User talk:Bdj/DRV is Broken

Split endz
/* Just making some random thoughts here, don't expect much structure. */ As not only one of the midwives to the current DRV system but also it's frequent victim, I've had several odd go-rounds recently that have made me think a bit more deeply. While I cannot concur that it's borken, it could use a tune-up. Quasi-randomly, deletion review isn't the place for: For the first, push people to write a better article themselves rahter than shoving it into mainspace and hoping someone else does the work, for the second (mea culpa) perhaps some structure for a request to simply re-open or extend the existing debate.
 * Deletion (sppedy or otherwise) of a crap article on a worthy subject, or
 * "No consensus to delete" closes that are crap but not eye-gougingly so.

It's that second one that's a real worry to me. Repeated nominations are almost always a source of venom, no matter how well intentioned. How would nominations fly at DRV for "re-open for more consideration" or something of that nture?

brenneman 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree DRV is broken, but it's not any brokener than the other deletion forums. The problem is really that outside of deletion debates we have no working tool to implement a quality assurance process, and that's something we need more than anything else. ~ trialsanderrors 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but DRV is supposed to be the failsafe when the other deletion forums come up with an improper close. I've started some work on this at home, but it's not looking great.  I mean, just today, look at the direction the Gregory Kohs appeal is going.  A closing admin ignores policies and guidelines, and other people agree with him, and a wrong result looks likely to be upheld again.  It's incredibly mind-boggling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I opted for delete on that one, although I agree, some of the arguments were rather ludicrous. (WP:DENY? Wtf?) DRV is a security valve that's set up almost exactly like the primary valve, so if the first one blows it's pretty much to be expected that the second one blows as well. I'm not sure what the alternative would be though. An elected group of Wiki "elders" that have a look at contested AfD's? After the rather embarrassing performance of the ArbCom over the Marsden case I don't think I have much confidence that this would result in better decisions. ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Would a guide help?
Would having a guide help? I've drafted one at User:GRBerry/DRVGuide. I'd love more input, even if that input is of the form - nope, that isn't useful.

As deletion review is a consensus close, it could use more regulars that operate from the same pattern of thinking about what issues are in bounds and out of bounds. We have a fairly small group of regular participants, and that group can get lost in the crowd when a hot topic comes here. (Marsden, Kohls, anything vote-stacked, etc...) I'm not sure if the right solution is a better guide for the irregulars or expanding the group of regulars. GRBerry 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair
I'm not saying that there are any, but you should also consider if DRV undeletes pages that should not in fact be undeleted.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking, and won't be afraid to point those out. I saw some much earlier on, but I've redone my focus, so I don't know if we've seen any recently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful definition?
You appear to have conveniently defined "failure" as any result you disagree with. Friday (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll let you dig yourself out here, this should be fun. Go ahead, back up your statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My observation here is similar: I don't think you have a meaningful definition of failure. More to the point, I don't believe one is possible. For controversial cases, "failure" or "success" is subjective. Any one editor's opinion of what constitutes a failure is interesting, but not conclusive. I disagree with most the individual cases you've cited as failures, but see no point in arguing over those. Our differences are clear; you are much more willing to discount opinions which you feel originate from outside policy than I would ever be. (I draw that conclusion from our recent detailed discussions of Matrixism and Darvon cocktail.) Xoloz 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition is "any closure that goes against stated policy regarding content, or against stated DRV procedure." Thus my willingness to grudgingly accept incorrect consensual outcomes and proper speedy deletions, even though I find those disasterous.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't doubt that you make good effort to distance your personal opinions from your judgments of "failure", the fact remains that whether something "goes against stated policy..." is not always clear, and is subject to the subjective interpretation of what the policies in question mean. For instance, while you feel "re:Sound" failed to assert notability under A7, a consensus discussion did (and I do, too, in hindsight.)  At this point, we all know the words of A7; what those words mean, what range of assertions they cover, is reasonably clear in general terms... but hotly-debated in specific cases.  Note that this is an instance when consensus (and I) are more inclusionist than you are.  I take the view that (except for truly exceptional cases), most consensus discussions are incapable of coming to decision that is against policy, in the strict sense.  There are usually ways to explain any outcome in a consensus discussion as consistent with a particular reasonable interpretation of policy (this is especially true, if one considers IAR... most of the time, like Jeff, I choose to ignore IAR.) The most obvious cases of consensus discussion going against policy are in copyright -- because the range of reasonable policy "interpretations" on those matters is narrowed by legal concerns.  Xoloz 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's anything that was not clear, I made a note of that. It's somewhat puzzling that you (or anyone) would consider an article that simply states that it's a show on a local radio station as a reasonable claim to notability even if I think the show should have an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're puzzled... in a way, that proves my point. One person alone (you or me) is not able to forsee every rationale, and is (thus) not equipped to judge "failure" objectively.  A specific claim to being on Chicago's public radio seems like an assertion to me; Chicago is a metropolis, so even minor programs get broadcast to a wide audience, and are possibly covered in print sources.  It doesn't provide notability conclusively by a long-shot, but it is a reasonable assertion.  Specificity is an element in my A7 evaluations, because greater specificity makes an assertion less unreasonable; for one thing, supporting evidence should be easier to find.  This is a borderline case -- one that I might speedy if my blood-sugar were low -- but I easily see why a consensus saw an A7 assertion here.  In no way do I consider this close, even on reflection, an error.  You may disagree -- who is to say who is correct, outside of a larger consensus? Xoloz 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV's mission
I think it's worth discussion whether DRV should in fact be a purely procedural review, or whether it should rather be "allowed" to take context into account and make decisions. It might be that DRV is doing what it should, but not what it says it does. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DRV has always been about context: new evidence, new arguments, even new participants -- these have always been within DRV's guidelines. The reason the guidelines don't mention "basic article merit" as a subject for discussion is that newer, uninformed editors would mistake such wording as an excuse to launch AfD, part #2 at DRV.  Established contributors, partly under the color of IAR, have long made a  practice of asking that question anyway, usually with enough sophistication to avoid degenerating into a new AfD. I favor this practice, if for no other reason than that attempts to stop it would be doomed.  A large number of experienced editors will continue to evaluate that way, and the result always seem reasonable (even when I personally disagree with them) to me. Xoloz 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)