Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 8

This talk page is being used as Deletion review
Have you noticed a huge increase in the number of deletion review requests in the talk page? Perhaps that is a result of the main page being harder to use, but I think we should crack down on these attempts. This page is meant to discuss the Deletion review page itself. Deletion review requests belong in the main page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the fact that these requests don't get closed will be good enough, but I think legitimate discussions about the DRV page itself are being swamped under the sheer volume of deletion review requests and complaints about articles being deleted. I'm just as guilty of responding as others, but maybe we should just make a standard "please bring your request to the main Deletion review page, rather than starting a discussion in this talk page: response to any future deletion review requests made on the talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the wording "crack down" perhaps the wording "helpfully redirect the user" [[image:smile.png]]. I would like to point out, that the first time I found DelRev I was actually directed, by a user, to post my request on Talk.  So it seems like the misconception extends a bit. Wjhonson 18:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It might help if we had a notice actually telling people that this was not the correct page. I mean, it seems obvious, but we don't really have anything saying NOT to put undeletion requests here. If no one objects, I'll add a Template:Notice at the top of the page making it explicit. --tjstrf 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, something similar to the wording at the top of, say, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard would be good. And yes, perhaps "crack down" is too strong... Wjhonson's politically correct rewording is better. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and would there be any objections to archiving everything but this particular section? That would make the notice much more noticeable, and we can start fresh with new deletion requests made to this talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection here to archiving or putting a notice on top. I've just started moving actual reviews that get started here to the current day's DRV, otherwise a "DRV is thataway" seems to work okay. -- nae'blis 18:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine with me as well Syrthiss 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The usual thing that happens on similar pages is to have the note at the top and for listings improperly placed here either delete or list them properly, depending on if you are swamped or so inclined. I have made the notice at the top, here, simpler and bigger. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bigger, simpler, less polite, and uglier. I guess it doesn't really matter so long as it gets the point across though. --tjstrf 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A doctored close

 * From Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

I have reinstated the WP:SNOW comment on Boston, Ontario. Please stop doctoring this close, whoever you are. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion here from the day's talk page. - brenneman  {L} 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit of Tony's is here. The "deliberate doctoring" is here, and Tony replaces it again here.  I've reverted again here.  This was closed the second time without it being added to recently closed, which perhaps explains Tony's apparent inability to read the histories.  I pointed to the most recent close while removing the editorialising, per previous talk page discussions.  brenneman  {L} 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The WP:SNOW comment was unnecessary and could be construed as deliberately inflammatory. WP:SNOW is not policy, guideline or any direct basis for taking any admin action.  WP:SNOW is an essay and a controversial one at that.  The objections raised during the review discussion were clearly in the minority but they were also principled and articulate.  Tagging those objections with WP:SNOW marginalizes the discussion inappropriately.  According to the edit history, the comment has now been removed by two separate people.  I agree with their decision.  That is not "doctoring the close".  It is routine clean-up.  Leave it off.  Rossami (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, we have someone trying to add unnecessary detail to the closing comments in a Deletion review. I'm beginning to think we should forcibly make everything as: (deletion/closure) endorsed, (deletion/closure) overturned, closed early. That's it, no details. Details are unnecessary. If anyone wants details, look at the friggin' diff. Sheesh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is how we run DRV, not the "unnecessary detail." As long as we treat DRV as a vote rather than an actual discussion regarding policy and process regarding deletions, we're going to continually run into these problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm only talking about the summary, not the DRV process itself. The summary itself should be kept as short as possible. Whether DRV is a vote or not is irrelevant to keeping the summaries as short as possible. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's part of the issue. As long as we're not treating this like we treat everything else here, we're not going to be able to get concise closes that are easily understood based on how things are expected to run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, riddle me this. How is treating DRV like a vote causing close summaries to get long? I don't see how that's a causal factor. Keep the close summaries short. Regardless of whether DRV is broken, is a vote, is not a vote, causes cucumbers to turn into pickles, I don't see how that gets in the way of keeping the summaries as short as possible. "Deletion endorsed", "Deletion overturned", "Keep closure endorsed", "Listed on AfD": how the heck is DRV being broken, is a vote, is not a vote, causing cucumbers to turn into pickles, or whatever making these short summaries impossible? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Take, for instance, Tony's close. He knows he can't truly get away with "Keep closure endorsed," so he's got to clarify it.  It undoubtedly becomes the same as we "endorse" other closes in ways we shouldn't be.  It's part and parcel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, he needs to make these comments in the edit summary. Since we record the diff in the close summary, the edit summary comments will be quite visible to anyone who wants to see the DRV closure comments. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

questions on possible flaws of this system
after thinking over this deletion review system and have come to notice 2 things that i see that makes for possible large flaws.

1. the contested page cannot be viewed by non "admin" accounts. there is no way for other people to view and state their opinion on said page since it has already been deleted. and since it cannot be viewed it cannot be contested without prior knowledge of the article. this is mostly about speedy deletions which ignore normal deletion process, as to which "admin" editors can delete on whim

2. not that many people post their opinions on the reviews. not even that many admins either. ud think being called on for bad judgement would atleast get their attention to defend their decision. its not much of a concensus if only about 5 votes are casted

i had a 3rd point but in the process of writing the others i have forgotten it.

my suggestion is there should be temparary restoration of articles setup for the review process, theres not much i can suggest for the latter other than possibly automatic notification of random users and request for opinion

oh and i 4got i was asking questions, why is it that it is that way? 68.161.183.243 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Once material is deleted, it shouldn't be readily available. Admins are entrusted by the community with more tools than other users, who can register at any time with no identification or history.  Non-admins can review the deletion log for the page, which should have an explanation of why the page was deleted, and then pursue evidence appropriately.  There is a page we can look at the history of to see prod reasons, XfD discussions are kept forever, and speedy deletion criteria are quite specific and normally not controversial.  Prod is overturned upon request, so it really doesn't take discussion here.  Overturning XfD is about process violations in XfD, for which the evidence is at the XfD page, not the deleted item.  Speedy is the only one that non-admins can't test, but there is already a mechanism near the top of this project page to get a temporary userspace copy of deleted material.
 * Most reviews don't need much commentary. Each comment costs us space, time, etc... only the debatable ones or ones with strong feelings get a lot of comment.  The people who hang out here are process wonks, and generally read the policy and process documents similarly, so won't waste effort on pile-on discussion.  GRBerry 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a novel theory you have there - David Gerard 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible replacement system
I'd like to draw your attention to Articles for Undeletion, which I've proposed as a replacement to this mess. [ælfəks] 15:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've suggested on the new AFU talk page that DRV be for process review (which appears to be what a lot of the regulars want it to strictly stick to) and the new AFU for merit review - David Gerard 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would love nothing better than to keep DRV clear of "second xfD" aspirations, but wouldn't it be hard for folks, especially relatively new folks, to figure out between a merit review and a process review? This has a slight instruction creep scent to it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest discussing DRV first, before forking off another process. A fork would be confusing, and I fear it might spawn revert wars and/or wheel wars. We're in no hurry, so let's talk!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that Articles for Undeletion seems to apply only to articles (and even if the process expands, the name is misleading) while DRV applies to categories, images, and everything else as well. Partly for that reason as well, I doubt that AFU could replace DRV completely. I am, however, completely in favor of revamping DRV. —Cswrye 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental change
Wikipedia works via consensus. It's how every process here operates, from RfA to AfD. Somehow, DRV is a relic of another time, when dinosaurs roamed and a 14.4 modem was quick. According to DRV:
 * If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.

As it stands, it's nothing more than a vote count. This is contrary to many things - every other process here, our consensus guideline, for examples - and, to coin a phrase from others, it's "unwiki." Quite simply, DRV discussions should be closed based on the weight of the argument rather than how many people show up, just like everything else. Is anyone opposed to changing this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they already must be closed in that way.Kim Bruning 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (late signature)
 * They should be, but they're not, and it's due to the language that should be followed until it's changed at the top. Recent examples include Axe Murder Boyz and Futuristic Sex Robotz both times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly how are you proposing that it be reworded? Do you merely intend to replace the vote-based language with consensus-based terms, or actually change something about the process itself? Also, if this change is made, how do you propose DRV stay fundamentally different than XfD? I have no opinion on the change until those questions are addressed. --tjstrf 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is fundamentally different from XfD because DRV is about discussing a) the process, and b) new information not considered during the XfD/new information found after an XfD. Changing the result of a DRV closure would not and should not change the intent of DRV, and would furthermore not step on the toes of any chances at a XfU like above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff is correct. It was referencing a rejected guideline at Supermajority. I've changed the wording to use consensus.

These changes have consensus because:
 * It now references guidelines that have previously gained consensus
 * It no longer references guidelines that previously did not gain consensus
 * We should reject interpretations of consensus saying that consensus can be used to reject itself.

Kim Bruning 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I should point out that all of the examples that Jeff cites have an obvious consensus to keep deleted.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On the former, absolutely not, as a strict count of either 3/3 or 4/2, and a discussion about the actual process (which is what DRV is about) would trump anyhting else. On the latter, one certainly did.  But, again, if we're talking about process and new information, the obvious close should have been a relist, but instead was endorsed on straight vote count. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with new changes, of course we should be using consensus to determine these things. --Deville (Talk) 20:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not according to Undeletion policy. There is some talk about this in the archives.  IIRC, the rationale is that the article has already had its chance at AFD and consenus was to delete. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * DRV is for when we have questions about that determination of consensus, right? Kim Bruning 13:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Overriding reason
I've found two Deletion reviews where I've found overriding reasons to act in some way. One because new(?) information has been found, showing that the AFD came to the wrong conclusion. The other because we'd be breaking the law and our own rules.

In any case I noted it on those two DRVs, and I hope they will be closed as per consensus. Especially in the latter case, if you close the wrong way you end up potentially breaking the law, so Don't Do That(tm).

Oddly there's no documentation on overriding reasons on WP:Consensus, a page which is admittedly a mess. Can some experienced admin monitor this further? Kim Bruning 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Links please?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion_review (though someone put forward a position that perhaps this page should redirect to the *incident* that Jason Fortuny caused. Possibly fair enough, if they discuss it.)
 * Deletion_review, which was just closed, using overriding reasons. Which is good. :-)

Kim Bruning 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are deleted versions unavailable?
When an article is deleted, it's entire content is no longer available to non-admins. In cases where the deleted version(s) contained copyvios, potential libel, personal details, or other things which are legal risks to Wikipedia; that policy makes perfect sense. Specific revisions which might put the project or the foundation at risk should be made unavailable. Articles containing nothing but such (i.e. attack articles and the like) and have no "good" versions should be wholly unavailable.

Beyond that--why not move deleted articles, which may be unencyclopedic (and thus unworthy of article space), elsewhere? Perhaps a new namespace could be created, say, the Deleted article: namespace; then we could have access to the article for deletion reviews. At the end of a certain period--long enough for DRs to occur; articles would be permanently deleted. Users moving articles out of the deletion space into userspace would be permitted, in which case the article could be kept there and not subject to the time limit. However, moving back to article space without good reason would be a no-no.

Many users often "archive" articles at AfD elsewhere on Wikipedia, or at locations external to Wikipedia; no attempt is generally made to curb this practice.

--EngineerScotty 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be on WP:PEREN. Basically, it defies the whole point of deletion (which is a measure to keep Wikipedia's quality up).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you added it. :)  Which is OK, if this has been repeatedly proposed and rejected recently.  I will note that you mention the issue of blocking access to revisions which might cause legal issues--isn't that what WP:OVERSIGHT is all about?  Or were you thinking a new tool more widely avaiable to admins?  --EngineerScotty 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The amount of things that should be deleted from casual users because of the law is far greater than the amount of things that should be oversighted from everybody because of clear and present issues with that law. Which is good because there are far more admins than oversighters.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What Radiant said. However, it's worth noting that if you have a good-faith reason for wanting to see a deleted article, most admins can arrange that for you if you ask them nicely and if the article in question isn't libel or a copyvio. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite. I've provided deleted material on request and sometimes in advance of that to help an editor. There is a practical aspect with, I believe, something getting on for 1,500 deletions a day, many of them of close to zero encyclopedic value. Check out Category:Speedy any day of the week. Tyrenius 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Informing the creators is being ignored
This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From Deletion review/Content review
The boilerplate at the top of that section had the following paragraph. The instructions are good and I understand the constant need to recruit more admins to support that housekeeping task but I think the paragraph clutters up the page more than it helps it. The instructions considerably longer than ideal. Perhaps we can find a better home for this paragraph? Rossami (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC) "If you are an admin and wish to do this job, please add yourself to Category:User undeletion. When restoring an article, the administrator may wish to then move it to the requester or author's own user space, e.g. Example to User:Querulous/Example."
 * Note; the above category is now at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. -- nae'blis 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request
I requested the undeletion of the history of Percy Nobby Norton Article no one has responded on my Talk Page and I have recieved no feedback. What is the next step. Did I post correctly, did it get lost, should I repost. Please help. -- Trant Dent 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the AFD for the article, the article was judged a pathetic hoax or lame joke, which then was reposted multiple times until the page was protected. I'm sure your request was not taken seriously, nor is it likely to be in the future. Fan-1967 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, please read the notice at the top of this talk page. Please bring future requests to Deletion review, not this talk page. Thank you, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review on "keep" decisions
Why is deletion review almost exclusively reserved for undeletions? Is it simply the case that to re-open the case for deleting a page you just start another Afd discussion? If so, why is this the case? It seems fairly contrary to common sense. I notice that in the introductory section the following sentence: It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Does this include failed Afds? If so, shouldn't it be more clear? I ask these questions to comment on the fact that if an administrator closes an Afd as a "keep" inappropriately/prematurely, shouldn't they be held accountable and justify their actions at a review in the same way they would at a "delete" review? Thanks. QmunkE 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been understood that DRV covers both inappropriate keep and delete results at AfD. The reason it's "almost exclusively reserved" is because losing content is usually more troublesome than keeping it to many editors.  If you have a keep result you think was made in error, no one's going to stop you from bringing it here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to Jeff's comment, I'll add two thoughts. First, you may be seeing some sampling bias.  If an article is deleted, the person who comes here to petition for undeletion is usually the article's creator.  It's human nature that article creators will be vested in their creation despite the principles of WP:OWN.  On the other hand, when a weak article is kept there is rarely an obvious person with a vested interest in immediately appealing that decision.
 * Second, by long tradition any article can always be renominated for deletion. Running a second AFD discussion is quite a bit easier than running a DRV discussion.  So when a second AFD will do, that's generally the preferred approach.  A renomination would be appropriate if there is new evidence which was not available during the first deletion discussion.  DRVs are generally only appropriate when the closure of the discussion was at apparent variance with the evidence or stated consensus of the discussion participants.
 * I should caution you that renominating too quickly can be taken as a sign of bad faith. In the renomination, link to the prior discussion and lay out the new evidence explicitly.  Otherwise, the renomination is likely to get shouted down as premature.  The general reaction is that the article's defenders need a reasonable grace period in order to fix the problems with the article which led to its nomination.  There is no mandatory minimum period between nominations but 3-6 months is generally considered reasonable.  Rossami (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very helpful. One of the reasons I ask this was because of a current Afd here which might have been more suited as deletion review, since the nominator seems to have an issue with the previous closure - a speedy keep. QmunkE 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Antonia Bennett
Hiya, I have a process question about reviewing a "keep" decision. Basically, we have/had an article, Antonia Bennett, that was:
 * Speedy-deleted by
 * Re-created
 * Submitted for AfD
 * Had a messy AfD process, including a Delete comment getting removed and no one noticing for a couple days
 * Ultimately had a decision of "Keep" on the AfD
 * Has had the "Keep" protested by three different editors (myself, Danny, and Chairboy)
 * Was then re-speedy-deleted by

Personally, I feel that the article should be undeleted, and then submitted for either an (Un)Deletion Review, or a second AfD with wider participation and more careful monitoring. Then again, it might be better to just leave the article speedy-deleted, since that'll probably be the end result anyway. But the situation has gotten complex enough, that I'd like other opinions. Anyone else care to weigh in on the best way to handle this at this point? Comments are appreciated at Talk:Antonia Bennett. Thanks, Elonka 17:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've talked to Chairboy; we'll see what he says. In the meantime, feel free to open a DRV request, as this seems like a good case to be heard, IMO. Xoloz 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal gun
I don't understand the result given here: "Kept woman, Dr. E. von Wolf, Kootenai Valley Press, Portal gun - Deletions endorsed. 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Review" Portal gun was not re-deleted, and, since the majority of opinions on portal gun (a redirect) supported undeletion, why was it listed as endorsed? --NE2 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon Defense
I'm really thinking we should put something on the page about the pokemon defense and how it's not a valid argument. Not that anyone ever reads the rules anyway. Whispering(talk/c) 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean something like WP:INN? Rossami (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is valid for Pokemon articles. I haven't seen that one used recently anyway, at least in a direct form. So I'm not sure how it would help to link to it. --tjstrf 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do people even use that anymore (except on Pokarticles, of course)? If not, WP:BEANS would apply here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, somebody used it just last week. William Pietri 02:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Pokemon Defense isn't really all that valid, because almost all species of Pokemon have, or will have, multiple third-party reliable sources written about them. The most prominent one (for the original 151.  There's also a later edition which lists the Gold/Silver ones as well) is Barbo, Maria. The Official Pokémon Handbook.  The game guides written for the various versions of Pokemon also have minor sections on each.  ColourBurst 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Renominations
It seems we have a number of articles that are AFD'ed over and over again, which after a while becomes entirely pointless and seems to irritate people on both sides of the issue. If an article is deleted a couple of times, we protect it against recreation until deletion is overturned on this page. Would it be reasonable to propose that if an article is AFD'ed a couple of times and ends up not deleted, it is 'protected' against further AFD'ing until non-deletion is overturned on this page? Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there seems to be little gain in rehashing the same arguments every couple of weeks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried that at Speedy Keep last spring, and got thoroughly shot down the minute I tried to use it in an AfD discussion. The community doesn't want it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's already pretty much done in practice, as the Deletion policy page states, "Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept." Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The community generally won't support rapid reAFDing. If it has been a few to several months, prior AFDs become much less significant.  Sometimes a prior keep result can become additional evidence for deletion - generally in conjunction with a keep and clean up opinion from a substantial fraction of the keep opiners plus a failure to clean-up the article.  Remember consensus can change.  Right now I think the general wikiwide consensus is shifting a bit towards emphasizing quality instead of quantity, but this is a guess and gut feel more than something that can be evidenced.  GRBerry 02:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. Only in some cases are they closed (rightfully) as WP:POINT violations.  In practice, people are typically allowed to AfD things as many times as they like to get a desired result, and the community is okay with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, over time the community's standards do change, and it becomes necessary to revisit some things. Only relatively recently has the community begun to truly take reliable sourcing seriously (IMHO largely as a result of the John Seigenthaler debacle) and as a result some things are being deleted as unverifiable these days which might have slid by as "harmless" a year ago.  This is mostly a good thing, as what's the point of building an encyclopedia if nobody trusts its accuracy as an information source?  In any case, multiple listings are simply not that big a problem: of millions of articles, how many can you name that have been AfDed more than 3 times?  My educated guess is there's been less than a dozen such articles in the whole history of wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SMFR
Could someone finally close the DRV for SMFR? I don't care what the final outcome is. It has been the oldest still active DRV for many days now, currently there's a gap of four days between it and the next oldest DRV. J I P | Talk 07:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From the Undeletion policy:
 * "A page listed for undeletion should remain on DRV for at least five days.
 * After five days, if at least three people and a majority of voters have voted for undeletion, including the person who proposed it, the page may be undeleted by a sysop.
 * After ten days, if a majority of voters were in favor of undeletion, it should be undeleted; else it should be removed from the page and remain deleted."
 * Items with an obvious consensus often get closed before the ten day period is up. This one doesn't have an obvious consensus, and the regular closer has opined, so an alternative closer will need to do it, and most of them wait the full ten days. GRBerry 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It has now been active for eleven days, and the gap I mentioned above has grown to six days. J I P | Talk 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

History only undeletion
The page curently states:
 * History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm.

What would be the reason for wanting to restore previously deleted, biased versions of an article to the page history? There may be a good reason that I'm not thinking of but it isn't clear from this. --Metropolitan90 22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes good editors will make some use of parts of the old, bad versions in rewriting the new version. A history-only undeletion makes sure that Wikipedia is staying in strict compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL.  This is especially true when the reason for deletion was a judgment call like "not notable" but the underlying facts have changed (that is, the subject has since become notable).  It's rare and we don't get many requests for it but we have to allow a place for those requests to be considered.  Rossami (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that the example needs to be rewritten. Generally we consider the encyclopedic merit of the subject to be more important than the current text; I can't imagine AFD giving anything but a "Keep and rewrite" to a bad Flinstone article today. Maybe something like:
 * "History-only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes an article on Fred Smith which is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Smith. The original article can then be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Smith article, causing no harm and showing compliance with the GFDL." (but the last clause is very optional, even to me)
 * I did something very similar (without going through DRV) for Free Hugs Campaign recently, asking for the speedy to be overturned and then rewriting most of the article to show notability and sourcing. -- nae'blis 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Micronation. Trying to find old DRV - assistance in finding old DRV would be appreciated.
There was a DRV in the last few months for a micronation. However, I don't remember the name of the article and I'm having trouble finding it. Any help would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Found it. JoshuaZ 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving DRV debates
I posted a proposal for a new way to archive DRV's at User:Trialsanderrors/DRV. Please feel free to comment at User talk. ~ trialsanderrors 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

deletion review deleted
I had an administrator user:Robdurbar remove my deletion review. is this kosher? RichMac (Talk) 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks accidental (though I don't know why he didn't get an edit conflict). I've put it back. &mdash;Cryptic 11:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RichMac (Talk) 11:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

RFU meaning
Why does WP:RFU redirect here yet nowhere on the page is it explained what R.F.U. stands for? Thanks in advance for correcting this. Badagnani 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Request(s) For Undeletion. Don't care if the redirect is deleted or not, I doubt anybody uses it these days.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  07:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "What links here" shows it in use on only 15 current pages. No way to know how many uses that are now buried in the page-histories, though.  Rossami (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)