Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions
There is no need for there to be a listing of pages that have been undeleted following speedy deletion. Dcoetzee is pretty much the only user actively adding to this page, so if deletion is not an option, then it could very well be moved off into his user space.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep actually useful information for WP. No "attack" at all -- just what appears to be a list which may be of interest to others. Collect (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about an attack? Mr.Z-man 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As stated at the top, I've striven to omit information like usernames that could make this page seem like an attack or a petty complaint. The purpose is to provide some examples of overturned speedy deletions to help educate users about common deletion mistakes and things to look out for; and to better inform discussion of revisions to speedy deletion policy. Unlike some other admins, I'm no extreme inclusionist, and I'm well aware that most speedy deletions are upheld (a point that this page makes well). Also, I suspect the low contribution rate from others is partly because it's only 4 days old. Nevertheless I understand your concerns and I hope anyone who disagrees with the page can offer some constructive feedback about how to improve it and make it suitable for project space. Dcoetzee 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Could be useful, but needs some work. There needs to be some better defined criteria for "overturned." Things restored by the deleting admin after a request, copyvios restored after OTRS permission confirmed, things overturned then almost immediately re-deleted elsewhere, things restored after new evidence was added on DRV, etc. tend to "dilute" the potential usefulness of such a page. Mr.Z-man 22:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, better review & understanding of how speedy deletions work or don't work will be beneficial to the encyclopædia, and this page is a good start to such review. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is a good idea so we can review where speedy criteria is being misapplied and where it is not. Davewild (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously I've added one item to the page myself. The page is needed.  It's far from a complete solution to the problem, but it's a step in that direction. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no coherent argument for deletion has been presented. Why is there "no need" for this page? Happy‑melon 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I mentioned at the WT:CSD thread launched on this on January 16, I think it could be very useful in helping to identify trends. I believe it could help us see where (a) policy deviates from practice and (b) how to repair that (whether policy or practice needs changing). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only should this page be kept; it should become one small part of a larger WikiProject aimed at creating transparency in the speedy deletion process. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep this time, but re-evaluate, but no sooner than 3 months from now. By the way, just because I don't edit or comment on a page doesn't mean I don't find it useful. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While it could be argued that this is in the manner of a laundry list of grievances (which would itself be a bit far-fetched), there's no reason to delete this for now. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.