Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list

Notice: Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

DRV overturn discussion at AN

WP:AN#Towards_closure has a discussion about the various AfDs and DRV of Theresa Greenfield. More-or-less started by Jimbo. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've asked him to revert that close.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  ...but he won't hear it from me. Anyone else want to try?—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  ...No. I get the urge to worry about process, but the situation has become far to embarrassing for the project for attempts to prioritise process over outcome to end up well. WilyD 05:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Embarrassing? Are the US press in some kind of tizzy, or something? This business of sysops making binding content decisions after a few hours' discussion is terrible and it won't end well.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  I tried to initiate a merge discussion for the article and this was reverted as well on the grounds that the discussion was binding on the content, even though the reason unelected candidates fail isn't a WP:GNG argument but rather several different ones, especially WP:BIO1E. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: Yeah, maybe it will result in addressing whatever ridiculous process distortion caused such an unacceptable situation in the first place. older ≠ wiser 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's not totally clear to me how it got called to Jimbo's attention, but whenever we have colossal failures and lots of people involved, we should be embarrassed. WilyD 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  There's so very often a reason why US politics has got to be a special case, isn't there.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure why there's anything special needed. An article for a major party candidate in a general election for a national legislative body in any country where English is the primary language should be presumed notable at least for the period leading up to and immediately following the election. If a losing candidate does nothing else noteworthy for some period of time after the election, they can be considered for merging/redirecting/deletion. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  In the world's largest English-speaking democracy, that idea would fail because it would lead to BLPs without reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  It is perhaps a separate issue whether English is the primary language of India (it is one of the official languages and a second language for most educated Indians, but it's debatable whether English is the primary language for the nation). But regardless, BLP articles without reliable sources are a different kettle of fish. There are clear and bright line rules for such cases. I mean it is somewhat incongruous that we keep articles for elected officials from centuries past where the ONLY notability is a bare mention in some record book that they were elected to the office -- and yet articles for major party candidates to national office in contemporary elections with an abundance of reliable sources are deleted as unnotable. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, don't get me started. We have articles on people who're "notable" for playing professional-level football for eight minutes in 1963, and the hamlet of Hick Sticks, Where The Fuck, Iowa (pop. 83), but we delete articles about full professors at major universities because they create the reliable sources instead of being the subject of them. I get that, and it's an issue. But we have a problem now, and it's that we've just demonstrated that political candidates are entitled to repeat the deletion discussion every three weeks in the runup to an election, and that this strategy pays off. From now on, where US elections are concerned, no decision is final unless it's "keep".—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  Having an article isn't treating it like a special case, and it isn't relevant that she's American. The process was fixed in an ad-hoc way, but ideally such failures are sufficiently rare a process for fixing the process that fixes the process isn't necessary; we can just act like people who are here to build an encyclopaedia, not a bureaucracy. WilyD 05:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  I would argue the nationality is relevant considering these types of issues arise like clockwork every two years with the US election cycle. I just did a cross-check and while I didn't spend much time on it I can't find a single instance of an Australian candidate being deleted (likely due to the difference in the political systems, but just as an example.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I guess two comments:
  • I continue to believe that this article, and a handful of similar articles, easily meet the GNG and related guidelines. Not every candidate, just those with in-depth, independent coverage (generally at the national or international level). I don't know why we'd treat a political candidate differently than an actor, or tennis player or whatever. I think this was an outstanding result.
  • Process-wise, we've discussed having AN be the right place for an appeal of DRV. Not sure that's what this was (it was about the underlying issue) but AN isn't a crazy place for that discussion.

Hobit (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm mortified (well, to the extent I can be mortified about things on Wikipedia), so I think there's plenty of room for debate on this, preferably once the US elections finish. This happens every two years. We need more fixed rules. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• While you and I disagree on a lot in this context, on that we are on the same page. I feel like a small group has been overriding both our actual policies/guidelines and the broader consensus. Folks couldn't get an actual guideline change, but it was enforced as if such a rule had been put in place. I've no doubt the people involved are looking for what is best for the encyclopedia (I know a lot of you fairly well and tend to agree with most of you on most other things), but it is one of the worst cases of a small group overriding the broader consensus I've ever seen here. It really pisses me off. But I'll be a lot happier if we settle on exactly what our rules should be (and are...). I care a lot about having these articles, but I care a lot more about the process being fair and the outcome being representative of the broader consensus of our editors. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I don't agree with you on that, either - I think the consensus is closer to not wanting to turn Wikipedia into a giant Amerocentric campaign brochure than to allow these sorts of articles, and I don't think we're doing anything that's "overriding" any guidelines. But I also respect any proposal generally gets tied up in a "no consensus" outcome. I don't really know what the best solution is - we could workshop something, but considering we seem (respectfully) diametrically opposed on this, I'm not even sure where we'd begin. SportingFlyer T·C 14:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think what we could do is workshop a few proposals. I'm loath to have 4 or 5 options out there, but I think that's probably what we need to do. There is the "if there are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering this person in-depth we should have an article" (basically my view and where I think policy/guidelines are at). There is the "a subject cannot be notable just for being a candidate for office", which is where I believe you are (and where you believe policy/guidelines get us). I suspect we need a few middle-ground proposals too. Things that would get folks in the US running competitive national races to have an article (at least in the Senate, but I'd think the house too). There are folks running campaigns that have, according to 538, <1% chance of winning. Most of those folks *really* aren't notable--just folks willing to write their name down and spend 10 hours/week on it, almost as a hobby. But others are massive, $100 Million+ enterprises with massive amounts of coverage and more biographical information than 99% of our BLPs have. So yeah, work-shopping would be good. Ideally we create a well-ordered set of ideas so that if we have ideas (say) 1 to 5 where if a person supports 1, 2 would be their obvious 2nd choice. I'd be willing to work on that with you (and others) but probably not until late December (the joy of being a teacher in Covid times is that I don't have enough free time... Hobit (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've just posted on Jimbo's talk page that, if urgently needing to overturn a community decision because the community is wrong, the venue should be the village pump not drama central (because sysops don't make binding content decisions); and the discussion should have a fixed duration (24 hours?) to prevent accusations that the closer picked a moment that favoured their side.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm very disappointed that after multiple consensuses came up here at DRV against having the article, that its proponents forum shopped a favourable result with a 13-hour discussion on AN. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That sounds procedurally offensive, but it involves the intractible issue of never-elected election candidates. It's hard to think of what should be done. Now that the election is over, things should sort themselves out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Modified DRV instructions

i have modified the DRV instructions, here.

DRV is suitable if recreation prevented by de-SALTing denied; re-creation explicitly prohibited; or AfC decline/reject is disputed.

Otherwise, if the AfD is old, and you have overcome the reasons for deletion, then just re-create, and see if anyone else nominates it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've reverted. There's no need to limit "significant new information:" for instance, we recently overturned an AfD because the nominator was a sock. Your rules would have meant DRV did not apply. I much prefer a wide interpretation of "significant new information." However, we can fix the problem by adding a "not be used for:" something like "11. contesting a stale AfD only to ask permission to create a new article on the same subject, when the article is not protected." The wording could be better, but that solves the problem more gracefully in my opinion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, why don’t you do it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • We'll get quibbles about the definition of "stale" if we do that. I would prefer for DRV to accept and examine most nominations without telling the nominator they're in the wrong place; we should be careful not to limit access to review with complex processes.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
      • My definition was hasty, and I'd prefer to get a little more consensus before being bold. I think this falls under: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead." I think this just needs to be changed to: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. In this instance, use WP:REFUND instead, or simply create a new article with the new sources." SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
        • In the meantime, the instructions are wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
          • No, they're not - they're maybe a bit unclear. DRV isn't a high volume business anyway, and any "mistakes" are easily remedied until it's sorted. SportingFlyer T·C 07:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought SmokeyJoe's language was pretty good, but I also agree about having a wide interpretation of "significant new information" and potentially drawing a line between "uncontroversial" re-creation (BOLD) and "controversial" re-creation (DRV). The instructions that are there now should be changed/updated, and I'm hopeful agreeable language can be workshopped, or if not at least on an RFC A/B proposal or something like that. Lev¡vich 08:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• My problem with SmokeyJoe's language is that it limited DRV, and we want DRV to be as welcoming as possible! I don't really see this as a problem that needs to be solved, as it comes up relatively rarely, and when it does people tend to "get permission" to recreate the article, which is technically welcoming. The problem we're trying to solve here is to make clearer the fact you don't need to use DRV if the AfD you're challenging is old, you rewrite the article, and you now think the article now passes WP:N, as opposed to limiting the scope of DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 08:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think we disagree. People SHOULD NOT use DRV if they have not already tried REFUND for a REFUND, or tried RFUP for de-SALTing (and noting the highlighted instruction they’ll find there), and really should be discouraged from coming straight to DRV with new sources after a years old AfD. DRV SHOULD NOT be saccharine sweet, like the old AfC “decline” messages were in giving a plain letter reading that told them to do unproductive time wasting things. Sure, if someone comes to DRV ill-advised but in good faith DRV admins don’t speedy close, we participants give feedback, but this is not an efficient process compared to the recommended path, with is typically REFUND and add new sources to the draft. The problem we are trying to solve here is to limit well meaning Wikipedians like RMcC giving poor advice based on the poor DRV instructions. DRV is a review process, it for for catching errors, in judgement or process, and for providing running community based education where there have been errors. DRV should NOT be routinely used for notability assessments. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we do, I think we're just approaching the problem from a very different angle. DRV isn't saccharine sweet now and works as intended in the vast majority of cases. I am not trying to expand the scope of DRV, but as an appeal of last resort, we do not want to make it harder for someone to use DRV by limiting the instructions. Users will be mistaken sometimes, that's fine, but that's exactly what DRV is there for. I really don't think this is that big of a problem, I don't think the instructions are that unclear, although I think they can be improved slightly to make clear you can work around an old AfD by producing a new article. The proposed instructions limited "significant new information" to three very specific instances, which I do disagree with quite firmly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Good. If only there were a wiki page somewhere where we could interactively edit the text to get it right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Maybe a talk page? SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• This page? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be used for 2 purposes: to determine if it's good enough to pass G4 (the alternative being to trust a single admin's judgement), and to deal with a SALTed page. 109.186.211.111 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFUP should be used for desalting, which includes asking the salting admin first, if they are active. DRV should be reserved for a refused de-salting request, and should not be the port of first call. This is not to say that such requests should be speedily rebuffed, but that Wikipedians should be able to easily understand the instructions when advising newcomers on the best course of action. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 we have yet another case where, by following the instructions, an experienced Wikipedian comes to DRV for permission to recreate based on new sources since and old AfD. Everytime, we agree that they could have more easily got a REFUND, optionally drafted, or boldly recreated. Even if it needs to come to DRV, DRV is much better informed if a draft exists, or a G4-ed newer version can be referred to. Does anyone have any substantive reason for the instructions not encouraging the REFUND bold recreation or AfC where they believe that the AfD’s reasons for deletion are overcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• They couldn't necessarily have easily gotten a refund. WP:REFUND states: This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all. While boldly recreating's (almost?) always an option, DRV's purview should allow for discussion about whether REFUND is appropriate. We disagree on that. SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No one ever said anyone should "necessarily have easily gotten a refund".
  What the instructions should say, is try asking for a REFUND first. Alternatively, one can ask the deleting admin, or indeed any admin. There are two very big advantages to this: (1) you may get the page undeleted immediately and painlessly; (2) if refused, you should get a reason, and then you have a focused point for discussion at DRV.
  Something should be said also, both here and at REFUND, about whether to request REFUND direct to mainspace, to userspace, or to draftspace. There is too much implication that REFUND requests are to undelete back to mainspace, when WP:Userfication or undeletion to draftspace should probably be the default for an AfD-deleted page.
• There is no intention from me to restrict DRV's purview to discuss anything. The intention is to inform and advise people of the easier and more efficient alternative path. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• The way things currently work though is that you can't REFUND a page to mainspace which was deleted at AfD "controversially," which I interpret as "deleted after discussion/not soft-deleted." For instance, there's no way the United Airlines Flight 1175 page should be restored to mainspace at REFUND, but DRV could conclude that's possible. My only immediate suggestion would be this change, but I'm still not sure about it: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating restoring the deleted page; SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Where restoration in mainspace is obvious, it should be done without a week or more at DRV. Where it is not obvious, it is a very good idea to have a live draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, but what's "obvious" to us as DRV regulars may not be obvious to everyone. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. But this is a principle. An editor will quickly find out when asking for a REFUND. Do you oppose putting in information and encouragement for editors to use REFUND or to ask the deleting admin, and encouragement to ensure there is a draft before going to DRV arguing “new sources”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think we need to workshop some outcomes here, because I do generally oppose that. Why? REFUND doesn't work if a deletion was controversial, even if it's old. Admins come and go. And we shouldn't require people to create drafts when they bring new sources, if they're requesting a restore. I for one don't really mind when someone comes to DRV with the odd "can I recreate this page?" since the workload isn't that great anyways. I propose finding examples of DRVs that you'd like to discourage in the future and then figuring out how we change policies across the project to fix those. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Workshop before edit? OK.
  REFUND doesn't work if a deletion was controversial, even if it's old. That assumes "REFUND to mainspace". I am thinking to specifically suggest "REFUND to userpace or draftspace".
  The admins at REFUND I have noted to be experienced and sensible. However, the header documentation at REFUND looks like it has grown without review for a long time, it needs simplification to achieve readability even more than DRV/Purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind a discussion about controversial deletions being able to be refunded to draft space or user space. Is that the extent of the change you're thinking of? For instance we have Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021 February 27#Friday Night Funkin', one user has said this is outside the scope of DRV, even though they're asking for a mainspace restore - I've read your response, but are you trying to discourage these types of discussions? SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Friday Night Funkin? Who says it’s out of scope. No, not trying to discourage these, but there was an easier option of asking the deleting admin to undelete now that it is no longer TOOSOON. If someone really wants to come to DRV then fine, but I want the instructions to inform of easier options for simple cases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

March, Queen

Would like to list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_March_of_the_Black_Queen.mp3#filelinks for deletion review. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 14#File:The March of the Black Queen.mp3

You’ll need a rationale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

For a reason it improves the information presented. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Howdoesitgo1, I have asked Fastily to contact you and explain their decision. This is the usual first step for a deletion review. If, after talking to Fastily, you still believe that the decision was wrong, please either begin a deletion review by following the steps listed at WP:DELREVD, or else ask me here and I will do it for you.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Where to review non-speedy deletions?

Despite its general name, this page specifies several times that it's only intended for reviewing speedy deletions. Where does one need to go for reviewing other deletions? ◅ Sebastian 12:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Does it? Where? It opens with this "This page is for reviewing speedy deletions and deletions made as the result of a discussion". That really only leaves proposed deletions, which are reversed on request, so there's never anything to review there. WilyD 12:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You're right, Wily, my mistake. That already answers my question, and we could close the discussion. But since there are suggestions for how to improve that sentence, I will reply below. ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  WilyD, What about blanking by redirecting? Which is the case I just reported in a new thread below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• If “deletion” was involved, meaning it was deleted and shouldn’t have been, or it should have been deleted but wasn’t, then this is your forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe, I think part of the problem is the tendency for wiki-instructions to over specify things. So, where we say disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions, we could just say, any disputed deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  How about Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal any disputed deletion. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion, but not articles which have been procedurally deleted, which are eligible for restoration through WP:REFUND. More characters, but I think it's simpler. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the sentence up is certainly an improvement. But now that we're trying to make it simpler, I see more chances for that:

“designed”

The simple word “for” could express the same meaning. In this place, “designed” is puffery, IMHO.

“primarily”

The change from “designed” to “for” would naturally relieve us from having to mention secondary design goals. Or is there is any secondary design goal of this page which the reader needs to know immediately? If so, it should be mentioned explicitly.

“forum”

This could be replaced with “page”, which is the general term we use for anything that's not an article, and “forum” is something we're trying to avoid per WP:FORUM.

“appeal ... disputed”

The intention of this wording is not clear. It could mean (a) that by appealing a decision, it becomes disputed. This seems to go without saying, so one of the two words would be redundant. Or (b) that only discussions which are already disputed can be appealed, which seems to be misleading. So I'm assuming meaning (a) was intended. Possibly someone felt that the double wording was needed to make the connection between “appealing” and “disputed” clear. But that intention backfired through the introduction of the possible reading (b). To make it really clear, that connection should be stated in its own sentence, preferably not in the lede.

So, how about the following: Deletion review (DRV) is the page for appealing deletions. ... ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Even simpler, "the page" doesn't add anything. Everything on wikipedia is a page. How about: Deletion review (DRV) is for appealing deletions.

BTW, maybe it's just me, but I always mis-parse "Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal...". "Appeal" has several meanings, one of which is "to be pleasing to", as in, "This book will appeal to children ages 6 to 10". As I read the sentence, my brain would assume that's the meaning being used, and then as I read the next few words, I'd realize that didn't make sense and get stuck trying to figure out what was really meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good points, I like your even simpler version. Instead of “appeal”, maybe we could use “dispute”, which at least would make the connection to “disputed” straightforward. There are of course more synonyms. Your story about the two meanings of “to appeal” reminds me of when I overheard the conversation between a mother and a toy merchant at a fair. The mother was trying to hold back her child, but the merchant said “Don't worry, these toys are child-repellant.” ◅ Sebastian 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Housekeeping cleanup

OCD pedant here. Under the ongoing Notarize discussion is stray of code for something called the Battle for Dream Island, dated April 2020. Does anyone know how to delete it, or at least create a section title for it to separate it from the discussion? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleted, it was a copy-and-paste from October 12 log with minor changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging with WP:MR

I've floated the idea of merging this page with WP:MR at the Village Pump. Feedback is welcome there. Thank you -- Calidum 21:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

archived. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

DRV archives on mobile

So basically DRV archives are invisible on mobile most likely due to the template used. Any possible fixes for this? SK2242 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is the collapsing template. We can fix the template presumably. I usually just click edit source and read the wikitext, but in hindsight it’d probably be smarter to just click desktop mode for a while. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a place we can ask for a review of deletion by redirecting?

I've recently stubbed a topic (which apparently is controversial). Several editors repeatedly objected to the creation of said article and keep redirecting it (edit history), despite my repeated requests for an AfD (in my edit summary and on that artice's talk). As after my second recreation I have been warned to avoid edit warring, which IMHO is being blanked in violation of the deletion policy, can this case be reviewed here, and if not, what other forum(s) would be applicable? I am not even that invested in the topic itself (which I simply think is notable), but I think that from the policy perspective, blanking by redirecting, when challenged, should not be repeated but the topic should be submitted to a proper AfD forum for a discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's kind of a messy situation, but generally the situation you're looking at seems like it should largely go through the regular dispute resolution mechanisms, which it seems it is (including an apparent request for comment on how to handle the section). Since there's now an RfD, when it's closed it could be reviewed by DRV (if there's a reason to believe the close is flawed), but generally DRV is for reviewing speedy deletions and XfDs. WilyD 20:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  WilyD, RfD was speedy closed for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_27#Sexuality_of_Frédéric_Chopin. Which I think is fine in itself, but I still think AfD should be happening, as we are dealing with a case of sneaky deletion not compatible with DP. But I guess we can wait for the RfC to be formally closed as requested. On that note, however, some people suggested that RfC can determine whether such article should even be allowed to be created, which I am not sure is within the remit of an RfC and should be left to AfD. Any thoughts on that? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  So, the real reason, I think, DRV is needed is sort of twofold. One, deletion needs admin tools to undo, so you need admins watching and judging, especially for overturning speedies. Second, an XfD discussion has a very formal kind of "weight", and can't really thus be reversed by a small, local discussion. Merging by local consensus only needs local consensus to undo, so there's not the same need (and no admin tools). An RFC is (similarly) formal, but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure says disputed RfC closes should be brought to WP:AN. So, uh, I think you can ask meta-questions about whether that's the best forum, but for the moment, that seems like the venue for your case. WilyD 06:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I started an essay closely related to this, some years ago, at Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. It is an issue that comes up occasionally. I think a good answer is: If the redirection is a pseudo-deletion, you may appeal it at DRV. I think this is true even if there was no AfD. Deletion by redirection, followed by Wikipedia:Soft protection of the redirect would get good attention at WP:DRV. If the redirection is not a pseudo-deletion, you should use the target talk page to resolve the issue, starting from discussion, WP:3O, WP:RfC etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Where DRV doesn't fit, you can review almost any decision at RfC.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• If the main article has more about this in the sexuality section than the stub article created, then why do you need the stub article at all? Dream Focus 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this considered a "bias" criterion for DRV?

I believe I have sufficient evidence that a series of deletion discussions I have participated in were nominated and voted upon by people who routinely ignore standard procedures for discussion conduct. Is this a valid reason for submitting a DRV?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Conduct issues are not usually for DRV. Have you talked to the XfD closers about the issue? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I spoke to him about the closing and he said the consensus seemed clear. A week later I asked him about the conduct of a user and hasn't replied back yet.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Is he an admin? Probably, DRV is not interested in conduct issues unless it calls into question the close. Closers are supposed to be more than competent to recognize and respond to conduct issues in the discussion. It is difficult to comment on a hypothetical problem. If it is just mild conduct, or category minutiae, DRV is unlikely to satisfy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Is it possible to speak to you in confidence about the issue?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong deletion of Page Sandeep Singh Rissam

The page sandeep singh rissam has been wrongly deleted. Even when the page had enough of references and moreover the hindi language newspapers mentioning him were not considered. Why ? A notable person means a someone doing a work which is notable. Also it was wrongly mentioned in the discussion that the references have his name as passing name whereas most of the reference of news given had him as main person. The profile of sandeep Singh Rissam can also be checked by googling his name. Sunny50888 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the deletion review talk page; please follow the instructions on the project page and post your review there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Involvement of closer in DRV

See: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_16#Mavis_Amankwah. Courtesy ping @WilyD: as initiator of discussion.

Hi all, at the above linked discussion, I offered an endorsement for my own close, while providing a couple of procedural notes in reference to statements by the nominator. You can see my comment there.

In response to this, WilyD stated that "XfDs need to be closed by an admin who can at least act as a disinterested party", and when I questioned how I was not disinterested, this was clarified with "an admin closing a discussion as a disinterested party acting on community consensus wouldn't come to DRV to argue for a particular outcome".

My personal view was that the closer of a discussion could contribute willingly to any deletion review, given it is an assessment of the process rather than the article content itself. However, I will concede that I am frequently wrong about current process, and may be wrong about this also. Either way, I would appreciate some clarity from the DRV community about to what extent, if any, the closer of the discussion can be involved and advocate for their close to be endorsed (a lot, some, or not at all).

Cheers
Daniel (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• WilyD is not reflecting long standing practice here. It would be disingenuous if an admin just endorsed without mentioning their role in the close but otherwise DRV would be interested in the closing admin's views on their close and any further comments. I tend not to participate in DRVs of my closes unless specifically requested but that's only because I'm much more grumpy and irritable now than I was when I became an admin. Your contribution was fine Daniel. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• When your close is being reviewed it is important to declare yourself, as you did, and to be available to answer any simple questions. I don't see any problems with your close or your contributions to the DRV. WilyD I know as a sensible Wikipedian, but on this occasion, I find his meaning and intent a bit opaque. I can read his posts there as oblique statement of principles, not necessarily implying that you have done what he criticizes, and you may be over-reading personal criticism. I am tempted to use simpler direct language to resolve: WilyD, what did Daniel do wrong? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Daniel is acting entirely unobjectionably. Participating in a DRV of your own AFD closure does not retrospectively make yourself "an interested party". It is advisable to mention in your DRV contribution that you were the closing admin, but even this is not mandatory as it can be readily discovered one click away. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's 100% normal and expected that the closing admin will offer their thoughts at a DRV. WilyD's comments there are bizarre—they seem to be accusing you of being involved in that run-of-the-mill AfD with no evidence whatsoever—and I would also appreciate it if they could explain what on earth they are talking about. – Joe (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• One of the most helpful things for DRV participants is when the closer explains their reasoning and thought processes. WP:ADMINACCT is pretty clear that closers should do this.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, I was shocked to see the "interested party" claim. DRV closers are the best in the business and understand when a AfD closer "endorses as closer" - this really isn't a vote per se but does show the closer thinks they got it right, and this should be encouraged. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Tigurats deletion review

Tigurats

Hello there,

My article titled "Tigurats" has been removed by wikipedia for lack of evidences of the etymological source of Tigurats. I have now new information answering your queries and I would like my article retrieved to my main page so that I can edit it to meet the level of standard required by Wikipedia. Besides, the information from my removed page have been used in other articles in Wikipedia and you can see article titled "Tigrinya" to confirm my claim. I look forward to hearing a positive response from you.

Thanks,

Mesfun Gebregergis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesfun Ghebregergis (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mesfun Ghebregergis: If you have reliable sources that can be used, I suggest following the deletion review process to propose that the article be restored. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigurats TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)