how to report or deal with mass AFD nominations such as this, as commenting/posting on every single nominated page will take far too long. Jtrainor 11:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I second this motion. Stumbling across this maddening string of AfDs reminds me of the last time someone decided to declare "Gundam is not encyclopedic" and went on a crusade to have it whitewashed from Wikipedia. More importantly, rather than targeting the entire franchise as a whole, this article (or rather, category) Visigothery will not only undercut information which is not easily available elsewhere, setting up all kinds of headaches for the casual animation enthusiast seeking data from the internet's most inclusive source of information, but it was indeed deliberately set up as a precedent to delete virtually any articles pertinent to fictional technology. Such a grandiose and sweeping AfD cannot possibly have been made in good faith, especially when one considers the rationale provided. Cool-headed Wikipedians need to do something about this nonsense before it gets out of control. Anyone remember when someone declared "Starcraft is not encyclopedic" and in-depth articles on video games were suddenly fair game? Let's not go back to those dark times. MalikCarr 11:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:FICT for the standards that apply where WP's core policies aren't specific enough. The Gundam fictional universe is noted enough to be covered by Wikipedia. That does not mean that every bit of minor episode detail, tech specs, fan chat blogs, etc., etc. needs to have its own WP article. WP's goal is not (see WP:IS and WP:ISNOT) to be "the internet's most inclusive source of information" in regards to excessive detail about any anime or any other fictional milieu. A brief description of how some group of fighting suits outside the titular ones affects the broad plot can be encyclopedic if done correctly. Hundreds of articles full of tech details that aren't of interest to casual fans cannot be encyclopedic, and their content needs to trimmed to contextual relevance and merged, not treated as sacred as if this were GundamWiki. Both sides need to avoid overreactions and work toward balanced treatment based on WP:FICT, not ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. Barno 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should edit {{Newdelrev}} to change its links depending on the namespace of the page being DRVed. For example: in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza, the template links the talk page to Talk:Wikipedia:Esperanza--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to merge the various DRV tags anyway. I don't see why they need to say more than "This article is under deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#This article". ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the protection from the deleted article "Subeta". I believe the website is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.124.181.131.53 03:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just did some quick analysis of December deletion statistics. Deletion log entries are for all spaces (article, talk, User, Image, etc...)

• Rough deletion log entries (by approximate offsets, should be within 1K): 114,000 entries
• % of entries restorations: 2.02% (111 of sampled 5,500).
• Deletions: ~111,700
• Restores: ~2,300
• Net Deletions: 109,400
• Net Deletions/Day: ~3,529
• Deletion Reviews Opened: 210 (6.77 per day average, high of 15)
• Deletions Reviewed: 0.188% (ignoring the fact that some reviews are of keep decisions at AFD)
• Deletions overturned: 53 (excludes PRODs and overturns by deleting admin while DRV underway)
• Keeps overturned: 7
• Overturn rate: About 30%-33% for controversial items
• Deletions reviewed and overturned by DRV: ~0.05% (one-twentieth of one percent)

GRBerry 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• How many of the overturned deletions ended up being redeleted after the 2nd AfD? ~ trialsanderrors 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A quick count looks like 11 (of the 53 above) that are now red links or protected deleted pages. Some were overturned speedy deletions later deleted by AFD. I didn't look to see if any were replaced by redirects. Not all were sent to XfD, so all we can really say is that about 20% of the overturns quickly ended up deleted again. Vagina GRBerry 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the research. I'm mostly surprised by the 3,500 daily deletions. I expected about 1/3 of that. ~ trialsanderrors 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Two other very recent counts have found about 2,000 article deletions per day (mostly speedy or prod), and that number doesn't include associated talk pages (500-700 per day?), so 3,500 overall certainly is consistent with those two counts. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently, a number of people have called for the regular restoration of cantent during deletion reviews to facilitate review by non-admins. I think that this is neither necessary or prudent. As a non-admin myself, I can appreciate the frustration of havin to choose between voicing an ill-informed and staying out of a review. However, I feel that creating a process that automatically overturns deletions (even temporarily) is too open to abuse. Google will often have a copy of a deleted article in its cache for interested parties to review, and the admins corps is perfectly cabable of making many decisions without non-admin input. And given how numerous and diverse that group is I think that the added bias (versus all DRV participants) is minimal. Eluchil404 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, when an XfD discussion closure is under review, the most important evidence is that XfD closure, not the article. And everyone can see the XfD discussion. GRBerry 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you are saying is not the case all the time. In at least recent deletion reviews, unless the matter is trivial the content of the article always come up, and usually becomes the main topic, and the case is argued over again. Except this time it is argued either from memory or guesswork. Unless the content is in some way dangerous, I think that it should be policy that all cases of DR require the visibility of the (protected) article, and I challenge you to say what harm it will do. I could hardly make the debates any messier. I know my feeling as a newcomer to this area of WP is that it does look like a group of people trying to prevent meaningful participation by outsiders. GR, you raised that point a week or so ago after i had asked for a restore for discussion, but your view did not receive consensus support, and the article was restored for the time being in a protected space. I then could immediately see for myself that the appeal had no merit, but otherwise I would have had to take other peoples word for it. DGG 06:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)06:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been brought up before, and while I think DGG makes some good points, I for one do not support undeletion of articles when brought to DRV, at least not in the articlespace under its original title. Part of the problem is that I find undeletions made automatically simply by any user posting here somewhat unsettling. As I recall, it has in the past proved to be a foot in the door for an article to undergo the deletion process again, which has a different approach and different standards that undeletion. Certainly if the article isn't protected any changes, even unsubstantial ones, can be used to make an argument that the article is now different, and warrants a revote on AFD, which undermines the process of DRV. Even protected, it puts the obviously problematical article back in the encyclopedia for a period of several days, and in a way the onus is put on those arguing for deletion, rather than those who argue for overturning a previous consensus. That being said, posting and protecting such articles somewhere in the wikipedia namespace might let non-admins in on the process on a more equal footing. -R. fiend 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If an article is undeleted for review, it is undeleted behind a {{drv}} tag and protected, so editors have to go into the edit history to see prior content and the content can't change during the discussion. Re status quo bias, overturning and relisting requires a qualified majority among participants, so the onus is still on those arguing for overturning to establish process error. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The page of deletion review is not very well readable, because of structure. Actual structure:

0 Top paragraph
1 Purpose
2 Content review
3 Proposed deletions
4 History only undeletion
5 Instructions
6 Active discussions
(...)

I think that the discussion of 2, 3 and 4 should be moved in a separate page. In 1 it should be a short discussion of what is the appropriate procedure (2, 3, 4 or the "default" 6). Cate | _Talk 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to streamline this for a while, see User:Trialsanderrors/DRV. Currently my thinking is that there are two distinct processes, requests for restoration and nominations for review. They could technically be in the same section, as long as admins are able to distinguish the two and proceed accordingly (e.g. a request can be closed as soon as it is fulfilled, a nomination should run the prescribed five days). 0 and 1 certainly need to be merged and trimmed. another thing I'm considering is to create separate subpages for each discussion, akin to the AfD format. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Proposed deletions" (which is a terrible name in the context of this page, it should be about overturning/contesting prods) and "History undeletion" are both under the heading of "Uncontroversial undeletions" in my world (similar to Requested Move's Uncontroversial Moves section); content review requires a little more discretion but not much. I'd fully support putting all three items on one subpage at least, so that I could tackle several problems/document actions in one swell foop. -- nae'blis 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless my memory is faulty I remember either on the Deletion review page or on top of this talk page mention of a category like in the title. I've looked in the history of both pages around the time I'm talking about but I can't seem to find it. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? --WikiSlasher 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. —Cryptic 11:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --WikiSlasher 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of you may want to visit Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 seems to have a wording problem... and weigh in - there's a possibility that this could affect DRV, for good or ill. -- nae'blis 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Our regular closer has opined, as have most of the regulars here. I have taken the following actions in it:

1. asked for clarification on the request (first bullet in the discussion)
2. put up a flag on the talk page for Marsden's bio Talk:Rachel Marsden#Deletion Review
3. made a comment that simple cases never get to ArbComm and that ArbComm has a clarification section.

I don't believe that this low level of participation would bias me as a closer, and unless someone objects, or closes it before me, I plan on spending some "fun" time closing this in about 4 or 5 hours from now. GRBerry 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do it. And feel free to close the discussion now and put a "verdict pending" tag up. I don't envy you. ~ trialsanderrors 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason to need to close after the minimum amount of time? The policy says that to wait up to ten days, no? "After ten days, if there is a consensus for undeletion, it should be undeleted. If there is a consensus to endorse the deletion, it should remain deleted. If there is no consensus, it should be relisted on the relevant deletion process." Kla'quot 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually the ten day limit is only applied to nominations with very few opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. GRBerry, I don't envy you either ;) Kla'quot 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed now. Trialsanderrors, you can finish closing the day (section headers, etc...) when it is convenient. Who is buying the milk and cookies for me? GRBerry 07:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, thanks for a thankless job done with much grace. Kla'quot 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Milk and cookies??? We have higher standards here at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 08:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on User:GRBerry/DRVGuide as a guide to this page and process. It is now complete enough to solicit feedback. Questions I have include:

1. Would you have a use for it?
2. If so, what use?
3. Should anything be added or trimmed?
4. Have I misrepresented the current facts in any way?

Feedback here or on the talk page there, thanks. GRBerry 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since we got a number of frivolous nominations from admins who should know better, I think it's time to make this clear:

1. Deletion review is not the place to seek permission to create a new article on the subject after it was deleted in an AfD unless the article is protected from recreation. Any user can do it if they think their new article solves the problems brought up at AfD.
2. Challenging a proper closure is not the way to get the article back. If you think you can create a better article, userfy the old content and work on it in userspace until it is ready to return to mainspace.
3. Deletion review is not the place to hash out things that can easily be resolved with the closing admin. That's what WP:PROCESSWANKERY is for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If a closure was "proper" but incorrect, this is the right place for it, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What's a proper but incorrect closure? ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Closure follows proper process (timing, etc), but doesn't reflect actual consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if you think a closure goes against consensus and isn't mandated by our consensus-overriding policies, then it's not proper in your opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be something specifically about "new evidence" being needed. I see a lot of DRVs closed early because there's really nothing new presented, it's just repeating the argument from the AfD. --W.marsh 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to run a DRV after finding new evidence. Write a two-line stub that establishes notability and ask for a history restore to access the deleted material. Otoh I'm all in favor of requiring that the closer or deleting admin should be contacted before nominating an article for DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is how G4 is interpreted in this case. Now people (surprise surprise) have gone ahead and decided that it should be whether it addresses the original problem. That's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I recommend checking with the original closer before going live with a new version of a previously deleted article. An OK from the closer should at the minimum give you insurance against a G4 speedy. Of course there is no obligation to do so as long as the article is redlinked, but as the creator of the article you're certainly in a better position if the closer agrees to a relist at AfD. DRV is only needed if the closer thinks your sources are worthless and you disagree. In that case a communal decision is required. ~ trialsanderrors 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you for this page. i was spared reworking topic again after reading comments.its right matter must be verifiable even if it is true.Verifiable content must be given first. Kushwah 14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Our regular closer is cutting back on wikipedia participation, and has specifically noted that they won't be watching this area. I am willing to take over as the new regular closer, and fortunately had low participation the last few days, so am relatively clean for current discussions. But I have participated in some recent discussions and can't close them. Could some other admins, that haven't participated in one or more of the following discussions, please close them (some may merit/need relisting):

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 6#Manufacturing Engineering Centre
2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 6#Dicta License
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7#Cyrus Farivar
4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7#Image:Twiggy promo.jpg
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7#Solar Empire
6. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Sarah Hanson-Young
7. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Project Monarch
8. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#A Shanty No Lemon
9. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Agent M
10. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Template:HistSource
11. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 9#Last For One
12. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 9#Robert Murray Arbuthnot

The following discussions are not ripe for closing at this moment, but I also won't be able to close due to prior participation, and some other admin will need to once they are ripe.

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 11#Alpha Kappa Nu

GRBerry 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand—I was already thinking of it when I saw this post. However, I'm not making any promises on how much of the workload I'll take on. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7#Cyrus Farivar, so I won't be able to take that one. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I finished Feb 6 and 7. I didn't completely disappear, but currently I don't have the time to devote an hour each day to closing DRV's, so thanks for stepping in. ~ trialsanderrors 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll step up more here, as it's an area of interest and I hadn't realized we were short on closers again. I think I can knock out Feb. 11th tomorrow/late tonight with no trouble, since I didn't participate in anything on that page... thanks for catching the rest trials. -- nae'blis 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 11#Alpha Kappa Nu

   Someone should have a look at the sources and comment on this or close it one way or another. I had a look at it last night since no one else wanted to comment and it's been relisted twice already. ~ trialsanderrors 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history for the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Contested prod section, we are getting about one request per week on average. It appears that most users are getting their contested PRODs restored (or at least reviewed) via other means.

I suspect that many of the PROD undeletion requests are showing up in other processes simply because the non-admin looking for the page doesn't know whether it was deleted via PROD or some other process. Those situations are being immediately dealt with by the discovering admin. No one is bothering to transfer the request.

Given its low usage and the success of our other processes, I propose that we retire this section of the process. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection, as we are getting almost as many contested prods in the full review area as in the designated section, so it really isn't fulfilling its purpose. But I'd rather merge all three of "Content review", "Contested Prod" and "History only undeletion" than just drop one of them. GRBerry 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We can fold them all into a "Requests for undeletion" section. IMHO we could include A7's and G11's as well. Ideally we should keep the "Nominations for review" section for contested XfD's and thorny Speedies. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please can anyone tell me where I can find the discussion on these?? Thanks, --sunstar net^talk 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This revision appears to be the last where the actual debate is shown (this is from a time when Deletion Reviews were blanked after completion). It's also discussed extensively in the subsequent procedural AFDs and at the talk page of CSD. -- nae'blis 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried on many occasions to add useful information on additional companies that are in the Video Conference space. Companies like Adobe and MegaMeeting.com have video conference technology built on Flash technology. This has not only brought down the cost of the service, increase the amount of Video displayed, but also allowed it to work on multiple platforms like Mac, PC, and Linux. People look to Wikipedia for information that is current and supplied by multiple sources. I am unsure why companies like Microsoft, Radvision, Webex, Gotomeeting can have their information displayed here and not other companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonrrichmond (talk • contribs) 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

The article on "megameeting.com" was not "useful," it was promotional. Perhaps people look to Wikipedia for "information that is ... supplied by multiple sources," but this was not such an article. It cited no published sources whatsoever. The use of the words "we" and "our" strongly suggest that the sole source of the material was the company's own promotional claims, which would be a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. By its nature, Wikipedia is not particularly consistent, especially with regard to borderline articles, so if the articles on Microsoft, Radvision, Webex, and Gotomeeting have similar problems they should be nominated for deletion, too. But the existence of bad articles in Wikipedia is not an argument for keeping other bad articles. Whatever you may imagine people look to Wikipedia for, or whatever you imagine Wikipedia's policies ought to be, if you want to have an article in Wikipedia it needs to accord with what Wikipedia's policies actually are.

In the case of Megameeting, that would mean an article that refers to good, reliable, published sources—not Megameeting—that say it is an important company with important technology, and that is written neutrally, factually, and in an encyclopedic tone.

Below is the text of the deleted article, in case people are not sure what I'm referring to. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

About MegaMeeting.com

Internet MegaMeeting, LLC, the company behind MegaMeeting.com was established in October 2003 with the intention of making Audio and Video Conferencing via the web simple and affordable to millions of people. MegaMeeting.com, its web based vehicle for connecting virtually anyone on a PC, MAC or Linux system, was launched in February 2004. Developed by a passionate team of marketing and technology experts in Southern California, MegaMeeting.com is breaking down previous barriers and providing a seamless experience for audio and Web Conferencing for everyone on the internet.

With 100-percent browser-based solutions, MegaMeeting.com offers high-end Video and Web Conferencing solutions at a much more manageable price than its competitors. We have no software to download, install or configure. MegaMeeting.com hosts meetings, presentations and trainings over the internet – in REAL TIME. Our multipoint video capability allows up to 16 separate individuals to be seen at the same time, and an unlimited number of additional Video Conference attendees can see the conference as well.

Could someone uninvolved, perhaps some regular here, consider that this DRV not be transcluded, but meerly be a linked page. It seems that it is going to have to run for a few days, and it is massive already - there's other stuff needs seen on this page.--Doc^g 23:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I almost did that a few hours ago for that reason. I'll do it now. GRBerry 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru questioned my impartiality when closing the review on February 1 since I also closed the related review on List of articles related to quackery (now in project space) and relisted it at MFD. If any of the experienced closers wants to revert my February 1 decision I won't stand in the way. Prior discussion on this, if anyone cares to read it, is at COI noticeboard and my talk archive. ~ trialsanderrors 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The deletion review on 1 February was properly closed; consensus to endorse deletion is clear. I think any admin would have closed it that way, not just a regular closer of deletion reviews. GRBerry 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should delete things tht have bad content

Agree? Post it under this comment. --Smartie960 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What were you thinking of? Wikipedia:Vandalism? Our criteria for speedy deletion? Our deletion discussions? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)