Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2012/February

AFD/DRV speedy-keep policy discussion at Village Pump

FYI, there is a current proposal to modify the AFD/DRV speedy keep procedure in this thread at the village pump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do appeals of AfD redirect closures (without an edit-history deletion) require DRV

Are AfD redirect closures (without an edit history deletion) binding fox six months, and must be brought to deletion review for appeal

Editors have recently been taking articles to AfD to get a closing that says "Redirect" (without an edit-history deletion).  One admin supporter argues that such a decision is binding for six months, such that objections must be brought to Deletion Review.  I (and at least one admin) say that such decisions are not binding.  I say that rather than Deletion Review, the appropriate venue for appeal is the Talk Page of the redirect.  IMO, these editors are adding discussions to AfD that never needed to leave the Talk Page of the article, and can be overturned on the Talk Page even if achieved.  This alternative viewpoint is that AfD means "Articles for Deletion or Redirect", and that DRV means "Deletion or Redirect Review".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Not really as stated. Redirect closures are not “binding”, but “consensus” is binding. Was the redirect the result of a clear consensus, or was the redirect done by the closer as editorial discretion as a compromise following an unclear discussion. Even if the redirect reflected a clear consensus, note that “consensus can change”. However, if you wish to argue a change in consensus, you have to demonstrate evidence for the change. Ideally, new sources will be provided.

If the redirect was clearly supported by an AfD discussion, then to reverse it, I think you really need to propose the spinout, and receive support, on the talk page of the redirect target. Opposition to the proposal should be along the lines of why a separate article is a bad idea, and should not be couched in terms of “The AfD close is binding for 6 months and you haven’t waited long enough”.

Also note that something should only be brought to DRV where there is evidence of a difference of opinion (where a talk page discussion can’t resolve the issue), and this is especially so where there is no actual deletion to discuss. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• see WP:ND3 which is a little tired but still reasonably reflects how its supposed to work.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Active/Recent

The discussions for Feb 14 have been moved off the active list, although none of them have been closed. Is that what we usually do ? DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• What we usually do is rely on Cunard.  ;) In the past, Cunard usually seems to keep a quiet eye on old unclosed DRVs and he has on occasion posted a note on WP:AN asking for an uninvolved closer.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

well, there are several now. since I'm involved in the most contentious, I can't close it. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

deletion of photos

{{Help me}} They keep deleting photos I put up(I am the owner of the images). How do i get them to stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDaz (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 February 2012‎

• WP:OTRS. All the best—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I broke the Template and am unsure how to fix it

And yes, I've tried (almost) everything, well, at least everything I can think of. My post, Tottenham Hotspurs FC (the only one currently opened today), was copied verbatim from the skeleton template, but it doesn't seem to be working. Any help would be appreciated. Achowat (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)