| Revision as of 15:33, 5 December 2005 editFalerin (talk | contribs)549 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025 edit undoExtraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,315 edits →Instructions subpages: comment | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| '''Archives''': | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 500K | |||
| ] | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| ] | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | |||
| ] | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| ] | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no|WT:DRV}} | |||
| {{notice|This is '''not''' the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at ]. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc.}} | |||
| {{Archive box|search=yes|archive_age=180|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III| | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2010''': {{Archives by months|2010}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2011''': {{Archives by months|2011}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2018''': {{Archives by months|2018}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2019''': {{Archives by months|2019}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2020''': {{Archives by months|2020}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}} | |||
| {{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == |
== Neha Harsora == | ||
| I think somewhere at the top of the page we should describe standardized wording for votes, particularly given that the rather contradictory verbs '''endorse''' (the deletion) and '''oppose''' (the undeletion request) amount to the same thing. Perhaps stick with, '''undelete''' and '''keep deleted.''' ] 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :There is already a yellow box describing precisely that. In the change to Deletion review, the notion of reviewing a not-delete debate was introduced, and the old wording doesn't really fit that. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah yes. To qualify then, we should follow the wording as presented. (And perhaps we should tidy the top of the page). ] 04:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think it would be easier to read through this stuff if we switched to a format similar to that used in RFA. Have three numbered lists, "Endorse", "Relist", and "Overturn". --] 18:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a vote. Is discussion. Splitting into votes not compatible with good discussion. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand it's not a vote, but it's no more not a vote than RFA is not a vote. We're asking people to assert their preference for one of three alternatives; we might as well make it easy to figure out which of those they are asserting. --] 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is done by the bolding most people use. AfD works fine with this format. I see no need to change it here. Reading the discussion is vastly more important. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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? ] (]) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| We have tried similar structures in the past. It was a crashing failure. Despite our best intentions, it devolved into a mere vote because the comments lost their sense of chronology. You could not easily tell when a new fact was added to the discussion and whether it changed the tenor of the debate. (Sure, you could attempt to line up every timestamp but that's just not reasonable.) Even the bolding at the front of the comment is, in my opinion, problematic. It locks the writer into an opinion which they must then justify. I prefer a reasoned comment ''culminating'' in an opinion. But the current format is at least functioning. The segregated voting you propose never functioned. ] ] 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to ], 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, {{user|Explicit}}. --] 🌹 (]) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== I want my article back == | ||
| (i.e. deleted)<br/> | |||
| If I trimmed any current threads, a firm spanking is always welcome. - ]]] 06:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Zamarin}} This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at ] directs you as follows: | |||
| ::If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available ]. | |||
| :You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --] 🌹 (]) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times ] 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. --] 🌹 (]) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days == | |||
| == Process questions == | |||
| Page ] was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? ] (]) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is stated often times here that it is perfectly acceptable to create a new article with substantially different content then the original article that was put through ]. How then is this handled in the case of articles that have been protected as redirects due to vandalism or recreation. How long should such protection last. Several sources within Misplaced Pages suggest that Protection is harmful. Yet numerous articles seem to be sitting in permanently protected status. I have established that ] does not apply in this case, but I am having a hard time sourcing any kind of actual procedure for what should be followed. At the time of the initial query I did determine that the article that initially raised my concern had recently gone through ] and had not gotten nearly the supermajority required for undeletion, and in fact stalled with a lack of consensus. Following the less then helpful directions which were available to me I relisted the article for review. However, I personally do not believe the original process to be incorrect at all, nor do I beleive the original content of the article in question is at all of value. | |||
| :The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of ], and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. ] (]) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Pawn (scripting language) == | |||
| The second discussion was quickly closed based on the fact that the article in question had recently gone through ]. I was even accused of relisting untill the vote went my way (in spite of the fact that I had no part in the initial review). | |||
| : I plan to improve and expand the ] article to meet the required criteria. | |||
| My concern is that creation of a substantially different article has been effectively prevented in several cases and there is no apparent mechanism of which I am aware for correcting what ] clearly states is not within policy and which other sources show is considered ]. | |||
| : I intend to move ] to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page ]), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article. | |||
| : I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language. | |||
| ] (]) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Questions then are as follows: | |||
| #Does this even belong here? (From all that I can tell it does because it is a review of deletion process question) | |||
| #How does one appeal an issue of a protected redirect? | |||
| #How long should one wait when requesting ] if they wish to be taken seriously? | |||
| == Instructions subpages == | |||
| If I am totally of topic or location by all means feel free to direct me in the correct direction. | |||
| The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from ] (11 watchlisters) and ] (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there ]? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. ] (]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| — ]<sup><]>,<]></sup> 15:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. ] (]) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' It is of note that ] does not address this subject matter at all. — ]<sup><]>,<]></sup> 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I ''think'' I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) ] (]) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #There is no supermajority required for undeletion. | |||
| #This is a discussion and belongs on the talk page or the village pump or some such. There's enough stuff on this front page without meta-discussions too. | |||
| #Generally, deletion review will overturn a deletion when relevant new information comes to light. It doesn't deal directly with questions of protection except to mandate or reverse the underlying deletion. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''': In response to point one I stand corrected I thought I read that one was. In response to the second, the article has been moved by ] and I am quite fine with that, as I said I am happy to be redirected. As to point 3 thats more or less what I thought which is what causes the question to be raised at all because as a post from] on my ] indicates RfP is not the correct place either. As near as I can tell there is no correct place. — ]<sup><]>,<]></sup> 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion review page. |
|
 | This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc. |
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)
- @Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days
Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pawn (scripting language)
- I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria.
- I intend to move the Pawn (programming language) draft to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article.
- I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language.
Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Instructions subpages
The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Purpose (11 watchlisters) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Discussions (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there some non-obvious good reason for this? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I think I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)