Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2018/July

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.

DRV closing review instructions include:

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion)

• Added [1]

Thread Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Archives/2017/July#Proposal: Clarify that "no consensus" DRV for most speedy deletions should generally be treated as "list at XfD"

• User:Sandstein, your close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July#Universa_Blockchain_Protocol would appear inconsistent with the above. Would you please review your close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed this at User talk:Sandstein#DRV procedural issue Sandstein 08:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think I disagree with Sandstein's position, and I would have it overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC) The amended close helps a lot. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Acknowledging "the practice of overturning speedy deletions with a "no consensus" DRV outcome" was important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Nope.Sandstein's close was apt enough.This was a special case and his arguments behind his closure are compelling.∯WBG^converse 07:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Cross-posting what I said at Sandstein's talk page. The close was fine. It wasn't perfect, but it was well within the discretion given to closers. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• One of the most important functions of DRV is as a contained location for people to vent. The closers do a very good job, silly nominations should be entertained with grace, and serious deletion-related matters should never be summarily closed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I want make that page delete instead of merging with the main article. I didn't have to participated to Article for Deletion discussion so i want you deleting the page until we find more reliable sources to recreating it instead of merging it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.128.43 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)