Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Can this process be automated?

The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the {{Delrevxfd}}, {{Delrev}}, and {{DRV notice}} templates? Jarble (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @Anomie and Timotheus Canens: Can this bot be programmed to do the tasks that I listed here? Jarble (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just passing by due to a cross-post, but could a script be written to deal with this, similar to how Twinkle takes care of all of the XFD nomination steps? Primefac (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds more like a script is needed. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Over half the time, even the first template ({{drv2}}, on the deletion review subpage (no, there's no {{drv1}})) gets filled out wrong. The deletion discussion isn't linked, or the wrong one's linked, a non-deletion-discussion is linked in the xfd field, or a full url is used for the deletion discussion or page name or both, or even the page name is wrong. Mostly it's me who ends up cleaning it up and placing {{delrevxfd}} and sometimes {{drvnote}}, and the problems aren't consistent enough that I've ever considered automating it. A bot that assumes the first step was done right is going to break at least two other pages and probably end up being a net increase in manual labor. —Cryptic 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Wouldn't the bot or script detect incorrectly-formatted {{drv2}} templates in order to prevent errors like this? Jarble (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Jarble, as a bot op, no. There are a million different ways editors can mess up wikitext. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If users screw up the {{drv2}} over half the time, that seems like the bot would run into too much GIGO to be useful. Anomie⚔ 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it gives more reason to have a script, as there can be #ifexist checks and the like to make sure things are input properly. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to incorporating functionality into something like Twinkle or Ultraviolet (with preference towards the latter). — Frostly (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Automating this would be great. But the process wasn't too horrible... SmolBrane (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

On that note, I have to look at the instructions again every time I close DRV, and dearly miss WP:XFDCLOSER. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Squatch

I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested at participating in a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Split WP:DRV into two pages?

I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on DEEPER

I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER. Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER. The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER. I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests. Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the correct procedure is demanding a presentation of a draft that is prima facie worthy of a review, and if it seems that thre is no prospect for that submission to even be reviewed because it is obviously not worthy of a review, and a few participants have noted so, the DRV can be speedily closed as 'speedy endorse' due to no prospect of success. There must be a path to recreation. We can not know that BDFI will not be a notable topic in the future. If I start believing that BDFI has become a notable topic I will want to create an article, I will be able to draft something suitable for a quick review at DRV, and I will not be satisfied with my submission being dismissed on purely formal grounds (a fantasy scenario, don't take it at face value). —Alalch E. 22:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Close

See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) § Frivolous_filings_at_DRV

I proposed at Village pump (policy) that DRV should have, and state that it has, closures of Speedy Endorse for a Deletion Review when the appellant has failed to state a case. On further thinking, I think that what is needed is Speedy Close, similar to the administrative closes sometimes used at XFD, and that the instructions for DRV should list the reasons for Speedy Close. The reason for changing the phrase is that some of the Deletion Reviews to which this should apply are not really appeals of deletion decisions.

I suggest, in particular, that the instruction should say, below "Deletion review may be used" and "Deletion review may not be used", there should be a paragraph beginning "A Deletion Review request may be Speedily Closed if:" followed by:

• 1. The filing does not appear to involve a deletion action in the English Wikipedia.
• 2. The filing does not address any of the reasons for requesting Deletion Review, either an error or new information.
• 3a. The filer is a banned or blocked user.
• 3b. The filer does not have permission to edit in the area, e.g., not extended-confirmed when the area is subject to an extended-confirmed restriction.
• 4. The filing is completely erroneous, e.g., it misstates the number of !votes in the XFD.

We see such requests for Deletion Review from time to time, and they are often administratively closed, but it would be useful to list them as bases for speedy closes, similar to Speedy Keeps at XFD.

I would like to send this provision for Speedy Closes at DRV forward to an RFC to add it to the DRV instructions, after discussion and any changes to the rationales. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. While I occasionally procedurally-close disruptive or pointless DRVs, I always feel like I'm treading the gray boundary of policy-sanctioned process. Clear wording will make this more consistent and save us all time. I do, however, have qualms about C#1, which seems to exclude appeals to turn a Keep into a No-consensus or vice versa. While some dismiss such appeals as pointless, they do impact renomination delays, and also act as important feedback, especially in cases of BADNAC. I believe we also need clearer language for a speedy overturn for out-of-process speedy deletions. If any editor in good standing contests a G6, it is no longer uncontroversial maintenance. Owen× ☎ 10:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • You can already do that last bit if you feel strongly enough about it. From WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care. —Cryptic 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

    Admins who routinely delete out of process are the worst ones with whom to get into a wheel war. While policy allows us to revert them, the caveat it spells out should be heeded. A speedy overturn supported by two or three participants is more effective and less prone to prompting a wheel war. This usually happens within a few hours of the DRV being listed, so I don't think we're adding unnecessary wonkery here. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

    So wait until it racks up those two or three overturns. I don't think that "immediately" language means "only if you do it right after it happens" so much as "without further discussion". —Cryptic 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• With this proposal, we need to be mindful of two things.

Firstly, DRV is a backstop against various kinds of abuse: things that don't usually happen on en.wiki, but theoretically could -- such as a bad faith user gaining control of a sysop account and using that account to delete inconvenient articles or speedy-keep inconvenient AfDs. As a guard against that, I'd suggest an explicit rule that any sysop can overturn or revert a speedy close of a DRV, on their own authority, with or without giving a reason. (Sysops can revert each other's administrative actions but are usually hesitant to do it. We want wording that empowers and encourages them to use that power here.)

Secondly, DRV has another purpose as well as reviewing decisions. We also explain decisions. An inexperienced user ought to be able to bring a DRV and come away with a clear understanding of all the reasons for a deletion decision, and that occasionally happens. So we want a rule that says that when speedy closing a DRV brought by an inexperienced user, the closer should pop over to their talk page and start a discussion explaining all the reasons why the deletion decision was correct.

I wouldn't want to pass this without those provisions.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose codifying how to run this review process. It should be run by humans, not algorithms. The problem being fixed has not been explained. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• This is instruction creep, and the worst sort of instruction creep in that it's mostly redundant and the remainder is actively harmful.
  #1 is already covered by the speedy close criteria we already have. #2 and #4 are frequently accompanied by the sort of accusations for which we could invoke the other speedy close criterion we have at WP:DRVPURPOSE NOT#8, but for reasons incomprehensible to me we usually don't. #3 is covered by the combination of WP:BANREVERT and WP:ARBECR, doesn't need repeating here, and is already the usual practice if nobody who's permitted to edit has agreed with them yet.
  When somebody has agreed, and for the remaining, milder cases of #2 and #4, speedy closing is harmful because deletion reviews are essentially never reviewed or overturned - the buck stops here - and have zero effect on content namespaces while in progress. Even when it's a kept page that's being reviewed and {{delrev}} is supposed to be put on the mainspace page (or category or template or whatever), it's usually forgotten, even by the people who clean up broken and incomplete drv nominations. —Cryptic 13:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• With the exception of 4, I IAR close all of these. I'm not sure I need a rule telling me I can't, as I don't think any have even been challenged, never mind overturned. Just my .02 Star Mississippi 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Language improvement, here & Refund

from @SmokeyJoe's comment here, @Robert McClenon's thread above and note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Margaret_Nichols_DRV and my fairly regular "We're not doing 7 days of bureaucracy", it appears there's a start to consensus on how to improve and streamline DRV to allow it to focus on the discussions where it's needed vs. where there's another solution. Thoughts, suggestions on where else this should be? Star Mississippi 13:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a proposal about just this a while back at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 56#Split WP:DRV into two pages? Mach61 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s no good reason to split DRV.

Uncontroversial REFUNDS should be advised to go to REFUND to ask.

REFUNDS to draftspace are almost always uncontroversial.

REFUND should plainly distinguish between whether the REFUND is to draftspace or to mainspace, and give simple advice on both. REFUNDS to mainspace are rarely uncontroversial, except for late disputed PRODs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Natural history - partially deleted category tree

Not sure where to ask about these two:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 11#Natural history - result was delete

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history - result was no consensus

As a result the category tree is partially deleted and partially extant. Would it be possible to revert the first deletion (as mentioned would be appropriate by a couple people in the second discussion)? I will note that the second nomination got more attention, I think because it included lower-level subcategories that get more "circulation".

jengod (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Neha Harsora

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to Neha Harsora, you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, Explicit (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I want my article back

The article I wrote was deleted around 2 years ago because 6 months passed without activity and now they wont undelete it because they think there's a conflict of interest. I am writing an article for Dr. Zouhair Amarin because I was his student. There is no conflict of interest as we are not colleagues, friends or family. I have maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. Zamarin (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zamarin: This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at User talk:Zamarin#Concern regarding Draft:Zouhair Amarin directs you as follows:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)