Wikipedia talk:Articles for undeletion

Administrators do not have special insight in undeletion - I think it would be better to do the following:

1. Temporarily undelete pages upon nomination.
2. Allow all users to comment.
3. Undelete upon request.

The difference between this and DRV would be that this page would be o consider product-based nominations for undeletion, as opposed to process-based, which is something we sorely need. Phil Sandifer 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So it would take all the "second whack at AfD" nominations out of DRV, and give them a legitimate home? --Interiot 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Oh noes it didn't get deleted, try again" stuff at DRV is the biggest problem; it's like a court of infinite appeals. [ælfəks] 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This comes close to one of my major complaints about the current deletion system - AfD can be rerun endlessly on product-based reasons - articles that survive one or two AfDs are frequently given a second or third until they finally go. But undeleting on product-based grounds is forbidden. AfDs are "valid" and thus not overturnable if they vote delete, but can be redone freely if they vote keep. That's a fundamental and dangerous imbalance. Phil Sandifer 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I initially went with "elected by admins" is that:

1. It appears democratic, to appease the democracy wonks
2. Admins are (hopefully) trusted and (hopefully) not sockpuppets

Note that I'm not saying that other people can't have any input; I see it as being somewhat akin to RFAR, only faster and with a very narrow scope. [ælfəks] 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

non article applicability?

what about non article things? Those need to be addressed somehow. By the way I propose AFUN as the shortcut and have created it. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for Undeletion? [ælfəks] 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be Pages for Undeletion... PUN.--ragesoss 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that there would be enough undeletion requests to merit different processes for each XfD. If the process does go through, I would recommend that its scope be extended to include categories, images, project pages, and everything else covered by XfDs. —Cswrye 15:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk, great

So the proposed answer is to create three new processes (this one, miscellany for undeletion, and an undeletion committee election process) and a committee?

How about you figure out what's the easiest way to undelete things: a single page where you can list any deleted page with any reason and if someone who can do undeletions agrees, he can undelete it. But then someone else might come up with another reason to either undelete the thing or keep it deleted and post that reason, which would lead to the old deletion review. Wouldn't it just be better to change DRV to say it shouldn't be about blindly following process, but about the deleted content itself? - Bobet 15:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV for pure process, AFU for merit

Committee sounds awful. The word makes me want to spork my brain out. But if anyone has an obviously elegant proposal for one, that might be fine.

There are many DRV regulars who want it to be purely for AFD process review. So, make it just that - and make AFU for merit review - David Gerard 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple proposal: we should NEVER delete/undelete an article on ground of process violation alone. Its deletion status only chnages if the article itself merits it. If bad admins delete bad things 'out of process', slap the admin if you must (personally I'll give them a barnstar), but don't polute the encyclopedia with wonkery. --Doc 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. if a process isn't followed, and an article is deleted, and someone protests it, it's impossible to get a fair hearing about it under current situations. The processes are often necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've long supported a policy where people who actually know things about a subject could unilaterally undelete. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"people who actually know things about a subject" - who would determine this? RN 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's going to be tricky, yes. I've seen Wikipedia:Expert retention which is (partially) about this. We could identify e.g. university scholars by asking for their credentials, but this has privacy issues. And how are we going to identify a self-proclaimed expert on, e.g., Buffy the Vampire Slayer? >Radiant< 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

Why do people always feel they have to create a new policy/guideline/whatever whenever they feel their particular bull is being gored? Work within process, folks. We have DRV, if you fele it isn't working, do something there. Why do we need to reinvent the wheel? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as "reinventing the wheel" so much as "replacing the wheel that got ripped off when VFU became DRV" Phil Sandifer 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No one wants to fix DRV. We've tried that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's grossly disingenuous of you. You know very well DRV resists all possible changes furiously. And there's a lot of people there who want and sincerely believe DRV to be strictly for examining whether an AFD was per process. As such, there's a need for examination on merit - David Gerard 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Look at all the "DRV is not AfD" comments during some reviews. Unless DRV is willing to change to a consensus-based model that looks at more than strict vote counts and ignoring discussion (and my attempts at the talk page have been futile), it becomes a good thing that we're discussing this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has tried to fix DRV. They tried to delete it by fait accompli this morning, and that got immediately, and appropriately shot down. As will this, as it doesn't address the core problem. As in, what is the problem with DRV? That has yet to be addressed, let alone to be proven. You can't just go off on a tangent and start addressing how to make this proposal work, if you haven't given us any evidence that this proposal is even needed. And if bandlydrawnjeff has his way, every nonsense article ever written would still be here, so he doesn't want DRV to work, as it would invalidate his contention that every article should be kept. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First, enough lies about what I'd do if I "had my way." It's old. Second, what'd wrong with DRV? It doesn't take arguments into effect, thus rendering it a majority rule body. Since it's majority rule, it often ignores its calling when dealing with issues of process. So even if the process is broken or ignored, DRV doesn't actually have to take it into effect if enough warm bodies show up to ignore it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for rules

1. Undeletion takes three "aye".
2. Majority undelete means undelete
3. (contentious bit, but too bad) The closing admin (it's gonna be an admin) is allowed to allow or disallow votes on the grounds of extreme cluelessless, malice or apparent external votestacking. "Extreme cluelessness" includes reasons that are against policy or are according to a process rather than merit.

How's that? The first two were the old VFU rules, the third is a great big "don't be dense" clause. Merit based implies clue rather than process. And, really, a crappy borderline article coming back is not in fact fatal or even harmful to Wikipedia if it's not a copyvio, libel, etc - David Gerard 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Where have we ever done anything by majority rule? Consensus is key, not majority. Tyrrany of the majority is not an acceptable out here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

When have we ever done anything by majority rule? Have you been to DRV? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see, there's VFU, which used to be run in exactly the way mentioned above... Phil Sandifer 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. It's still consensus-driven. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really applicable to prod

This isn't really applicable to prod, any admin can, at any point, undelete any prod deleted article. It's just contesting the prod. I'll undelete any prod anyone asks for. I've only seen a couple requested so far, and only refused one as it was a blatant copy violation and seemed a WP:SNOW instance. I pointed the user in question to the copyvio page instead. Hiding Talk 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I will just add that I've never had a problem getting a prod undeleted on DRV and that people are pretty friendly and really quick about it. RN 22:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hah. When I want to undelete a PROD I undelete it, then fix the problems. e.g. svnwiki - David Gerard 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good way also :). RN 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, wish I had that kind of time. :) So we clear that putting a prod through this would be in breach of WP:SNOW? :) Hiding Talk 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, putting a prod through this is a breach of WP:PROD#Contesting after deletion, not the essay WP:SNOW. GRBerry 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You did see my smiley, didn't you? :) Hiding Talk 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy with AfD

I'm not entirely sure if this is needed. The process for merit-based undeletions at the moment seems to be 'go to DRV, mention that you've got new info and make a show of being credible, get it relisted, and survive the resulting AfD'. The only difference between AfU and AfD is in the currently-deleted state of the article. It may be better to simply allow AfDs on deleted articles (under certain restrictions, which no doubt the community will decide on eventually), than invent a new process; and that's almost what we've got at the moment, with DRV acting as a filter. So my proposal is: DRV should allow relistings off just the promise of new info, as long as there isn't a suggestion of gaming the system (and we've got a policy against that, anyway); possibly add a new 'speedy relist' if the DRV workload's getting too high. --ais523 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to forget that afd is broken too. The purpose of this thing is to create enough concurrently running processes that every editor has one they really like (and you already have 3 for article deletions). If you disagree with this proposal, just create your own process instead of changing the existing ones, the people who actually need to use the processes aren't important. - Bobet 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not broken. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh it is. And CFD is worse. Far worse, to the point of ghettoised. Hiding Talk 21:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Contending that something is so does not make it so. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• While unrelated to this discussion, I would like to hear from you why you think CFD is broken; maybe we could do something about it. >Radiant< 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't redundant with AFD, it is redundant with WP:DRV. There are at least three other viable, and more likely to succeed, methods of getting articles that merit inclusion in place.

1. Just write a new article. (Assumes page not protected deleted.) If it is substantially different then prior deleted versions, then G4 doesn't apply. Write it well, so that it won't also be deleted.
2. Ask at WP:DRV for a user space copy of the prior version, fix it, and then move it to article space. (Assumes page not protected deleted.) If it is substantially different then prior deleted versions, then G4 doesn't apply. Write it well, so that it won't also be deleted.
3. Ask at WP:DRV for a user space copy of the prior version, fix it, and then ask DRV to review the fixed version. (Assumes page was protected deleted, or the changes are not substantial.) If the changes address the deletion reasons, DRV is likely to let the article back, possibly relisting depending on how well they address it. If the changes don't address the reasons for deletion, DRV shouldn't let it back.

I don't see AFD or DRV as broken. I also don't see any serious attempt to use the talk page of DRV to change DRV. GRBerry 19:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with GRBerry here. I'm inclusionist and eventualist, but I also don't see the value in a court of infinite appeals for vanity articles. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to do away with the court of infinite appeals that is AfD. Phil Sandifer 01:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at AFD recently, but I believe you assert that some people are basically nominating an article for AFD repeatedly until it finally ends up deleted, is that correct? If so, we should definitely put a stop to that. >Radiant< 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong agreement with GRBerry - This proposal is unnecessary, instruction-creepy, and fundamentally misses the point. Just write a new article!. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

... and it will be deleted as G4. AFD regulars tend to think that "delete" means "delete and salt the earth". [ælfəks] 07:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. This page would never ever have been thought of it people were not so up tight about G4. Admittedly, part of it in my view comes from the lack of knowledge about what came before as if a non-admin wants to recreate a page they have to go through a complex process to see what it used to be before getting a chance to improve on whatever that was. Makes for an altogether unnecessary process. I would say G4 on its own is necessary for blatant ignorance of AfD discussion comments but not in the extensive way it is used. Ansell 09:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, so we have a cultural problem that people are overusing G4? That's not a good thing; G4 says "substantially similar" for a reason (and obviously a short but sourced article is not substantially similar to a oneliner stub). What I think we should do is create a {{notg4}} with some friendly text like "you just deleted <page> under G4, however please note that it was different so would you please undelete it again, thank you" - and drop that on the talk page of admins that are mistaken in their G4 applications. Education is always good. >Radiant< 10:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nuts and bolts

Anyone mind talking me through the nuts and bolts of it? I'm interested in the "Undeletion Committee (elected by a quorum of administrators)", how that's going to work. Is it any old admins who get to elect, who is allowed to stand, does it change for each deletion, those sorts of things. Hiding Talk 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What he said. It sounds plausible - DRv for process failure only, AfU as an appeal on article merit only. If your article was deleted in process, you can rewrite the article better, or go to AfU. AfU decided by a group of (say) five or ten good editors... but how do you select these good editors? Who will bell the cat? Herostratus 06:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say that splitting the process will confuse people and possibly cause some nasty edit wars and wheel wars. Let's try talking to DRV first. I see Jeff has already started a thread at WT:DRV. >Radiant< 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this

If I understand this correctly, there is the feeling that WP:DRV has waxed overly democratic and has failed to undelete certain articles that should not have been deleted. Any examples of this would be nice, though.

By "undeletion on article merit", am I correct that it's about important facts that were overlooked or not present in the AFD debate? E.g. someone writes an article like this

Julius Ceasar is this cool guy from Italy and he had a horse that was white.

Now I'm sure that'd end up deleted, and someone will go to DRV and claim "Hey wait a second, he was also Emperor of Rome for ten years or so!"

Of course I'm exaggerating. But if DRV would refuse to undelete such, it needs serious troutwhacking. If I misunderstood the reason behind this proposal, please enlighten me. >Radiant< 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's correct (notwithstanding the typo of Ceaser *grin*). The problem seems to stem from the fact that DRV is described as being democratic and about process violations only, when in practice it frequently allows merit discussions of sufficient weight to be cause for undeletion. Borderline meritorious articles sometimes get relisted, sometimes get encouraged to rewrite the article in a better/non-copyvio way. My two cents, anyway.. -- nae'blis

• So basically what you're saying is that its header text should be reworded to match actual practice? >Radiant< 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 'old' enough to know for sure, but if Kim Bruning is correct, then that would seem the most logical fix for this "problem". -- nae'blis 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In practice, DRV does not really take into account consensus or arguments, but straight vote counts. Surely, there have been exceptions, but not typically. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In Radiant!'s original example in this section, the article should be deleted. Anyone who wants to write another article can; G4 only applies to exact or near-exact recreations. Neither DRv or AfU needs to be involved in any way, unless the original poster was so persistent that the article was salted (in which case DRV could be used, at present, for a desalt). --ais523 08:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Change name

To AfU? Like AfD, AfU.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd hate to be a process wonk but...

Ok, I like this idea in principle and think it might work. Certainly the lack of ability to examine content on DRV is a serious issue. However, if someone has issues with a deletion both for process reasons and content reasons does that mean we would need two separate discussions of it, one at AfU and one at DRV or would they somehow be combined?

Why wouldn't AfU be for content discussions, and DRV for process discussions? For the first few weeks, there may be some speedy venue changes, but I'd imagine people would get used to it pretty quick. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's a bad idea, and confusing to novice editors, and for many deleted articles there is a conflation of process and content, and DRV has recently been reworded, and it turns out that the header of DRV didn't match actual practice, and as said above you can simply rewrite a better article, and nobody has yet demonstrated the need for this process, and yes you are a process wonk. >Radiant< 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)