Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2020/September

Consulting deleting admin
WP:DRVPURPOSE says:

However the DRV instructiosn say: (emphasis added.) Recently several DRVs have been started without consulting the cloer, and in each case ther has been a suggestyion to speedy close the discussion for this failure. It hasn't been done, but it could have been. So it seems to em that we should: I could accept either way, but it is unfair and often bitey to scold people for following the instructions as written. So which is it to be? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Decide if consulting the closer before coming to DRV must be attempted or not, and
 * 2) Revise either the instructions or the purpose item to be consistent with the decision.
 * The latter statement is both more recent and better reflective of practice (throughout the history of DRV, not just recently). I'd have tried removing the statement in DRVPURPOSE entirely, except that items there have occasionally been referred to by number (um, mostly by me) .  If we really have to argue the merits of this again:
 * It puts an unnecessary burden on the requesting editor.
 * It allows the admin to improperly act as a gatekeeper to review of their own actions.
 * It can result in lengthy delays if the admin is inactive, contracts the user talk page flu, or just plain fails to reply.
 * DRV is not so overburdened with discussions that we need to artificially limit the number we'll even consider.
 * Most importantly, for discussion-based deletions, the closing admin simply doesn't have the authority to unilaterally reverse himself, and attempts to do so result in orders of magnitude more disruption than a "premature" trip to DRV possibly could. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022 is particularly illustrative. —Cryptic 01:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd estimate that around half the time editors bringing DRVs don't even notify the closer, and that is specified in the instructions, so it probably wouldn't make any difference anyway. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a real practical advantage in putting Lies-to-children in short instructions to the newcomers. If the instructions are required to be perfectly correct and respectful of competing nuanced philosophies on how the process should be used, then the word count blows out and the newcomers don't read them.
 * Drop the word "must". Write in simple imperative:
 * Add to the DRV links the WP:MR styled "(Discussion with closer)" link. This provides the good example in existing reviews, and encourages best practice in the future, without the need to write rules and enforce that the rules are read and followed.  It works.  Newcomers, I believe, pay more attention to preceding examples than to the lengthy instructions.  When the "(Discussion with closer)" link is redlinked, regulars should ping the closer, and should not bite the newcomer.
 * If a good faith DRV nomination is listed, do not close it due to failure to follow a rule. cf WP:IAR.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd drop the "explaine why" clause, which is excessive. I suspect most bad deletions are accidents or oversights, and more easily resolved with the closing admin, so that's usually wise.  But if someone has a reason not to, then we should trust they're acting in good faith too, until proven otherwise.  Wily D  06:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As with every time this comes up, my main concern is that the closer should not and must not be the gatekeeper for a DRV. Newer editors and people unfamiliar with Wikipedia may well think that the closer is a hostile authority figure, and any requirement to consult them has a significant chilling effect on access to DRV.  I feel that people who come to DRV are often bitten very hard by snippy closers who feel entitled to plenty of notice before we discuss them.  I absolutely deplore that.  We don't consult article creators before we nominate at AfD, do we?  Anything you can answer on your talk page is something you can also answer here.We could improve DRV a lot if we could get consensus to strike that rule completely.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the comments above, I propose that we remove Item #2 completely from the "Do not" part of DRVPURPOSE. If we really want to keep the following numbers the same replace it with to request that a copyright infringement, a blatantly promotional page, or a page clearly violating WP:BLP be restored. Or just replace #2 with (former item #2 deleted, place holder to keeping numbers the same). The instructions that say "consider notifying" can stay unchanged. What do people think? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If replacing the number, we should use the current "Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content" text from below. Purporting to forbid reviews of "blatantly promotional page"s will eventually result in G11 deletion reviews being speedy-closed, despite that probably being the most frequent speedy deletion criterion to get overturned here. (I wasn't all that strongly bothered by the renumbering; we should be linking to anchors instead of saying "DRVPURPOSE#8" anyway.  Especially for #1-5.) —Cryptic 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Cryptic. I agree. But just how important is it to prederve the exact numbers, anyway? These aren't like the CSD numbers, used all over the lot, in my view. Anyway, do people agree 0on removing the current number 2? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I support removing #2, it's good practice but failure to do so should not be grounds for speedy closure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have edited Deletion review/Purpose to implement the change discussed above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list
Notice: Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure (permalink). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)