Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2023/August

Somewhat contradictory closure instructions
Deletion review has the following to say about a DRV ending with no-consensus:

"If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of 'no consensus' as equivalent to a 'relist'; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate."

So a no-consensus result "has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed", "may be more appropriate[ly] treated as a 'relist'", or should be treated "as a direction to overturn the deletion". I realise the text is attempting to distinguish between speedy and non-speedy deletions, but is quite messy.

To reduce confusion, I propose to replace the quoted sentences with:

"If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then:
 * If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, they should close the discussion as overturn, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. They, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
 * Otherwise, they should close the discussion as endorse, but may, in their discretion, close it as relist instead."

Thoughts? Stifle (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree some clarification will be helpful. But isn't the original text instructing what ACTIONs the closer can take in cases determined as "No consensus"? Your suggestion in effect eliminates closures of "no consensus". older ≠ wiser 16:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your text is a big improvement, but it conflates the close and actions taken subsequent to the close. In both cases, if there is no consensus, then the close should be no consensus. The question is what is the appropriate status quo ante to restore after such a close. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How about: Otherwise, the closer should note that the discussion ended without consensus and close the discussion as endorsing the decision being appealed, but may close it as relist instead. - --Enos733 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That has the same problem. If there's no consensus, then the decision isn't endorsed, by definition. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, a no consensus discussion preserves the decision below, except in the case where the decision is a speedy decision where the decision preserves the underlying article in mainspace. Basically, this is Speaker Denison's rule - preserve the status quo. - Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we all agree on that. But we should maintain a distinction between the close, which summarises the consensus, and the outcome. Two different closes can have the same outcome, but still be meaningfully different in e.g. whether someone is found to be at fault, whether it sets a precedent, etc. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So how about this?
 * If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then:
 * If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. They, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
 * If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, it may be relisted at the closer's discretion.
 * Otherwise, the outcome is the should be the same as if the decision was endorsed.
 * We could simplify further by removing the highlighted sentence. For me that's obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out (anyone can nominate an article for deletion at any time). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that version, and would retain the highlighted sentence for clarity. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer this (placing the third point first):
 * If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then:
 * The outcome should be same as if the decision was endorsed.
 * Alternatively, the closer may relist the discussion.
 * If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. Any editor may proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum.
 * Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the contradiction Stifle originally pointed out is back: if you follow the third point, the first one doesn't make sense. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think #3 (speedy deletion) should be seen as the exception (but again, Denison's rule applies). Enos733 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What about:
 * If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. There are two exceptions to this rule:
 * If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
 * If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, it may be relisted at the closer's discretion.
 * Would that address people's concerns? (Personally I don't find the current wording especially unclear, but since others do, I certainly support clarifying it.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of your text, would PROD fall under "speedy deletion"?
 * And I dunno if we should call relisting an "exception". - jc37 00:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. We should probably add PROD as the same logic about uncontroversialness applies to that. As I see it relisting is quite clearly an exception, because it necessarily involves reversing the original close (if only temporarily). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. - Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If a PROD is listed on DRV it should immediately be undeleted as though the listing were at REFUND, so it shouldn't get to the stage of a no-consensus being reached. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying one more formula:

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
 * If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
 * If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, if they consider it appropriate, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
 * And in the very first line of the section, change "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days." to add "unless the nomination was a proposed deletion, which can be undeleted immediately as though the request had been made at WP:REFUND."
 * How's that? Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me.
 * Though I think you may want to replace ...if they consider it appropriate...", with "...at their discretion...". Just to avoid even the appearance of "supervote" - the language "should" be fine, but I think we've all seen how some can get concerning an XfD closure. sigh @ the need for even that slight of a semantic difference...
 * Oh, and I might say "...the page(s) in question should...", but that's minor : ) - jc37 08:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made these changes (moving 's suggested addition under "speedy closes", since it seems sufficiently rare not to have needed documenting before now). Probably further wordsmithing can be done directly, since it seems we're all on the same page. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice : )
 * Kudos all round : ) - jc37 11:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Closing DRVs as non consensus

 * Closing DRVs as non consensus is a cop out and a recent innovation. DRVs should not be allowed to close in that state and historically going all the way back to GRBerry we always found a consensus. Generally, given our mission to provide information unclear consensus should default to preserving material unless there is a strong argument against. That’s how I approached it when I closed all the DRVs and with policy so much clearer these days there is no excuse for not doing it that way 99% of the time. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, "recent"? No consensus has been a documented option since 15:35, 20 April 2009. older ≠ wiser 20:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been at DRV since 2006 and an admin since 2007. Occasional outliers are not indicative of historical practise. Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So practice has changed in 2009 and you haven't been paying attention. older ≠ wiser 11:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not everything that changes is for the best and its much later than 2009 that this ridiculous notion gained real traction. I’m perfectly aware of what happens and have been paying attention but that does have to mean I have to agree. Oh and with that implied out of touch suggestion, why don’t you check back and see how many years it is since I closed more than a handfull of DRVs a year. Spartaz Humbug! 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? How are you always going to find a consensus? Lock people in a room? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Historically it means erring in favour of disputed content unless there are clear problems with it. Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that reflects current custom and practice. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t mean its right. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * GRBerry did indeed feel that no DRV should ever close as "no consensus", and his process was to relist no-consensus DRVs (see User:GRBerry/DRVGuide).—S Marshall T/C 08:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So long as we specify what is the outcome of DRV no-consensuses (overturn CSDs, endorse regular outcome, or relist original deletion discussion) as the changes above do, then it seems reasonable to cover the occasional DRV NC. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two outcomes. Until April 2009, the rule was that where there's no consensus at DRV, we close the DRV and nothing else happens, so status quo.  In April 2009 we decided to give the DRV closer discretion to decide whether a no consensus means status quo or relist back at the original venue (AfD, RfD, whatever).  Generally since then, the procedure has been to relist at the original venue if there's some realistic prospect of getting to a consensus, and not if not.When I think about this again now in the light of what I've seen here since April 2009, I can see both sides of it.  On the one hand, I think it's unrealistic to expect every discussion to reach a consensus.  But on the other hand, some problems need a decision, not a fudge or compromise.One thing I don't recall ever seeing tried is to relist at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 08:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)