Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2021/February

Is this a place we can ask for a review of deletion by redirecting?
I've recently stubbed a topic (which apparently is controversial). Several editors repeatedly objected to the creation of said article and keep redirecting it (edit history), despite my repeated requests for an AfD (in my edit summary and on that artice's talk). As after my second recreation I have been warned to avoid edit warring, which IMHO is being blanked in violation of the deletion policy, can this case be reviewed here, and if not, what other forum(s) would be applicable? I am not even that invested in the topic itself (which I simply think is notable), but I think that from the policy perspective, blanking by redirecting, when challenged, should not be repeated but the topic should be submitted to a proper AfD forum for a discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a messy situation, but generally the situation you're looking at seems like it should largely go through the regular dispute resolution mechanisms, which it seems it is (including an apparent request for comment on how to handle the section). Since there's now an RfD, when it's closed it could be reviewed by DRV (if there's a reason to believe the close is flawed), but generally DRV is for reviewing speedy deletions and XfDs. Wily D  20:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , RfD was speedy closed for procedural reasons: Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_27. Which I think is fine in itself, but I still think AfD should be happening, as we are dealing with a case of sneaky deletion not compatible with DP. But I guess we can wait for the RfC to be formally closed as requested. On that note, however, some people suggested that RfC can determine whether such article should even be allowed to be created, which I am not sure is within the remit of an RfC and should be left to AfD. Any thoughts on that? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, the real reason, I think, DRV is needed is sort of twofold. One, deletion needs admin tools to undo, so you need admins watching and judging, especially for overturning speedies.  Second, an XfD discussion has a very formal kind of "weight", and can't really thus be reversed by a small, local discussion.  Merging by local consensus only needs local consensus to undo, so there's not the same need (and no admin tools).  An RFC is (similarly) formal, but Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure says disputed RfC closes should be brought to WP:AN.  So, uh, I think you can ask meta-questions about whether that's the best forum, but for the moment, that seems like the venue for your case. Wily D  06:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I started an essay closely related to this, some years ago, at Pseudo-deletion by redirection. It is an issue that comes up occasionally.  I think a good answer is:  If the redirection is a pseudo-deletion, you may appeal it at DRV.  I think this is true even if there was no AfD.  Deletion by redirection, followed by  Wikipedia:Soft protection of the redirect would get good attention at WP:DRV.  If the redirection is not a pseudo-deletion, you should use the target talk page to resolve the issue, starting from discussion, WP:3O, WP:RfC etc.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Where DRV doesn't fit, you can review almost any decision at RfC.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If the main article has more about this in the sexuality section than the stub article created, then why do you need the stub article at all?  D r e a m Focus  21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this considered a "bias" criterion for DRV?
I believe I have sufficient evidence that a series of deletion discussions I have participated in were nominated and voted upon by people who routinely ignore standard procedures for discussion conduct. Is this a valid reason for submitting a DRV?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Conduct issues are not usually for DRV. Have you talked to the XfD closers about the issue? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I spoke to him about the closing and he said the consensus seemed clear. A week later I asked him about the conduct of a user and hasn't replied back yet.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is he an admin? Probably, DRV is not interested in conduct issues unless it calls into question the close.  Closers are supposed to be more than competent to recognize and respond to conduct issues in the discussion.  It is difficult to comment on a hypothetical problem.  If it is just mild conduct, or category minutiae, DRV is unlikely to satisfy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to speak to you in confidence about the issue?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Request restoring Tigurats
Tigurats Hello there,

My article titled "Tigurats" has been removed by wikipedia for lack of evidences of the etymological source of Tigurats. I have now new information answering your queries and I would like my article retrieved to my main page so that I can edit it to meet the level of standard required by Wikipedia. Besides, the information from my removed page have been used in other articles in Wikipedia and you can see article titled "Tigrinya" to confirm my claim. I look forward to hearing a positive response from you.

Thanks,

Mesfun Gebregergis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesfun Ghebregergis (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mesfun Ghebregergis: If you have reliable sources that can be used, I suggest following the deletion review process to propose that the article be restored. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigurats TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)