This proposal has passed, and been added to WP:VFU
This proposal is to expand the scope of Votes for Undeletion to include disputed non-delete closures.
It is thus proposed to change the name from Votes for Undeletion to Deletion Review, and to describe the purpose of this new process page as follows:
- Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:
- They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question;
- In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
- An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above.
- Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
- This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process, not content.
|
- This box is intended to be placed on the VfU main page (where, in fact, it has already been for some time without being active, but without objection). It will also necessarily amend Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, but is not intended to contract the scope from what it is at present, simply to apply it equally to both deletions and non-deletion.
- This proposal does not affect history-only or temporary undeletions at all.
- This part of the proposal has already received support here.
Given the new nature of Deletion Review, a new means of operating it is proposed. Currently, VfU is majoritarian, and an article may be undeleted if a simple majority think it should be. See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. It is proposed to amend Wikipedia:Undeletion policy to incorporate the following scheme:
- The nominator should explicitly suggest a course of action: normally this will be to Overturn the original closing decision; but sometimes to relist the disputed item on the relevant decision process, or some other action.
- In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion process (usually Articles for deletion); or
- Overturn the original decision and, optionally an (action) per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. In the case of a kept article, the default (action) associated with overturning is clearly delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than a default they should make this clear.
- The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.
- If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.
- Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the (action) specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
|
The intent is to, without reducing Wikipedia to a simple democracy, provide a route for some action if most people are concerned about process, and a route for correctional action if a significant proportion of people mandate it. The clarity in the numbers is intended to prevent Deletion Review having the same interpretation disputes that will bring debates to the process in the first place. In the extremely rare case that the closer has brazenly miscounted, the proper remedy is WP:AN/I.
- Discussion, as usual, on the talk page.
