ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ:Deletion review/Recent

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಇಂದ
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Instructions[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=೨೦೧೯ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೧೭}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=೨೦೧೯ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೧೭|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:

 

Recent discussions[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

14 March 2014[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

12 March 2014[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

9 March 2014[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

8 March 2014[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Indiggo[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

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

The closing administrator appears to have judged the article on its merits, rather than assessing the discussion for consensus. The closer's comment introduces new arguments (e.g. WP:MUSIC). While the administrator is welcome to contribute to the discussion, it's highly inappropriate for an administrator to close an AfD in this manner. The administrator has already declined another editor's request to relist, opining that "Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes." How the administrator knows this is unclear. Pburka (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to check out the discussion on my talk page. Considering the overdue-for-close AfD had no votes for over a week, then two delete votes came in a day before I stumbled on it from WP:OLD, it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume that it wasn't trending favorably, but who knows *shrug*. --slakrtalk / 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. While checking out the discussion on the closer's talkpage, which the closer pointed to, it is worth looking at the adjacent discussions by other editors of two other closes this week by this closer; discussions by another sysop here and by another editor here. In each case, it appears the closer was applying a super!vote, rather than judging consensus (writing in the talk page discussion he points to "relisting this AfD won't fix the issues people raised unless someone actually is able to fix the issues people raised."). The AfD was largely about a !vote as to whether the RSs were sufficient to meet GNG -- the closer should assess those !votes, many of which came before the bulk of the RS sources were added. And his crystal balling here at the talk page he links to ("Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes"), the initial point he makes for his action, is odd. As he knows from the edit history of the article, many of the RS refs and more fulsome treatments of the subject came mid-AfD, after most of the delete !votes, which would lead one to suspect (if crystal balling were to be acceptable) that an extension would lead to more keep !votes. Finally, even without having extended the AfD for more discussion, I think a closer weighing the consensus would conclude "no consensus" here -- and not enter a supervote as the reason for closing it as the closer did here.Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn The closer seemed to pay no attention to the discussion, just giving his own opinion of the matter. Per WP:DGFA, the closer should "...respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". Andrew (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    Although I appreciate the show of good faith, I read each one thoroughly, and even if you go by just the numbers (which you shouldn't, but whatever), it was most accurately 6:3 in favor of delete, given BigCat82's comments (e.g., "The article does meet the deletion criteria" and later explicit "delete" with deference to our guidelines. However, with tighter AfDs, I feel obligated to explain the guidelines. In retrospect, it would appear I should avoid doing so in the future, given how what I said seems to have been warped as an allegation of bias, but whatever... c'est la vie. :\ --slakrtalk / 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn my assessment of the discussion was also no consensus - say no to supervotes. Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, this was a well-reasoned close that judged the discussion correctly.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, closing is not just about counting heads. (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to non-consensus Clearly a supervote. The argument used by the closer was possibly a good one, but it should have been contributed to the discussion. if opinion about an article is divided, and one has a definite view of one's own, it is generally a very poor idea to close according to that view. One should close the articles where one has a neutral view, or where one's personal view agrees with the consensus, or where the consensus is clearly against one's own view and one closes according to that consensus. Myself, I have no opinion on this sort of article, and if the closer had instead contributed to the discussion, I might possibly have closed as delete taking his argument into account, but if I cared about the topic & wanted to delete , I would not have closed or would have closed no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
  • endorse - it's just a spammy promo. I do agree that "The argument used by the closer was possibly a good one, but it should have been contributed to the discussion" - and the closer deserves trout. But it's still spam. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
88.104.31.21 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I agree w/you that the closer deserves a trout, and his argument was that of one !voting on an AFD not one assessing consensus. And I also agree that at an earlier stage, the article was promotional. That was fixed, and the article was certainly not promotional. Mostly, it is blandly factual. And if anything, it leans the other way, reflecting RS coverage by the New York Times and others of negative reactions to the band. Anyway -- the issue here is not that, but whether the close was proper.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorse/Stay deleted- The Indiggo wikipedia article was properly deleted. For people to say others have "super-voted" is assuming bad faith.50.74.152.2 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)50.74.152.2 (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

50.74.152.2 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn. WP:Supervote. Relist, convert the close to a !vote, give time for any response, then let someone else close. I read a "no consensus" heading towards a rough consensus to delete, but not quite there. Slakr (talk | contribs) close is not a fair close, but is a quality analysis that should help a later close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse and Salt - the article meets the requirements for deletion as a few genuine editors making lots of constrictive edits to save the article from deletion could only find sources with wider coverage incidentally and briefly mentioned the twins, and the information on them are in general quite negative. And article about how bad the living twins are shouldn't exist. And the the daily spamming and edit warring by the twins and their sock puppets were fully resolved only after the deletion. BigCat82 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There are a few mistakes in that statement. The sources range in size, but include full-length. Also, your suggestion that negative notability does not qualify as notability is incorrect. Third, any POV editing was addressed well before the close, and in any event that is not a reason to delete an article at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
When the article was deleted, most of the full length ones were press releases, and the majority of independent ones barely mentioned them or were user generated. There were also still plenty of sources like Stiridinromania.eu that were of questionable reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Closer understood that consensus is not democracy, but rather users have been saying in line with policies and guidelines. If only one person pushed for deletion but that person was the only one whose post reflected policies and guidelines; and a hundred people said keep the article for reasons that did not reflect policies and guidelines, consensus would call for deletion. Arguments for keeping the article seemed to reflect an article that did not yet exist. Time was given to turn that article into that purposed notable article, and if it wasn't enough that probably indicates that there really wasn't much out there to demonstrate notability. Many of the sources that might've worked to indicate notability, as BigCat82 said, negative. As a result, the girls, through their shared account and some sock-/meat-puppet accounts, tried censoring the article to not reflect the sources, even removing some of the sources that were beginning to support the idea that they might be notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. If admins were tasked with simply counting votes, then sure it should have been closed as "no consensus." But several of the arguments made for keeping were flat out wrong (saying it should be keep because the band may be notable in the future, for example). Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Everything you've said is true, but the closer didn't just evaluate the arguments presented. Instead, he or she introduced new arguments. This steps well beyond the role of a neutral arbitrator. While the closer may have made the right decision, he or she made it for the wrong reason. This was a summary execution from the bench, rather than a sober evaluation of the defense and prosecution. Pburka (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Everyone who voted to delete the article expressed concern that the band failed the general notability guidelines because all mentions in reliable sources were merely trivial ones. The closer of the AFD made that the first rationale in his closing statement. It's not a supervote.
    Besides, if you're agreeing that there was consensus to delete, which you seem to be, but the closer deleted for the wrong reason, aren't you just wikilawyering at this point? Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    And those !voting to keep indicated that it met GNG, with treatments that were beyond the shorter mentions in the New York Times and the like. Which was the case. And -- Pburka isn't wikilawyering in the least, unless you think it is wikilawyering to point out that the job of the closer is not to exercise a supervote, but rather to close per the consensus of the proper !votes of the established editors !voting.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Except those that decided to keep for such brilliant reasons as "the twins are notable together only" and "keeping this article can prevent future recreation of the same article in promotional language...Also the twins may get more popular in the future." Those aren't based on any guideline or policy and were rightly ignored. If you throw away such junk arguments, it's easy to see consensus was in favor of deletion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    If you focus on the fact that !voting editors (we're not !voting here--but looking at what they said) indicated that there were in fact longer than passing mentions (which was unquestionably true), you see the basis for keeping under GNG. There was a difference of opinion among editors as to whether those refs, both short and long, satisfied GNG. That's the crux of it. And that's called a lack of consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC 
  • Closer: (WP:GNG) requires <the topic> to be the subject of reliable coverage
  • WP:GNG: Significant coverage...need not be the main topic of the source material.
Policy/guideline-based interpretation of WP:GNG was important for this AfD, as the claim was made that the topic received coverage on Huffington Post, The New York Times, and Today (NBC).  At least one delete !vote failed to address WP:GNG.  The two editors citing "trivial" don't show that they understand the WP:GNG difference between "significant coverage" and "trivial".  An NC close allows a new AfD in two months, but given the amount of clean-up that has taken place on this article, interest in such may lapse.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse : Admin's actions in judging arguments were correct. The closing admin did not introduce new argument, he merely explained the policies. "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention" - well, a single phrase about a flop in several reviews of AmGotTalent is not. Yes, "it need not be the main topic", but it must be ...er... significant. So far not even a paragraph. - Altenmann >t 05:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not remotely true. There were a number of articles that included more than a passing mention, and more than a passing phrase (or sentence, or paragraph).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, so far, of 20+ refs I see only one good: from TIMM. You may convince me to change the !vote. Which other ones you consider significant, independent? E.g. this one is not.- Altenmann >t 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, per several above. Closing isn't vote counting. It's weighing the arguments/statements in the local discussion, as well as the broader policies/guidelines/common practice of Wikipedia. While I didn't check the links in question, based upon the discussion there and here and a cursory read of the article, it looks like a fair appraisal of the discussion AND policy. - jc37 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


SnarXiv[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

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

Inappropriate merge result from an AfD in which there was no clear consensus for merging (two for, one against, others not discussing it), no previous mention of the subject at the merge target, and absolutely no discussion or notification of the proposed merge on the merge target page (arXiv). This close effectively creates an administrative fiat for the SnarXiv site to be mentioned on arXiv and for a redirect to exist from SnarXiv to arXiv, neither of which is (I believe) warranted by the tiny significance of SnarXiv to the broader arXiv topic. I'd prefer to discuss this normally on the article talk page as a merge request (where of course I'd be opposed) but that is now closed off as it would be effectively re-litigating an AfD and causing it to have a different outcome. As an interested editor of arXiv I only found out about this through the placement of the old AfD closure notice on Talk:ArXiv, and since the closer refuses to change anything (and insists the redirect remain, calling any attempt to persuade him/her otherwise a "lynch mob"), it seems the only remaining recourse is DRV. If I had !voted in the AfD it would probably have been a delete, and I think that would be a reasonable outcome for the AfD, but the consensus is unclear enough that re-opening would also make sense to me. More broadly, I would suggest that when merge proposals occur within AfDs, the talk page of the merge target should get a courtesy notification (as I have just done on Talk:Princeton University for a different AfD), and that no close happen until people who watch that page have been given a reasonable chance to respond. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't comment on the DRV (and I'm realllly tempted to, given David's representation of that diff), but the point raised about letting the merge target know beforehand might actually be a good idea to adopt as part of the deletion process. I imagine it might be a good "standard practice" for either a {{relist}} or for a bot to notify a proposed merge target when someone places the first merge-vote, for reasons that I actually did mention in my diff / the thread (i.e., sometimes editor pools can be totally different for two pages and one side's "merge" might not even realistically be appropriate, and the closing admin may have no idea if he doesn't have expertise in the area). *shrug* anyway... carry on. :P --slakrtalk / 08:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Makes no difference- From the discussion, only merge and delete were possible results and I can't really fault slakr's close. I do not agree that this close establishes an "administrative fiat" that SnarXiv must now be mentioned on the arXiv article. Even if some content of SnarXiv is merged there, there is nothing preventing editors from agreeing to remove it as part of the editing process. That's perfectly acceptable. Reyk YO! 08:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It certainly does make a difference as it has already caused huge chunks of irrelevant material to be added to the arXiv article with no discussion or local consensus for the addition and no place but here to discuss it without re-litigating the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • As I said, there is nothing that prevents that material being removed as a normal part of the editing process. I was quite clear on that. Did you not read past the bolded words in my comment? Reyk YO! 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
        • And I have already removed it. But in doing so I have effectively caused the article to be deleted, in contradiction to what the closed AfD said should be the outcome. Don't you think that might be a problem? And there's also the issue of the redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus The main point of the close at AFD should be whether there is or isn't a consensus to delete. This close was too prescriptive. Mandating particular merge targets is not sensible because there are often multiple possibilities and AFD usually does a poor job of considering these. In this case, the topic is one of several fake paper generators such as SCIgen so perhaps we need a general article to cover them all — I have started paper generator to fill this gap. Or, if we were to stick to physics, there's possible targets like list of experimental errors and frauds in physics. Sorting that out is a matter of ordinary editing and so outside the scope of the deletion process. Andrew (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • When the consensus at the AfD is that there should not be a stand-alone article, it would clearly be perverse to overturn to something that defaults to keep. Based on the discussion the only other thing than merge that this could be overturned to is delete. Reyk YO! 05:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Merge was an extraordinarily unwise suggestion but it was suggested and supported and so I suppose the close wasn't wholly outside administrative discretion. As a consolation, no one should be so naïve as to think WP:MERGE requires anything to be merged. "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary". Thincat (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Personally, had I participated in the AfD, I probably would have !voted to delete, and if I had been in closing mode, I probably would have relisted it or possibly closed it as no consensus, but I don't see anything here that's so far beyond the pale that it requires being overturned. If anything, the result has effectively evolved into a delete because the merged material has already been reverted by another editor. If that's what's going to stand, however, somebody should delete the now-orphaned redirect (the target no longer mentions the redirected subject) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Update on that -- I just looked at arXiv. @David Eppstein:, you brought this to delrev for people to discuss, and then immediately went ahead and implemented your desired solution anyway. When I wrote my comment immediately above, I didn't realize it was the same person who did both of those. If you're going to object to the closer's actions and ask for a review, you should at least wait for that review to end before doing anything. I've undone your reversion of the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. My revert was the R in BRD. Now we should have the discussion. Except first it seems we have to have a meta-discussion here before we can even have the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
What I'm objecting to is the simultaneous bringing this to delrev, and acting on it. "Hey, guys, can you all please devote some time to figuring out if the admin who closed this messed up, but it doesn't really matter what you decide because I've already gone ahead and implemented the solution." If you had just reverted it and explained why on the article's talk page (which I see you did), I wouldn't have any problem. But then why also drag it to delrev? Maybe instead of undoing your reversion, I should have speedy closed this review as moot? Either of those actions makes sense to me. Wasting time on delrev when the outcome has already been implemented doesn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
What was the B? Neither the close nor the merge's implementation qualify. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist' Basically, I agree with David E that a delete would have been more suitable than a merge. But if I had seen it, I would have argued for delete, but not closed as delete because there was insufficient consensus for that. Looking at the discussion, it should probably have been continued, not closed. A nonconsensus close would have been premature without relisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
  • I would have preferred no consensus or "redirect, history available for merging." There was a discussion among a few users at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect (October 2013). I can see the point that if a redirect outcome can be enforced by summarily reverting restorations, merge should carry some weight as well. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Fair reading of a rough consensus. The topic does not warrant a standalone article, and there is a plausible merge target. If David Eppstein is right (he looks unchallenged at Talk:ArXiv#SnarXiv), then the close should be converted to delete, either here, or via RfD for process sake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Since the merge was completed, WP:Merge and delete attaches. Even if the merged text is removed, it has not been deleted, and the source page should not be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The merged then unmerged content could be rev deleted. Or the deleted page history can be moved into a subpage. But if the content is not to be found in the target article, there should not be a live mainspace redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus or Relist. I don't see a consensus there. And the closer's job is to follow consensus. Not say: "How would I have !voted -- If anyone !voted the way I would have !voted, I will closed it that way, and say it was (obviously) the strongest argument!" That seems to be the flavor of both this close and others recently by this closer.
That said, there is a second issue. The closer seems to be of the belief that if there is a paucity of input, but has already been one extension of time to comment, the greater good is being served by closing the AfD ... because it is already "late" and clogging up the works. That's not IMHO the right thing to do. Another relist (and, in certain circumstances where consensus or lack of consensus is still not known, a third relist) are more appropriate, and more likely to lead to proper closes in accord with the views of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)