Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

Adding a "request" parameter to Drv2

I suggest adding a "request" parameter to {{Drv2}} with something like this documentation:

• |request= is the action you want the review to result in. In almost all cases, this is "Overturn the deletion discussion's closure to keep", or to whatever else you think the correct assessment of the deletion discussion's outcome would have been, e.g. "... to no consensus", "... to delete", "... to merge" or "... to redirect". If the deletion log makes reference to a speedy deletion, your request would normally be "Undo the speedy deletion".

The reason for this suggestion is that we see quite a few DRV requests which do not make clear what they want us to do, which makes finding consensus difficult.

I'm referencing this discussion from Drv2's talk page. Sandstein 16:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• How exactly does this differ from the existing "reason" parameter? —Cryptic 18:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  The "reason" parameter is supposed to provide the reason why the requested action should be taken. That reason often makes little sense if we don't know what the requested action is. With the proposed parameter, we actively request users to supply both pieces of information. Sandstein 20:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's the reason the review is requested. That includes what you want the result to be. If you want to expand the documentation of that parameter, which is admittedly brief, that's fine; but otherwise, what would you want the output of this to be? Bolded text stuck in front of {{{reason}}}? —Cryptic 22:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  I sometimes don't understand what the person who starts the DRV wants. Expanding the documentation might help, but will people read it?—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  If they're that confused, then another parameter isn't going to help. It's still going to be an extra shrubbery demanded of every review request, most of whose goals are perfectly clear. —Cryptic 23:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Okay. There are two things we want to know: Why they're asking for the review, and what outcome they want. How do we make sure the requester knows to tell us both things in one parameter?—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Rename it to something like what_and_why? Expand the standard commented-out text that appears at the beginning of each daily subpage? Give an example for the parameter at WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review? (But many people leave |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png and |article=Foo from the example usage untouched.) —Cryptic 23:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  You know what? I'm happy with any of those.

  I'm mindful that the reason why DRV works as well as it does is because Cryptic makes it work. Year in, year out, if someone buggers up a template at DRV, it's almost always Cryptic who fixes it. Therefore Cryptic has the biggest stake in this and I'm happy to do it Cryptic's way.

  Maybe consider doing several of those options, as they're not mutually exclusive.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  The description for {{{reason}}} in step 1 at WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review should also be at least slightly expanded with "and what it should be changed to" (or similar wording; probably better if it goes before the "why" part).

  Cards on the table: my biggest fear here is that the intention is not to add a parameter to {{drv2}} itself, except as a proxy to a new parameter in {{DRV links}}. That way leads to headers like
          ODI Global (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD| [sixteen pages of LLM-generated screed] |restore)
  and I don't want to have to be the one to clean them up. Even if it's just an enforced modifier to what gets output by {{{reason}}}, so {{Drv2|...|reason=All the keep voters are now blocked as sockpuppets of each other.|request=overturn to delete}} ~~~~ turns into
          ODI Global (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
       overturn to delete All the keep voters are now blocked as sockpuppets of each other. ~~~~
  then I'd still view this as a net negative, and not just because I irritate discussion closers by hardly ever making bolded votes myself. —Cryptic 01:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  Cryptic is the bloke who makes the DRV process work, often by hand. Any change that gets us all the information is a suitable fix for this, as far as I'm concerned, and I hope that'll be a good fix as far as Sandstein and SmokeyJoe are concerned too. Let Cryptic be the one to edit the template so we can be 100% sure it's done in a way that works for him. I agree on updating the page header instructions.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  I still haven't gotten an answer for how the parameter is supposed to be used by the template. (I've given a couple examples of ways I hope it's not.) —Cryptic 09:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Cryptic, I defer to your technical expertise. If you consider that it would be technically easier to maintain a single "reason" parameter and to instruct the user that within this field they must also indicate the desired outcome, that would work for me too. However, a second parameter would all but force the user to do this. I envision an output of the template similar to this:

  Action requested: Overturn closure to keep

  Reason: The closer mistakenly dismissed 15 "keep" opinions as LLM-generated, but I typed them all myself.

  Sandstein 09:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  So, it's been almost half a year and I'm no longer either buried in work or exhausted from being buried in work, but I haven't forgotten this. Is it still seen as necessary? Or was it just an overreaction to a brief run of unclear drv nominations? (And I've got no particular technical expertise here; I haven't worked with templates much since about 2005.) —Cryptic 23:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Necessary" is a bit too strong, but I personally still feel this is "likely helpful".—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Sandstein 09:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  “I sometimes don't understand what the person who starts the DRV wants”. Me too. Sometimes I infer that they don’t either. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  Often, we recently had one where the nominator wasn't looking for the outcome to be changed Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. What do you want? Undeletion back to mainspace? Draftification? Overturn the close and relist? Change the close? An apology? Acknowledgment that you were right? - SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  a pony? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes please! FaviFake (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Feh. Here's your pony: 🐎. On your heads be it. —Cryptic 15:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Diffs are the best kinds of ponies :)   FaviFake (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Appellants who have trouble articulating what action they want are also the ones who have trouble using templates. But since I can't see any harm in adding the parameter, consider this a no objection. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Impact_of_the_inclusion_of_Merge_Discussions

Would be interested in the thoughts of DRV participants of the impact of the inclusion of merge discussions on AFD. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• It's a stupid, stupid decision and of course it won't work. Of course it won't.
  As a closer, your options are: (1) try to pull it into a shape that works, or (2) do as you're told and simply close as "merge", slap on the {{Being merged}} template and walk away.
  Stupid though it is, the consensus is the consensus. I recommend (2). When the backlog grows to a sufficient size the community will have to accept the need to rethink. This might take a while.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that I could close merges without damaging my approach to deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• I’m not seeing problems. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

About closing reviews

I almost reverted before discussing …

Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time, it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call.

was cut by User:Enos733, summary (→Closing reviews: undoing BOLD addition about closing. This should be discussed)

My thoughts: I broadly roughly agree with the removed text, but, it is not what I would write.

Closes made by an administrator tend to be better received by unhappy editors seeking reviews.

to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly (I’m not sure this is the reason)

But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time, . Nah. An unclosed discussion after a long time is a signal that the discussion is not clear and obvious.

It is usually acceptable for non-admins to close discussions where the outcome is clear and obvious.

Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins. (Yes)

Unless they are absolutely unavoidable (nonsense, no closes are “unavoidable”)

and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call.. Some experienced and highly respected nonadmins, in reading and explaining consensus, (eg S Marshall) close even the most difficult discussions.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

While not policy, the essay WP:Non-admin closure is broadly accepted by the community. Unless there is a reason to add specific language about closing here, I largely see this addition as scope creep. And in the past year only two non-admins closed a discussion here. - Enos733 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I do, very occasionally, close controversial DRVs as a non-admin. If there's consensus that I shouldn't, then I will of course respect that. I won't !vote here because SmokeyJoe's remarks suggest this is quite specifically about me... but without !voting, I do prefer the wording from before Enos733 edited it.—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

just to record I have never had an issue with your DRV closes and that's not something you could always say about some of the random closes by admins who are not DRV regulars. It's the experience in DRVs that counts. But then I have long thought the community is mad for not giving you the mop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Very nice of you to say so, but I thoroughly and permanently lost interest in the RfA process in 2009. I shan't apply for the job again.—S Marshall T/C 15:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It is usually acceptable for non-admins to close discussions where the outcome is clear and obvious.
Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins. (Yes)
I disagree. The DRV closer's closure should be evaluated on its own merits. Why would it be ok for an admin to summarily close a controversial DRV but not for a non-admin to carefully close the same discussion, explaining in great detail the methods they used to judge the consensus and how they reached their conclusion? FaviFake (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No, reviews should be closed by editors who have the toolset required to enforce the outcome. That generally means admins. Occasionally, long term DRV regulars can close. S.Marshall, Jclemens come to mind and the other long term non admins don't really bother, but DRVs are tricky. Random non-adkins simply lack the nuance and experience to do it right. Also, in general terms appellants asking questions deserve to have their concerns evaluated by an admin. What I would like us to do is stop closing debates early. There are circumstances that justify it, but as the final court or deletion appeal, appellants deserve to be fully heard.

I have some experience of this. When DRV had a regular closer, that was me for several years before I handed off to Roy Smith. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• On the one hand, the the paragraph is good advice and the basic gist that only admins and other experienced users should close DRV's is obviously right, but it could stand to be word-smithed a bit if people are interested. I certainly support S Marshall continuing to close DRV as he has in the past and would prefer to be able occasionally close them myself even if I never regain the mop. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at my history I appear to have last closed a DRV on June 5, 2025 so I am presumably not the second non-admins referred to above. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  The second is probably @Jclemens: Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of this paragraph with edit summary: that can no longer be reverted as a bold addition due to WP:EDITCON, seeing how it had been added by Spartaz on 17 October 2016 -- in special:diff/744812005; ... —Alalch E. 21:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I had forgotten that edit but I'm glad that I'm consistent in my views. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw that FaviFake's edit touched the paragraph in their edits and assumed it was new. - Enos733 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the "where a discussion has not been closed in good time" bit based on Smokey Joe's comment above, because that part clearly isn't right.—Alalch E. 21:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice at the very top of the original XfD discussion

From here: "Place the notice of the deletion review at the very top of the original XfD discussion" - this wrong requirement because this is impossible, for example I can't do it on the this XfD discussion. The text should be changed somehow? DungeonLords (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not impossible. Without more information we don't know why you couldn't do it. Star Mississippi 12:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It contains text "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it." So anyone should not edit it, right? DungeonLords (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. You are supposed to place it above that notice, without editing the "discussion" per se. Could we use clearer language? FaviFake (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It was clear until you changed it. Not even one of your edits to this page has been an improvement. I'm more than inclined to revert them all. —Cryptic 17:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's straightforwardly better, especially in terms of how quickly it can be understood, but I've adapted it to hopefully make it clearer. FaviFake (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"hopefully" is carrying a lot of weight there Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• I've unilaterally and summarily restored the pre-FaviFake version of the page.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Apparently this is controversial for some reason! Should WP:Deletion review/Administrator instructions be merged into WP:DRV, similarly to how @Extraordinary Writ merged Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions (diff) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose (diff) into this page last year? The title is wrong, as the instructions also have to be followed by non-admins (e.g., I had to follow them when closing my nomination), plus the page is short and other similar venues don't keep such instructions hidden on a subpage, for example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Step 5. Closure. FaviFake (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No. DRV's header is already at least three times as long as it should be. /Discussions and /Purpose were already transcluded into it; Extraordinary Writ's merges had zero change to visible output. —Cryptic 20:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

absolutely not. Bringing merges into AFD was supposed to benefit from adopting AFD/DRV processes, yet you are constantly pressing us to make changes for the benefit of the merge discussions. To be frank, you have no experience or history at DRV and need to learn the ropes before you can understand what changes would be welcome and useful. To be even franker, you need to ask yourself whether a process that requires so much adaptation to meet your needs was really the process we should have adopted. I strongly urge you to give it a rest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe you have misread my proposal. This is an informal proposal to move the contents of one page into another page. FaviFake (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I take it then that you don't intend to back off and learn the ropes before trying to push through more unwelcome change? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've read it thrice and nothing of what you said seems to be related to my proposal. I truly don't understand your comment. FaviFake (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, I do believe you are not processing the issue I am repeatedly raising with you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The instructions are already too long. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I also don't think it's worth making an already long page even longer just to add information that isn't useful to 99% of the people who visit DRV. The changes I made last year didn't affect the length of the page, as Cryptic has mentioned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Are we closing too many DRVs too early?

We are closing too many DRVs early, Spartaz wrote recently. Are we? We certainly seem to have a series of regulars who are quick to identify consensus, where it exists, and divergent opinions when those exist. Many recent discussions have been closed before 7 days. I've done several as NACs, and it looks like OwenX and Star_Mississippi also do a preponderance of recent <7 day closures. Are we closing the wrong things early? Or is it just that too high a percentage of issues raised that seem to get shortstopped? Is this a function of our overall low volume? Have we trained our active admin corps well enough that few closures generate controversies? That's a lot of questions, and I don't propose to have answers to any of them, nor even firm opinions. But it sounds like something we should discuss. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think we are, yes. For example in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 27, the Loveworld Records DRV was closed by OwenX, which was involved, after the AfD closer amended their closure following Owen's suggestion despite other editors proposing relisting. 2 people !voted to soft merge, 2 !voted to relist, and 1 !voted both. Why wasn't it relisted instead? A relist is often better than a soft merge.
  There was no need to hurry and close this DRV as resolved. This was the very first DRV where a soft merge was discussed, so if it had remained open for longer we could've established some sort of precedent for how to handle these cases. Do we relist them or do we overturn to soft merge? Of course Owen said any admin is welcome to revert and reopen this DRV if they see merit in doing so, but admins are never going to bicker over such a small case. It would've just been nice if the discussion had been given some more breathing room.
  This is just an example. I just don't see why we should close discussions before 7 days have passed, even if the nominator amends their closure during the discussion. The example above was essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE (an uncontroversial one, sure, but still a supervote) by the closer of the AfD and the closer of the DRV, in my opinion. FaviFake (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Stuff only comes to DRV if the deletion process has already gone very wrong, and there's effectively no avenue of appeal from here. (You can count the number that have gone on to AN, ever, without taking off your shoes. Those exceptions prove the rule.) So my opinion on this question has always been that we should only close early if A) absolutely everyone's in agreement - requester, closer/deleter, and anyone who's commented so far (this also covers withdrawals, and stricken sockpuppet or LLM noms and comments don't count); or B) we're enforcing WP:DRVNOT #9 (attacks/aspersions/accusations of bias). We also used to close early for pages deleted for copyright infringement, where the infringement itself wasn't being challenged, but it's been years since we've seen a DRV like that. It's more important here than usual at enwiki that we get things right, and get things right the first time. —Cryptic 23:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)/23:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Fully agreed. FaviFake (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Stuff only comes to DRV if the deletion process has already gone very wrong - I don't think that's true. We often get appeals that are clearly frivolous, if not outright vexatious. While not a proof, but when a close is unanimously endorsed, it suggests that perhaps nothing in the deletion process went wrong, and we're simply dealing with someone who wasn't happy with the outcome. It costs an appellant practically nothing to take another bite at the cherry here at DRV. It costs us much more to entertain that frivolous appeal for seven days. A quick review of cases over the past few months will make that evident. I do, however, agree with your observation that it's practically impossible to appeal a DRV result, which is why when I close one early, I typically invite any admin who disagrees to reopen it and let it run its full course. Owen× ☎ 00:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Early closes at DRV can be done with strong enough grounds, but I do think most DRVs should be open for at least 168 hours.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Star Mississippi, but there are two reasons that drive me to close DRVs early. The first is cost, in terms of time. Some of our most prolific wikipedians spend hours each month participating in DRVs. Sure, we choose to do so, but in the end, this is time that could be better spent doing other editorial or administrative work here. Policies such as WP:REOPEN allow and encourage us to short-stop certain processes, be it a clear BADNAC or an obvious SNOW. While some here seem to live for the fun of process wonkery, or see successful appeals as a form of just deserts for a poor close, with the ensuing 7-day pile-on being a fitting "punishment", most of us just want to get on with the real work.
  The second reason to speedy close a DRV has to do with a more insidious problem. Much has been said about admin burnout and the resultant attrition among our ranks. For many on the AfD circuit, I believe a major factor in that burnout is the constant grind against users complaining about an unfavourable close, either on our Talk page or here at DRV. Seven days of being criticized by your peers can be a lot to take, especially for less experienced admins, not to mention non-admin closers. If you noticed, much of my participation at DRV is focused on finding a compromise that would allow both appellant and respondent to walk away without losing face. If I can get to such a resolution without trampling any policy, I do it, knowing I likely contributed to extending someone's tenure on the project, even if by an iota. We've seen NACs step away from closing AfDs after a particularly hostile DRV against them. I'd rather see them learn from their mistake and improve, not sit back and watch them squirm for seven days just to reach a foregone conclusion. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping @OwenX

  I definitely close early but generally they seem to be a clear consensus on the outcome or a referral elsewhere. I strongly believe in less bureaucracy so if, for example, we're clearly going back to AfD we don't need 7 days here and 7 days there. It's also the same reason I'm happy to relist a contested close on my talk. I don't think we end up here because the deletion process has gone very wrong, it's at least 75% of the time "I didn't get my way". When it does go wrong, I feel like we have enough experienced voices here-admin and non - to point out to the closer why their action should be reconsidered. I also think by and large DRV is too long. In the vast majority of the cases, we don't need a week to determine the best outcome. That said, if folks object I'm happy to let them run longer. Star Mississippi 02:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Chiming in personally here, we also have a diverse set of voices--I have disagreed in countless AfD's with Spartaz, Sandstein, and Stifle over the years, yet here we have come to a relatively strong overlap on agreeing what has been closed correctly and what has not. I think that's a tribute to the maturity of both the individuals and the process involved: even if we wanted it a different way, we understand what the community consensus with respect to this process is and is not.

  I never want to waste time, but I agree that preserving the impression that each appeal is heard properly, even if it might be clearcut or in bad faith, is a separate value generated by this process. That is, getting the right answer and a quick closure may look nicer from our perspective, but it can seem perfunctory and self-reinforcing from a genuinely mistaken good faith appellant's position. So what should we change? Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• I rather disagree with OwenX's priorities. OwenX's method does protect discussion closers from long, often vexatious disputes. But when we leave almost all discussions open for a minimum of 168 hours, we give a disappointed potential new editor the fullest possible opportunity to make their case before the decision is made. We demonstrate and model fair process. Discussion closers, and I mean everyone participating in this, because we've all closed contentious discussions and got pushback for doing it, volunteered for the job. Part of closing a discussion is the post-closure bullshit that's clearly set out in our guidance. We're expected to man up or woman up, as the case may be, and deal with it. The main exception is where DRV's weren't raised in good faith but even then we have to scrupulously make sure we don't look like we're shutting down a discussion to avoid legitimate scrutiny. It's not enough to do the right thing. We have to be seen to do the right thing.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm a big advocate for due, fair process. But editors always get the fullest possible opportunity to make their case, right there in the appeal, and usually with their response to the first "Endorse". Looking at the recent cases I closed early, they were either closed in favour of the appellant, overturning a BADNAC, or else they were speedy closed after the appellant withdrew their appeal, after working out a compromise to everyone's satisfaction. You make it sound like we routinely speedy close DRVs against the appellant, but the only examples of that I can find are LLM-authored appeals, appeals by a sock, and DEEPER subjects. We not only do the right thing, we make sure we are seen to be doing the right thing. Owen× ☎ 12:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Responding to @S Marshall and @Jclemens here. I think there's a difference between a confused newbie, bad faith and a genuine question.

  • A confused newbie who may not understand that DRV is for process errors not difference in opinion may or may not need 7 days to understand that. Their questions may ultimately be better suited for one of the help desks as they improve a draft. We don't need 7 days for "You thought it was notable, here's why it was decided not to be. Here's how you can take it forward". DRV is not well suited for the help desk questions
  • We do not need to waste seven days of our time on a bad faith nomination. DRV is poorly attended as it is and having to entertain these will not help with engagement here. Wholly agree with @OwenX here re: burnout. yes, we can ignore what we don't want to handle, but does anyone want to entertain socks/LLM/etc. for 7 days?
  • Genuine question/contested close may well take 7 days, but I don't think anyone is short circuiting those.

  I know there's a thread about cleaning up instructions - but that's where we can improve it. Things that don't belong here in the first place are the ones that are closed early/may be confused newbie. What can do we to keep the "this is an old discussion, things change" from being filed here. Is there a quick serve between here and Refund (maybe like at the top of AE?) where they just want the old article restored to draft? Those also don't need 7 days whether it's a new editor or an established Star Mississippi 15:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• My two cents are yes, and no. I think we've seen an increase in the amount of early closes, so I am sensitive to trends (especially as some discussions I remembor go on for multiple weeks). At the same time, I've looked at the recent early closes and even the close that looked the most problematic was the Loveworld Records discussion, and in that case, the closer of the AfD reverted their close mooting the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Just a couple of thoughts. On the one hand I agree with SMarshall and JClemens on the importance of fair process and keeping things as open and transparent as possible for good faith newbies. On the other, my impression is that only a few of the recent early closures are genuinely problematic. Many, if not most are of bad faith complaints or those that have been adequately addressed before closure, discussions that, IMO, are the kind that we all agree are eligible for an early close. The next largest group are those where consensus is clear, either with regard to the specific close or that the issue isn't one properly addressed at DRV. In such cases, early closures is, in my opinion, not ideal but usually harmless. The ultimate decision is not in doubt and the appellant has had answers to their questions posted, even if not to their satisfaction. Still I would prefer that appeals like that remain open for a week. There is no need for volunteers to take time to pile-on an already clear consensus. The last, and thankfully smallest group are those where early closures is truly harmful. Discussions where a few loud voices shut down conversation about how DRV should be used or what is necessary for an appeal before a full consensus has formed. While rare in my experience of reading DRV closes, they do happen and I think a reduction in the urgency some closers feel to close discussion of the second type would prevent most of the truly unhelpful early closes. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No. While DRV discussions should not be closed before 168 hours, for reasons of perception of procedural fairness, because “review” necessarily implies leisurely reflection, and other reasons, there are exceptions and DRV has seen an unusual number of the in the last year. Starting a year or two ago, there was a run of poor nominations written using poor LLM, and these are best closed quickly because they are both: (1) time consuming to respond to in detail, and (2) not a genuine case for review. There has over the last couple of years been a higher level smattering of bad faith nominations, without serious substance, and out of concern for collegiate respect, these should be summarily closed, leaving the appellants with the option to try again. There’s also the case of DRV nominations that should be closed early due to speedy resolution criteria that we still haven’t agreed to, but which we should, which include: speedy reopen of a challenged NAC close by any uninvolved admin, speedy draftification where had the request been put at REFUND it would have been immediately draftified, and speedy send to XfD reasonable challenges of several CSD types suitable for this, including A7 and G11 (outside mainspace). What I think we should explicitly note is that the relatively recent trend of many early closes is in response to an unusual trend, and that early closes should not be accepted as normal at DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I like your list of early close reasons. I think articulating these in the page guidance at WP:DRVSPEEDY would be relatively straightforward, and I would encourage you to start off with a proposal there. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the NAC one, which is probably the most straightforward of the lot. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually object to your addition, as it signals that any uninvolved administrator can summarily reverse a BADNAC. While correct, a significant number of the discussions at DRV are of non-administrative closes, and we frequently side with the closer. So, instead of your addition, I suggest modifying the next item to read: Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or an uninvolved administrator of an egregious non-administrative close, and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer... - Enos733 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with either version. But can we please only add items at the end of a numbered list? We don't often reference a DRVSPEEDY criterion by number, but when we do, it should remain persistent. Owen× ☎ 15:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Either of you can feel free to modify or revert what I did. As far as numbered lists go, I tend to agree, but I wasn't aware that we were using this like that. When I reference list items in policy like that, I've tended to replace '#'s with specific numbers (without objection, generally) when we're calling them out by number. Let's do that here when we're satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to add my perspective. There are some solid reasons to close early.

The appeal is resolved

We are preventing harm

The nomination is so malformed to be defective including incomprehensible screeds and LLM produced stuff.

What is not justified in my opinion is to speedy endorse or close the discussion down early. We lose the opportunity for the appellant to feel heard at the end of the process and sometimes, what they won't believe from the closing admin is believed after everyone else has weighed in. That's such an important part of the process that I ask everyone who is seeking an early close if that is really necessary. Also for a touch of honesty, I don't buy shutting down bad faith nominations, firstly its against accountability and secondly the appellant isn't getting off lightly if they have to check back every day for a week to see the needle hasn't moved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You see keeping the DRV open as a form of punishment for bad-faith nominations? I don't understand the getting off lightly part. Owen× ☎ 09:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I see following the process as sufficient response to a bad faith nomination. Some people need multiple feedbacks so closing early does perhaps take away their learning opportunity. You have been on the other end of extremely self-righteous complaints about deletions too and it is satisfying to have that internal "I told you so" moment Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I know exactly what you mean, and I instantly knew why you added this. It is, indeed, satisfying to see bad-faith or frivolous appellants get their ass handed to them, repeatedly for seven days. I'm just not convinced this is a good use of community time and effort. A speedy close of such appeals can often send a stronger message, namely, that we don't have time for such nonsense, and it isn't even worth discussing. I can see both sides of the argument, but retribution or teaching someone a lesson was never high on my priorities here. Owen× ☎ 14:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Mostly I strongly believe that we shouldn't close early to leave no room to say it was a stitch up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The DRVSPEEDY Linkbox

I removed, User:FaviFake replaced the DRVSPEEDY WP:LINKBOX commenting “grammar (no one), restore removed anchor, and restore shortcut box. This can be very useful for when an editor wants to !vote to close a DRV speedily and they want to ground their !vote in policy”. I disagree with this. It is a recently recreated, barely used, shortcut using the misleading term “SPEEDY” that I already changed from the subsection header. It “can be very useful” is speculative and insufficient for justifying a linkbox for a new shortcut. Newcomers to DRV should not be invited to vote standard lines for early closes, instead, experienced DRV closers should cautiously use their judgement to early closes.

The linkbox is generally inappropriate, because it’s purpose is to advertise the accepted shortcut for editors to use elsewhere. Speedy close criteria for DRV is not a thing for referencing elsewhere from DRV.

Remove this linkbox. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've changed it to WP:DRVEARLY so it's less misleading. Courtesy ping: OwenX since they were the shortcut's creator.

Speedy close criteria for DRV is not a thing for referencing elsewhere from DRV.
How are people supposed to point out that a DRV should be speedily closed because, let's say, it was a PROD and not an actual XfD? By linking to the full path? By trusting that everyone else in the discussion knows the speedy closure criteria by hearth? FaviFake (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

DRVEARLY is similarly failing of the LINKBOX criteria.

People can point out reason for an early close by using custom words when commenting. You seem to have an overly formulaic approach to how discussions should proceed. It is at odds with how reviews should be done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've referenced that section often enough to drive me to create the redirect. That linkbox is useful, which is all it is required to be. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Useful to you? How?

Visual clutter to others?

Why should newcomers to DRV have their attention drawn by a LINKBOX to the explanation of early closures, which should be the exception even if currently common? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Newcomers to DRV will be far more confused if they follow my link from an early close, and not see that linkbox. And since there now are grumblings about early closes, I plan to reference this section far more often than I used to. But I welcome your suggestion below of improving this section. Owen× ☎ 09:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If speedy closes because a recognisable pattern, the response should be to improve the instructions, not to optimise the speedy close process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• How about this case? Normally, I would early-close it per DRVNOT#2 (and possibly per WP:DRVEARLY#4, once the appellant confirms their withdrawal). Do we need six more days there just to drive home the message that the appellant made a good-faith mistake in bringing this to DRV? Owen× ☎ 10:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  In that case, I think it should be closed early without asking the appellant whether they want to withdraw it. It clearly violates DRVNOT, unlike other DRVs that were closed early in the past. FaviFake (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  It should not be closed early. It staying open does no harm, except maybe if the DRV nom User:Smileghozt thinks they have to wait for closure. Reasons to keep it open include giving Smileghozt the usual time to read, comprehend, and respond. They may have something unexpected to say. They may have questions. A big reason to not close early is that a review process should be a leisurely process, erring on taking longer, and needless early closes change the culture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  My opinion is that early closure is neither necessary nor helpful in such cases. There is no backlog (and no deadline). The appellant may have questions that can be conveniently answer at DRV and someone may have an insightful comment that they find helpful. To me this is a paradigmatic example of my case two, outcome clear but better on balance to leave open. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

gotta love the random bolded section at the end of the purpose section

you could just make it apart of the bullet list to be less jarring and because you are already saying what the reviews should not be used for Smileghozt (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't happen as often as the other WP:DRVNOT points, but even if it did there's no reason why it shouldn't be in the existing list FaviFake (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

probably should just be at the top at the least Smileghozt (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Why should it be at the top if it has always been at the bottom? FaviFake (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

so people can see it better Smileghozt (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)