Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion review page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:DRV

Archives

2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Language improvement, here & Refund

from @SmokeyJoe's comment here, @Robert McClenon's thread above and note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Margaret_Nichols_DRV and my fairly regular "We're not doing 7 days of bureaucracy", it appears there's a start to consensus on how to improve and streamline DRV to allow it to focus on the discussions where it's needed vs. where there's another solution. Thoughts, suggestions on where else this should be? Star Mississippi 13:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal about just this a while back at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 56#Split WP:DRV into two pages? Mach61 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no good reason to split DRV.

Uncontroversial REFUNDS should be advised to go to REFUND to ask.

REFUNDS to draftspace are almost always uncontroversial.

REFUND should plainly distinguish between whether the REFUND is to draftspace or to mainspace, and give simple advice on both. REFUNDS to mainspace are rarely uncontroversial, except for late disputed PRODs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history - partially deleted category tree

Not sure where to ask about these two:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 11#Natural history - result was delete

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history - result was no consensus

As a result the category tree is partially deleted and partially extant. Would it be possible to revert the first deletion (as mentioned would be appropriate by a couple people in the second discussion)? I will note that the second nomination got more attention, I think because it included lower-level subcategories that get more "circulation".

jengod (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Harsora

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to Neha Harsora, you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, Explicit (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want my article back

The article I wrote was deleted around 2 years ago because 6 months passed without activity and now they wont undelete it because they think there's a conflict of interest. I am writing an article for Dr. Zouhair Amarin because I was his student. There is no conflict of interest as we are not colleagues, friends or family. I have maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. Zamarin (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zamarin: This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at User talk:Zamarin#Concern regarding Draft:Zouhair Amarin directs you as follows:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days

Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn (scripting language)

I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria.

I intend to move the Pawn (programming language) draft to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article.

I hope to gain support from the Wikipedia community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language.

Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]