Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2022/September

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fools § Proposal to split jokes DRVs into a single page
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fools § Proposal to split jokes DRVs into a single page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Factual Errors in the AFD
In one current Deletion Review,the appellant is saying that the participants made factually incorrect statements. I have a few questions about factual errors, or claims thereof, in an AFD as a basis for DRV: Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 	Are factual errors by participants a basis for Deletion Review?
 * 2) 	Does the closer have a responsibility to verify factual statements by the participants?
 * 3) 	Is the failure of a closer to review the factual accuracy of statements a basis for Deletion Review?

It's a fair enough reason to bring something to DRV, I think; one of the things covered by "when significant new information comes to light". –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * On point (1), Joe Roe's obviously right, and there are examples in the DRV archives. Likely the most clear is Senior Wranglers.  On point (2), no they don't, because we don't want closers researching the topic for themselves.  The participants do the research and read the sources.  Closers just sum up what they said.  Therefore point (3) doesn't arise.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree on point 1. On point 2 I'd rather that not be a reason for a closer to not question something.  But if they do turn up such a factual error, they should probably !vote rather than close... Hobit (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Requiring DRAFTs at DRV
Hello all. I've noticed a fairly long-standing trend at DRV of !voters proposing that drafts be created before moving forward. I've been assuming this is a reference to use the WP:AfC process as folks sometimes reference reviewers, etc. I think that we should never be requiring the AfC process for experienced editors without a COI (pretty much per the first two paragraphs of WP:AfC). The reasons are: I basically think that asking experienced people to go to AfC is cruel to them and overloads the already broken system even more. I'd like to suggest that at DRV we not send experienced editors to AfC. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The queue at AfC is huge and takes weeks. There are 2,362 things in the queue, it looks like around 1000 have been there for more than a month.
 * Putting more of a load on AfC seems unreasonable
 * I personally believe the AfC process is broken. The queue is only as "small" as it is because some reviews are done quite quickly and poorly.  On the whole, I'd say getting out of AfC generally requires an article well over the bar that is set by AfD.
 * Drafts do not have to go through AFC. Creating a draft can prove that there are suitable references or claims that overcome arguing at an AFD. An experienced editor can just move the draft to article space once DRV recreate permission is concluded. But making a new draft, and restoring a deleted article, and then merging the result causes extra work, even if AFC is not used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I often say Allow Review of Draft, and that I don't clarify. Perhaps I should clarify that I mean that if the draft is prepared while the Deletion Review is still running, that we, the editors at Deletion Review, should review the draft. I can see that User:Hobit could see that I wasn't implying that. That can be an incentive to prepare the draft during the seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I will also comment that sometimes there is a draft in AFC where the title has been previously the subject of an AFD, and may have been either deleted or redirected, and may have been protected due to repeated recreation. In these cases, DRV really is being asked to authorize the AFC review of a draft. That isn't the main subject, but it is related. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This relates to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2021/June and Deletion review/Purpose 29 May 2021. There may have been other draft rewrites.
 * People contesting old AfDs should be encouraged to go to REFUND to request draftification and userfication of the deleted page, to improve it, and to use it, either for: (1) bold re-creation; (2) asking someone, eg the deleting admin, about it; or (3) to submit through AfC; or (4) to bring to DRV, where is it a vital illustration of what they want to talk about.
 * At REFUND, REFUND instructions need a copy edit for clarity and concision, and also to explicitly advise that REFUND requests might be for undeletion where it was, and noting that mainspace undeletion are not readily granted, or may be for undeletion to userspace or draftspace, and noting that userspace and draftspace undeletion requests are granted quite liberally, to editors in good standing.
 * AfC is optional, unless the editor has COI, or consensus at the AfD stipulated use of AfC. DRV should be reserved as the place of last appeal, not first port of call. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. I do think asking for a draft, even outside of AfC, isn't ideal.  The question at hand, as I see it, is usually one of sources and having a draft won't really help use evaluate the sources. YMMV. But as long as we largely agree that requiring AfC is not a good way forward most of the time (other than perhaps very specific cases, e.g. some COI issues), I'm happy.  Thanks again, Hobit (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)