I added a DRV which was labeled April 7, and it hasn't been added to the list. It needs to be done manually as a result. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Already done , it seems, if you are referring to the entry for Madison Eagles. You added it to the log page, which should automatically make it appear in "active discussions." If it does not, you may need to bypass your browser's cache. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'd like to see if there is any kind of consensus about how DRV should handle redirect outcomes. I'd argue that redirect outcomes can come to DRV, but don't need to. Basically, if the AfD's outcome is a redirect and someone attempts to restore the article and gets reverted "due to the consensus established at AfD", I think DRV is the correct venue. Otherwise we're leaving folks with no real recourse when their article gets effectively removed from Wikipedia via a redirect. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

On the related topic of merges, did you see #Template:Olddelccc? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I did, but I don't know that I understood what you were proposing to do. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to whether the article is reinstated (in place of the redirect) in conjunction with improved sourcing. If lack of sourcing (rather than, e.g. content forking) influenced consensus during the AfD then I think this can be legitimately challenged simply by providing those sources. Other issues (such as due weight within the encyclopedia as a whole) may also be decided as part of a merge discussion (rather than AfD). In any case, a note on the associated talk page(s) would be extremely helpful to other editors. As for "leaving folks with no real recourse when their article ...", OWNership shouldn't be a reason for reverting a redirect. However, it may well be that article creator is much better placed to provide sources than most of the AfD participants, and s/he may not see the AfD while live. In this case, sources would still be needed, if lack of sourcing was the consensus decision. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your OWN point. But my worry is that someone sees their work removed via a redirect in an AfD and now it's really unclear what action they should take. Let's say there were good sources and the closer was just flat out wrong to go with a redirect outcome (say it clearly meets GNG and there were 5 keep !votes and 1 redirect !vote and the closer redirected). What should someone who wanted to undo the redirect do? Start a discussion on the talk page of the redirected target? And if that gets nearly no feedback (which is likely?) Seems like DRV should be for reviewing closes--keep, delete, redirect or otherwise. A flawed close is a flawed close. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that DRV should review questionable closes like your hypothetical, even if no deletion occurred. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, I assume that you are speaking about redirect-without-deletion, not delete-and-redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• WP:Deletion policy states that AfD is not a recourse for content disputes and that any editor can close such a discussion.  DRV obtains no standing just because an AfD closed as a redirect-without-deletion, as the remedy is ordinary editing. 

  ...content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

A change to this policy opens the door to content disputes at AfD.  So unless you want to change policy and open the door to content disputes, consensus is established.  There is another case which is less clear, which is if the closing admin is claiming standing and is enforcing the redirect-without-deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I disagree. The question of "should this article exist" is a question AfD settles and is no more a content dispute when redirected without deletion than it is when redirected with deletion. Or at least I'm not seeing how it becomes a content dispute just because the bit wasn't used. Could you explain your reasoning? Hobit (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are arguing that since you don't see it, it doesn't exist?  The policy specifically mentions RfC as a remedy.  What is wrong with RfC?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no I'm not seeing how overturning a redirect with a deletion is not a content dispute but overturning a redirect without an underlying deletion is. I agree current policy allows for an RfC. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If material was deleted, WP:Deletion policy came into play.  Admin tools were used.  Somehow we had a useless article, and deleted it, but wanted to keep/restore the redirect.  There is no content to be restored by ordinary editing.  This is not a content dispute. 

Otherwise you have ordinary editing.  Are you claiming that changing the content of an article to a redirect is not a content edit? 

If content was deleted, the remedy to restore the material involves admin tools, and the machinery of DRV.  If content was not deleted, the remedy to restore the material is ordinary editing and talk page discussion, perhaps via RfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd argue that turning an article into a redirect is the same dispute no matter if the underlying article was deleted or not. As far as readers are concerned it's the same outcome. And while I get the notion that from an editor's viewpoint they are different (one can be undone without tools), I think we need some way to review redirect and merge closures. DRV reviews keep and NC closures, neither of which involve the tools. I don't see why redirect or merge outcomes are different. Hobit (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the proposer wants a keep changed to merge, or a no-consensus changed to merge, I doubt that the proposition would be entertained at DRV.  On the other hand if the proposer wants a redirect-without-deletion changed to a delete-and-redirect, this involves admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've not looked into any disputed consensuses to redirect, but I image that a contested redirect should be formally discussed at AfD (AfD is not for any redirect discussion, just one proven to be contentious), and then DRV is the forum to challenge the close of any AfD, whatever the close. Does there need to be a "rule" somewhere written that "a reasonable dispute of a pseudo-delete by redirection must go to AfD"? See [1] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There is already a contradictory rule, WP:Speedy keep #1 (guideline). I think that a redirect dispute can be escalated to AfD once it becomes bad – heated, prolonged, or disruptive – enough to invoke WP:Ignore all rules. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Pseudo-deletion by redirect often goes to AfD under the guise of a deletion argument, but with a strong nomination for no stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't a redirect outcome different to a merge outcome? If the consensus is to redirect, then isn't the previous content deleted? (Selective merge is also used where content is largely unsuitable, undue, unsourced, etc.) I thought that a redirect outcome implied that the content wasn't notable for its own article, and that a merge is also inappropriate, although the subject is a likely search term and should redirect to an appropriate article. Maybe I'm missing something else somewhere. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two different kinds of redirect, one is delete-and-redirect, and the other is redirect-without-deletion.  Redirect-without-deletion is commonly used to leave the merge as a "to-do" project for anyone interested.  It is difficult to find out from reading AfD closes which is which.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and I wonder whether participants always appreciate the subtle difference! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make a point, but what you seem to have said instead is that you don't care if the colorless odorless gas is carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know what that's s'posed to mean. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• DRV reveiws deletions, deletion discussions, and deletion procedures. If a deletion discussion results in a redirect, like any other result, it may be reviewed at DRV, but the scope of the review should be the procedure and whether the closer closed correctly, and should not rehash the facts.

A redirect that was never associated with a deletion or XfD discussion, or any ot--Mr.Agabi (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)her deletion, would not normally be welcome at DRV. Instead, further discussion should occur at the redirect target's talk page. If editors there can't agree, they would probably be best pointed to WP:RfC.

Conceivably, an RfC could result in a deletion, and this deletion might be reviewable by DRV, but otherwise, RfCs are not welcome for review at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Somebody wrote an article about us with full of wrong and misleading informations and was deleted, now i tried to write some basic informations about us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABMS_Open_University but article was deleted bacause the old article with same name was deleted. I work for ABMS University and how can we solve this problem? --Mr.Agabi (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on my long experience at Deletion Review, there is no point asking for a reconsideration until you have a draft of some sort to propose, and the material that was deleted was so sketchy that it provided no verifiable information. I cannot imagine an administrator who would be willing to restore it. The best way to start a new article is to use the process at WP:Articles for creation, which we always recommend to an editor with conflict of interest, such as you have. Please address the problems stated at the original AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Open University of Switzerland. I work regularly here on articles involving universities and , as I said there, I have the greatest diffculty figuring out the validity of the claims of many online Swiss unaccredited institutions. You have a burden to overcome: there is significant skepticism here about including institutions that are unaccredited or of dubious accreditation. This must be addressed by making the status absolutely clear, and not claiming more than is actually true. Permission to operate by the Swiss government is not accreditation. Affiliate with an accredited institution for the purpose of awarding degrees is also viewed very skeptically, especially because a number of the universities proving such affiliation are themselves rather dubious--the main british one was effectually forced to close down about a year ago, but is still referred to in many WP articles. Most such claims involving high-quality universities have when investigated, proven to be very limited affiliations indeed, or even impossible to prove.

In this case, though I !voted to keep the article, principally because I regard having some information about such schools a high priority for the users of WP, the unmistakable consensus was that the university has no actual existence. Actual existence for a physical university can be at least presumptively indicated by the existence of a campus;  ; for an entirely online university there must be proof from some source other than the university's website that there are actual students, faculty, and courses being pursued--not just promised or listed. I commented in the earlier discussion on "the description on the university's web page, offering a curriculum leading to both a MBA and a doctorate in a single year. By the usual standards, this would represent a diploma mill" For such a diploma mill, with typically no actual students, faulty, or courses, there needs evidence that degrees have actually been awarded and reported by outside media. Be aware that if we do find negative regulatory action of some sort or negative comment in outside reliable sources, we will include it: you will not have control of the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• You can ask an admin to email you the deleted material, if you want it for your own reference, not for reposting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)