Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2012/May

Legitimate new deletion discussion, or attempted end-run around consensus?

• Three links:- FFD at which the closer deleted the file; DRV at which the deletion was overturned to keep at DRV, in a rare May snowstorm; and now a new FFD which has been raised by the original FFD closer, on the same day as the DRV was closed, once again seeking deletion. Reading the second FFD will reveal where I clash with the closer about whether this was appropriate. Input from other users interested in DRV is respectfully invited.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind: speedy closed by JClemens.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30 still has an open DRV, but it doesn't appear on Wikipedia:Deletion review. It's open in the archives, too. (I cross posted this note at WP:AN since this page doesn't seem to get much traffic.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, below the 2 December 2011 archive in the Table of Contents on the page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December, something called "Tally of actual votes at Afd" appears and stands out from the rest of the archive. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I tagged the first as an {{admin backlog}} which usually results in a reasonably quick closure. As for the second, it's caused by the insertion of section breaks within an individual DRV. As far as I know, the only way to "fix" it is to remove the section heading. For myself, I'd rather leave an odd archive TOC than edit people's comments so I haven't changed anything. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have fixed the second point by changing the header which was causing the problem from a ==== ==== header to simple bold text, which leaves the record effectively unchanged. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

7 days without a DRV?

When's the last time this has happened? Are we becoming better at dropping sticks or is this just an anomaly? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is another sign of the maturation of the project. It is a sign of the competence of the people who close deletion discussions. The low throughput, despite the ease of nominations, and the respect for a process that works well is something to be proud of. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be the end of the Eternal September?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The last DRV from cfd seems to have been 22 March, nearly 2 months ago ... Oculi (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Instructions could be made shorter and more concise

With about 2 1/2 pages of text before the actual DRV listings, do you think it would be a good idea to simplify the instructions and make them more concise? It seems like a lot to read if you were to go through DRV for the first time. --MuZemike 19:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree in principle but what would you recommend removing? On the one hand, instruction creep is an evil we must always fight. On the other hand, most of those clauses were added because the version of the page without them caused a problem. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• The instructions are long, yes. {{OfferHelp}} at the very top is a nice solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• OfferHelp isn't a solution, it's a crutch; and from the {{Help Me}} misplaced in the section immediately preceding this one, it's at best inadequate. Probably over half of the instructions are either redundant or misplaced. Some concrete examples:
  • There are no less than three demands to discuss with the closing administrator first: in the box in Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions, as the first step in Instructions, and as the first step in Steps to list a new deletion review. (It probably doesn't belong in the instructions even once, since it's essentially never productive when challenging an afd. Even in the one case out of a thousand where an administrator clicks the wrong close-afd Twinkle button, he can say so here and we can speedy close the review; and if an administrator changed an afd's close because of an informal discussion on his talk page, the other side would just bring it to drv anyway. But that's an argument for another day.)
  • Sections 1.1 to 1.5—Temporary review, History-only undeletion, and Contesting 'proposed deletions'—are redundant to the alert box at the start of Steps to list a new deletion review pointing at WP:REFUND.
  • Sections 2.2 and 2.3—Temporary undeletion and Closing reviews—belong in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions.
  • Steps 2 and 3 in the gigantic box in Steps to list a new deletion review are redundant. We don't need to explain how {{drv2}} works for files twice two paragraphs from each other. (Plus, all three examples are reundant to the skeleton page created by Wikipedia:Deletion review/New day, which is probably all almost everyone looks at anyway.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Those are well thought-out and cogent proposals. Be bold. (My only request is that the page be improved in increments very clear edit summaries so that individual changes can be debated and restored as necessary. Rossami (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the progress of working on a rewrite and restructuring (possibly implementing some of the IP's suggestions above as they seem pretty reasonable); I've been busy IRL late this week as well as this weekend, so I haven't been able to do much at all aside from quick stuff. --MuZemike 13:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Please return this page. It is better that it is here than if it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) This page was deleted becuase it was like anews reel but daily timeline pages like this are all over wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WAX. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is an argument to avoid, it is a good argument because it was deleted for being like a news reel, but news reel articles are clearly allowed on wiki as they are all over the place and no one gets rid of them. Is this an argument to avoid or an argument that shows that this article was deleted for reasons that only apply to that one article. For example other afghan war news reel articles identical to the deleted one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan. There will be hundreds of these on wiki.