Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

why delete Farzad_ghaderi article

Hello, I am @Ahmadech4 and I created an article for MMA fighter named Farzad_ghaderi, but it was delete by @SouthernNights. but Farzad_ghaderi is a reliable MMA fighter according to reliable references. Please reconsider. Please take the necessary actions to recreate the article Ahmadech4 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You have had Wikipedia policies regarding notability etc explained to you repeatedly on your talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump dear, Please help me to create this article. Farzad_ghaderi is one of the best MMA fighters as evidenced by the following references and I am his follower

Ahmadech4 (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Entries in database-style MMA websites do not constitute the sort of in-depth independent coverage required to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. And that is all I will have to say on the subject. The biography has been recreated multiple times, and deleted multiple times, for the same reasons. It is entirely clear that Wikipedia is not going to have a biography on this individual unless and until he attracts significant, in-depth coverage, per our policies. Stop wasting peoples' time over this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump if you think it will take your time, don't work on Wikipedia, you don't have to.

dear@SouthernNights Please guide me to register the article so that at least the correct information is registered according to the rules of Wikipedia Ahmadech4 (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The rules of Wikipedia do not permit an article on Farzad Ghaderi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with @AndyTheGrump. Despite people explaining to Ahmadech4 how Wikipedia works, Ahmadech4 does not make any attempt to learn or improve. At this point Ahmadech4 is simply wasting everyone's time. SouthernNights (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've started a thread at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Appears all this is now wrapped up. SouthernNights (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Editnotice?

Every single time there's a deletion review, I see people trying to relitigate the AfD rather than analyzing the discussion and strength of arguments. The distinction between those two is nuanced enough that this is pretty much inevitable, but I do think that an editnotice explaining how deletion review works and how discussion is supposed to be focused might help on the margins. (For a very rough parallel, think of the editnotice we use for RfAs.) Would folks be in support of adding something? And if so, anyone want to contribute some language we'd want to use/help draft it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've no objection to that, but I do think this happens less than people seem to think. Could you take a few recent DRVs where you see this problem and highlight what you are trying to shoot down? Sometimes the underlying issue does matter at DRV. For example, if the discussion consists of one side providing sources and another side arguing those sources shouldn't count toward WP:N, the discussion at DRV will by necessity have to involve looking at the sources. If they clearly are way under or way over the bar, that matters. If the matter is borderline, that matters. I rarely see comments at DRV that are so far removed from the role of DRV that I think they shouldn't be there. So I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't find this objectionable, I also don't see a need and that I'm guessing some of what you are trying to keep out, are things I might find productive. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Calling out specific instances is a sure way to sidetrack/derail the discussion, but I'm happy to offer some more abstracted explanation. The stated purpose of deletion review (for the most common type of review) is to judge whether the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and should not be used because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. We should therefore be encouraging participants to focus in their comments on assessing consensus rather than relitigating the AfD. It's a similar distinction to the difference between a good close and a supervote. Granted, as I said at the top, it's a fine distinction, and as you note there can be gray areas. The difference between Overturn because the subject clearly passes GNG and Overturn because the arguments made that the subject passes GNG were clearly stronger and should have been given more weight often reflects just that the latter editor is more experienced and knows how to frame their view. Still, weighing the strength of arguments without injecting one's personal opinion is what we expect closers to do, and it's what we should aspire for deletion review participants to do as well. If an editnotice helps on the margins to get a few more editors to put aside their personal views and focus on assessing consensus, I think it's worthwhile to have. Does that help explain? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Plenty of deletion reviews are just seeking permission to recreate a previously-deleted article. Plenty of those are for pages that were deleted a long time ago and aren't salted, so we say to just go ahead and do it; for more recent deletions, and ones that have had long histories of abuse, we generally do want arguments that could be viewed as relitigating the afds - namely, new sources, or why the people at the previous discussion were wrong. And of course, for reviews of speedy deletions, there's no getting around discussing the content directly.
  I think replying to individual comments at DRV with a pointer to WP:DRVPURPOSE Not#5 is sufficient. We haven't had to do that very often. —Cryptic 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NewdelrevCFD

Template:NewdelrevCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Can this process be automated?

The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the {{Delrevxfd}}, {{Delrev}}, and {{DRV notice}} templates? Jarble (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @Anomie and Timotheus Canens: Can this bot be programmed to do the tasks that I listed here? Jarble (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just passing by due to a cross-post, but could a script be written to deal with this, similar to how Twinkle takes care of all of the XFD nomination steps? Primefac (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds more like a script is needed. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Over half the time, even the first template ({{drv2}}, on the deletion review subpage (no, there's no {{drv1}})) gets filled out wrong. The deletion discussion isn't linked, or the wrong one's linked, a non-deletion-discussion is linked in the xfd field, or a full url is used for the deletion discussion or page name or both, or even the page name is wrong. Mostly it's me who ends up cleaning it up and placing {{delrevxfd}} and sometimes {{drvnote}}, and the problems aren't consistent enough that I've ever considered automating it. A bot that assumes the first step was done right is going to break at least two other pages and probably end up being a net increase in manual labor. —Cryptic 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Wouldn't the bot or script detect incorrectly-formatted {{drv2}} templates in order to prevent errors like this? Jarble (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Jarble, as a bot op, no. There are a million different ways editors can mess up wikitext. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If users screw up the {{drv2}} over half the time, that seems like the bot would run into too much GIGO to be useful. Anomie⚔ 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it gives more reason to have a script, as there can be #ifexist checks and the like to make sure things are input properly. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to incorporating functionality into something like Twinkle or Ultraviolet (with preference towards the latter). — Frostly (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Automating this would be great. But the process wasn't too horrible... SmolBrane (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

On that note, I have to look at the instructions again every time I close DRV, and dearly miss WP:XFDCLOSER. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for undeleting the article: Salman Farhan Sudi

The article Salman Farhan Sudi was deleted due to several points which should be corrected instead of deletion the whole article, Please I am requeating to undelete that article and return it to discussion.

Thankz. Hawali Nur (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Hawali Nur: What, precisely, do you believe should overturn the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Farhan Sudi? Simply disagreeing with deletion isn't enough; see WP:DRVPURPOSE. Mach61 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support valid deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC). (non-involved)
• Support agree, valid. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieval of Deleted Draft Content : YogiGuru Saugaato

Hi Team,

It is a humble request to help retrieve the content of the draft of YogiGuru Saugaato that was deleted. I require the latest version of the draft and have been unable to retrieve it from anywhere else. There is no copy, and was a dictation version. Kindly share the latest edited draft of the content. I assure it will not be used to published anything on any Wikipedia pages. Debottama23 (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The draft was deleted because it was a blatant advertisement. Such content is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you truly have no intentions of publishing this content on Wikipedia again, it may be possible to ask one of the admins who deleted it, Jimfbleak or Seraphimblade, to email its contents to you (note that they are not required to do this) Mach61 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

​

Links in DRV notice

Several months ago, I found the following note on my talk page:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:The sun1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

As you can see, the link is useless now. Just now I was curious to see what was involved, so I had to go to the image and check WhatLinksHere to find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23. Why must this be the case? Active DRV discussions are transcluded in log pages, so it's not like we have some technical barrier; the latest active discussion, for Elizabeth Shown Mills, can be linked either Wikipedia:Deletion review#Elizabeth Shown Mills or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 21#Elizabeth Shown Mills. As far as I can see, the template could easily link to the log page, which won't change, instead of to the main DRV page, which will always be changing. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

{{DRV notice}} has a parameter that makes the "a deletion review" link point to a log subpage. (Example.) Whoever left that on your talk page didn't use it, so the best the template could do was point at Wikipedia:Deletion review#File:The sun1.jpg. —Cryptic 20:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be worth changing {{DRV notice}} so that - in the absence of the |days= parameter being specified - it assumes that the DRV has been filed on the current day? To my understanding, this is what currently happens with (e.g.) {{Rfd notice}} & {{Tfd notice}}. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be more harmful to point at the wrong log subpage than to point at DRV proper. If someone notifies late - either because someone yelled at the original requester for not notifying, or they're less of a jerk and are just doing it for them - and the template's not invoked until after midnight UTC, they're left pointing at the wrong page entirely with no hint of what went wrong.

I suspect most people besides me just paste the drv notice syntax from either the log page's commented text or from step II.2 of WP:DELREVD. (I don't, for example, ever recall seeing anything other than "An editor" at the start of the notice when I've checked to see if someone's been notified.) If {{DRV notice}} could accept an explicit date instead of the horrifically unfriendly days=0 syntax, we could make at least the commented text always be right ("<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|log=2024 February 22|page name}} on their talk page."...), and the instructions at DELREVD at least be obviously wrong if you're notifying for a previous date. —Cryptic 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What if instead we just added a permalink to the current revision of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active—something like "An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lunatic Lateral (permalink)."? I wouldn't think that'd be too hard to implement, it's valid for the whole week, and the section anchors still seem to work even after the discussion is closed (here's the one for Nyttend's example). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an interface for getting the current revision of a page in the Scribunto documentation (I'd expect it to be in the title object). I know it's not possible short of that. —Cryptic 23:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Template wizardry is all Greek to me, but wouldn't it work to just use whatever Template:Link current revision is using? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The documentation for what it's using says it's disabled on WMF wikis. Serves me right for trusting it. —Cryptic 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, the other issue with permalinks is that there's no section edit links unless you're still pointing at the current revision. If Fastily were only now seeing the notification for yesterday's review of File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg, the link would look like Special:Permalink/1209451477#File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg; that would let him see the discussion but have no way to edit it other than clicking on the only-barely-intuitively-linked date header. —Cryptic 19:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Squatch

I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested at participating in a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Split WP:DRV into two pages?

I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on DEEPER

I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER. Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER. The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER. I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests. Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the correct procedure is demanding a presentation of a draft that is prima facie worthy of a review, and if it seems that thre is no prospect for that submission to even be reviewed because it is obviously not worthy of a review, and a few participants have noted so, the DRV can be speedily closed as 'speedy endorse' due to no prospect of success. There must be a path to recreation. We can not know that BDFI will not be a notable topic in the future. If I start believing that BDFI has become a notable topic I will want to create an article, I will be able to draft something suitable for a quick review at DRV, and I will not be satisfied with my submission being dismissed on purely formal grounds (a fantasy scenario, don't take it at face value). —Alalch E. 22:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)