Wikipedia talk:Deletion review: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Closer notes: Tony once again shows his true colors |
Adding RFC ID. |
||
Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
|algo = old(180d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no|WT:DRV}}
{{notice|This is '''not''' the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc.}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|archive_age=180|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|
{{nowrap|'''2010''': {{Archives by months|2010}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2011''': {{Archives by months|2011}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2018''': {{Archives by months|2018}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2019''': {{Archives by months|2019}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2020''': {{Archives by months|2020}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}}
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 1|Pre October 2003]]
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 2|December 2003
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 3|February 2004
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 4|August 2005
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 5|December 2005
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 6|May 2006 – June 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 7|July 2006 – August 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 8|August 2006 – November 2006]]
* [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review/Archive 9|December 2006 – February 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 10|March 2007 – April 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 11|May 2007 – August 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 12|September 2007 – December 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 13|January 2008 – December 2008]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14|January 2009 – June 2009]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 15|July 2009 – February 2010]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 16|March 2010 – ]]
}}
__TOC__
== Surya Devan (draft) ==
{{atop
| result = Misfiled, now spam-blocked account. Any established editor is welcome to open a DRV should they see merit in doing so. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
}}
I respectfully request a review of the speedy deletion of the article '''Surya Devan'''. The page was deleted under the presumption of being promotional or autobiographical, but it had already been revised significantly to reflect a neutral, factual tone, with references to notable coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Key references included:
* [https://www.deccanherald.com/brandspot/featured/epmcs-womens-clinic-surgery-seeking-business-continuity-as-it-nears-50-years-of-excellence-in-womens-health-3202809 Deccan Herald – Coverage of EPMC Women’s Clinic, a key initiative associated with Surya Devan]
* [https://www.ibtimes.sg/surya-devan-e-multifaceted-professional-singapores-marketing-management-sector-79319 International Business Times – Profile piece]
* [https://tycoonworld.in/building-dreams-with-precision-the-visionaries-behind-singanhalli-developers/ Tycoon World – Real estate development story]
I had also disclosed a conflict of interest and posted a request on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, asking for editorial adoption or review by a neutral editor. The article had not been moved to mainspace and was under ongoing development.
I kindly request the restoration of the draft, even in user space if needed, to allow constructive editorial engagement per Wikipedia's principles of good faith and consensus.
Thank you. —[[User:SuryaDevanE|SuryaDevanE]] ([[User talk:SuryaDevanE|talk]]) 19:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:No we aren't going to accept this crap, for the reasons already explained at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Request_for_Review_%E2%80%93_Draft:Surya_Devan] We do not accept vacuous paid-for promotional fluff as sources. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::=== Draft:Surya Devan ===
::{{subst:drvpage|Draft:Surya Devan}}
::'''Requesting undeletion of Draft:Surya Devan'''
::The draft was deleted on 9 June 2025 under CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising). I acknowledge the concerns regarding promotional tone in the earlier version. However, I have since developed a new, neutral sandbox draft backed by independent, third-party sources such as Deccan Herald and International Business Times.
::I am requesting undeletion either into my user sandbox (User:SuryaDevanE/SuryaDevan) or for community review by an uninvolved editor.
::This is intended solely for policy-compliant development, and I am happy to proceed under COI guidelines and feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration.
::—[[User:SuryaDevanE|SuryaDevanE]] ([[User talk:SuryaDevanE|talk]]) 20:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::The ''International Business Times'' content is paid-for content, and clearly and unambiguously described as such "Disclaimer: (This article is a paid publication programme. IBTimes claims no editorial involvement and assumes no responsibility, liability or claims for any errors in the content of the article)". The ''Deccan Herald'' content is in a section entitled 'Brandspot/Featured', and clearly written by, or on behalf of, the clinic it is promoting, note the absurd final paragraph: "In conclusion, this center’s vision and leadership has the capability to be extrapolated to accompany the nation in its battle to potentially become a world super power..." And in any case, it merely mentions Devan in passing, so even if it wasn't promotional pap, it still wouldn't establish notability. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense, before I request that you be blocked from editing. This is an encyclopaedia, not a vanity publishing press. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Request to add RAI update to DRV 15 June 2025 (Lorenzo Muscoso) ==
Hello,
I kindly request assistance to add an important update to the 15 June 2025 Deletion Review log for the article “Lorenzo Muscoso”.
On June 16, 2025, RAI Cultura — Italy's national broadcaster — aired a full segment dedicated to the subject within the program *Di là dal fiume e tra gli alberi*. This segment came after the original deletion and provides new, reliable, and independent coverage that supports notability.
Here is the official link:
https://www.raiplay.it/video/2025/06/Di-la-dal-fiume-e-tra-gli-alberi-S7E14-Conversazioni-in-Sicilia-839fcb61-4cf2-4151-9662-6471ca042df9.html
As I do not have permission to edit the DRV log directly, I would appreciate if someone with access could kindly include this in the discussion.
Thank you in advance.
[[User:Marziabiblio]] [[User:Marziabiblio|Marziabiblio]] ([[User talk:Marziabiblio|talk]]) 15:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
== Your thoughts, please ==
I'm getting representations on my talk page disagreeing with my closure of [[Special:Permalink/1312297607#John Fraser (Canadian soccer) (closed)|this DRV]] and asking me to reopen it. We don't normally do that, but I thought I'd ask here for input from other experienced DRV closers. Was I mistaken?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
:Without getting into your close itself (because I didn't follow this DRV as it was happening, and am too exhausted atm to do any sort of intelligent analysis of it), the very ''last'' place this should be being relitigated is in the edit summaries of reverts. Somewhat inclined to protect. Somewhat inclined to start handing out indefinite page blocks. [[Talk:John Fraser (Canadian soccer)]] is and always has been effectively blank; the grown-up thing to do would be to hash out a new consensus there - it's certainly got enough eyes on it now - and accept the current state of the page as-is in the meantime. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
::The only reason I was doing it in the subject of the reverts, is that I was no aware that there was another discussion taking place elsewhere. In retrospect, I don't think reopening the DRV at this stage is the reasonable solution. Some seem to think that the close was "overturn to redirect". However that's not what I read into it. And there wasn't a full discussion of options at DRV. My understanding is that DRV is to assess the close - not to relitigate. However, some seem to have relitigated their case, and because others simply discussed the close, they have had no opportunity to participate in this surprise relitigation. Based on the closing statement, some have chosen to keep redirecting the article, even though others (me) object. Meanwhile most involved with the discussions - aren't even aware of ongoing discussions (I certainly wasn't).
::The solution as I see it, is modifying the close to not to force the redirect. And yes, hash it out on the page (which seems unlikely to get anywhere) or do another AFD - which surely is the only avenue if there's disagreement about replacing the article with a redirect. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 01:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
:It was a fine close. The close reflected the discussion. Subsequently, one edit did three identical reverts and has made zero talk page posts, whether at [[Talk:John Fraser (Canadian soccer)]] or the talk page of the redirect target. They are on the wrong side of BRD. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
== [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRVPURPOSE]] 3 ==
There is some discussion at [[WP:VPM|Village pump (miscellaneous)]] about [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRVPURPOSE]] 3, which states that DRV may be used if "significant new information" has been found that would warrant recreating a deleted article. This provision causes considerable confusion even among experienced editors. There are many requests to Deletion Review to reopen or reverse a deletion discussion because new sources have been found, but the applicant is told that they can submit a revised draft to AFC or create a new article subject to AFD. What in particular is that provision meant to address other than new sources? Since VPM appears to have more activity than this talk page, I suggest that input be provided at [[WP:VPM|VPM]].
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
==
{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Deletion review|answered=yes}}
I would love to request a review of deletion of the article about Samuel Kwame Boadu. The article was previously deleted when there were fewer reliable, independent sources. There is now significant independent coverage which meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies. I request that the article be restored to my user sandbox for improvement and sourcing before being reconsidered for mainspace [[User:Florenceannoh|Florenceannoh]] ([[User talk:Florenceannoh|talk]]) 10:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Florenceannoh]], The delete article is here: [[Draft:Samuel Kwame Boadu]]. Go to [[Wikipedia:REFUND/G13]] to have it undeleted, so that you can add the now significant independent coverage. I recommend that you follow the advice at [[WP:THREE]].
:There is no point in having the 2021 decision to delete reviewed ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Kwame Boadu]]), but you should look at that discussion to make sure that the reasons for deletion are overcome by the now significant independent coverage. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
::I have restored the draft as it's uncontroversial and no need to add to REFUND queue. Otherwise wholly agree with @[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]].
::Courtesy ping @[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] who rejected the draft originally. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 12:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
[[File:Semi-protection-unlocked.svg|28px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' According to the page's protection level you should be able to [[Help:Editing|edit the page yourself]]. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:ESp --> However, this is not the correct place to submit a deletion review. Please see the instructions on the page for more details. [[User:Theeverywhereperson|<span style="background-color: orange; color: darkblue">Theeverywhereperson</span>]] ([[User talk:Theeverywhereperson|<span style="background-color: green; color: pink">talk here</span>]]) 10:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
== Significant new information ==
{{moved from|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#And_the_DRVPURPOSE_3_Question}}
[[WP:DRVPURPOSE]] #3 says you should (or at least are allowed to) consult DRV:
* if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
There is a long discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Electroimpact odd business]] in which editors wonder what constitutes "significant new information".
From a source-driven perspective, I think many editors believe that the discovery of new GNG-level sources would constitute "significant new information" and "would justify recreating the deleted page". However, if editors appear here to say "We deleted the article on Alice Expert per GNG a few months ago, but now someone has published a whole book about her life, so does that justify recreating the deleted page?", then they usually get sent away because DRV doesn't "re-litigate" AFDs, even though DRVPURPOSE says that DRV will look into situations in which "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".
@[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] has been trying to convince me that it could simply be deleted, because there actually isn't ''any'' kind of "significant new information" that the DRV regulars will ever care about, and that their focus is purely on what happened in the past. I gave the extreme example of an AFD whose "consensus" was formed by a UPE sockpuppeting ring instead of by legitimate editors, but even in that situation, he maintains that DRV wouldn't care, and that DRV would treat the blocked socks as still having formed a valid consensus to delete, so DRV will endorse the UPE sockmaster's "consensus". I'm doubtful that DRV would react that way (have you ever seen a Wikipedia editor who isn't willing to poke a stick in a UPE sockmaster's eye?), but it's a very unlikely scenario. It leads me to ask the group: What's an example of "significant new information" in your opinion? Or does DRV reject the idea that they should consider "significant new information" at all? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:DRV is very welcoming. Short of SOCK nominations, applicants don’t get sent away.
:”Significant new information” is usually interpreted as new sources, that if they were considered the the AfD (which happened before the sources were created), might have resulted in a different AfD result.
:If new information is that the AfD was tainted, then that is a reason to review.
:I don’t understand the UPE sockpuppeting ring scenario, and I don’t think anything like it has ever come up at DRV.
:If new sources overcome the reason for deletion, then any editor may recreate the article. This can be done boldly, in mainspace, and if anyone disagrees they can nominate the new article again at AfD. Cases like this don’t come to DRV, because experienced bold editors don’t ask silly questions at wrong venues.
:If new sources potentially overcome the reason for deletion, then I encourage the editor to request REFUND to draftspace, to add the new sources and the material that they contribute, and to remove low value sources and low value information. That is, to improve the draft. At that point, there are a few options on how to proceed.
:What is really unproductive is to come to DRV claiming that new sources exist and asking for a review of an old AfD. DRVPURPOSE#3 encourages that. The problem is not that DRV is burdened by this, or that DRV volunteers don’t like it, but that it is a waste of time for the editor making the nomination. DRV is not required to re-create, and a consensus at DRV that re-creation is allowed does nothing to protect the new re-creation from immediate renomination at AfD. If the editor was wanting or needing advice, DRV regulars give it, but the advice is the same advice that they would get at AfC.
:If a draft is written that is good enough for mainspacing, any autoconfirmed editor without COI may mainspace it. If the mainspace title is SALTED, there are a few options, the fastest being for an AfC reviewer to request unsalting at WT:AfC.
:DRV is a good place to review a refusal to UNSALT, but is not the proper place to request UNSALTing. DRV is not [[WP:RfUP]].
:- [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:“Significant new information” that would be worthy of bringing to DRV might include a revelation that the closer was INVOLVED. However, the relevant information is not technically “new”, just newly revealed. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
*More than sixteen years ago, on 24 March 2009, we overturned the deletion of [[:Category:Senior wranglers]] because of the "new information" that the CFD was simply wrong. It's a long, long discussion but it's got some useful thought in it, particularly from DGG. Let me see if I can link it (typing on my phone)... [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24]].—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::This discussion began at [[WP:VPM|VPM]] when I wondered about the [[ElectroImpact]] DRV on [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 September 29]]. The appellant said that they had new sources, and asked for DRV to review their sandbox. They were, as usual, told that [[WP:DRV|DRV]] is not required for new sources, but that they should submit a draft for review. [[User:OwenX]] then moved the sandbox to draft space, because that seemed to be what was being requested. The originator then blanked the draft. I thought that the blanking of the draft was strange behavior, and I asked at [[WP:VPM|VPM]] whether anyone knew what that was for. [[User:WhatamIdoing]] thought that the originator had done the right thing in asking DRV to review the sources, because the new sources were {{tq|significant new information}}. I think that this raised two questions. The first is what an editor should do if they find new sources to support recreation of a previously deleted article. The second is what sorts of {{tq|significant new information}} are referred to by [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRV Purpose]] point 3. I think that we agree on the first question. The originator should either submit a draft to AFC for review, or create a new article subject to AFD. They may request [[Wp:REFUND|refund]] of the deleted article to create the new draft or new article, and do not need to request DRV. The purpose of this discussion is to try to answer the second question. What is meant by {{tq|significant new information}} that should be discussed at [[WP:DRV|DRV]]?
::At present, [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRV Purpose]] point 3 is confusing to editors who want to create a previously deleted article, because they reasonably think that their new sources are {{tq|significant new information}}. Within the past 24 hours, DRV has had two properly submitted DRV requests concerning articles that were deleted a few years ago, as well as two improperly submitted DRV requests for a third article that was deleted a few years ago. Point 3 is clearly confusing.
::I disagree with one comment by [[User:SmokeyJoe]], who says: {{tqb|If new sources overcome the reason for deletion, then any editor may recreate the article. This can be done boldly, in mainspace, and if anyone disagrees they can nominate the new article again at AfD. Cases like this don’t come to DRV, because experienced bold editors don’t ask silly questions at wrong venues.}} First, we have seen and are seeing that experienced bold editors do ask questions at wrong venues that may be thought to be silly if there are confusing instructions. Second, many of the editors who ask DRV to review new sources are new editors, who will ask questions at wrong venues that should be answered patiently.
::[[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRV Purpose 3]] clearly is often misunderstood, and sends both inexperienced and experienced editors off in the wrong direction. It needs to be either reworded or removed. How should it be reworded if it has any value?
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:Well, on an ideal wiki, since AFD's purpose (at least for notability issues) is to try to determine if sufficient sources exist for us to ''ever'' have an article on a given subject, its decisions should be permanent unless new sources come into being after the AFD. That's what the "significant new information" clause was originally for. In practice, it's currently fashionable to interpret G4's "sufficiently identical" wording so strictly that we overturn re-deletions even when nothing more's been changed than swapping the order of paragraphs and reintroducing material that had previously been edited out of the original article. So we have weeks-long, formal discussions that every autoconfirmed user has a post-discussion veto over if they're persistent enough. At least until an administrator goes so far as to salt the page, which we've mostly given deference to. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:
::But that's not how AfD works in practice. It is very common to see editors say that "the article can be recreated if more sources are found" when they are !voting to delete an article. I'm not even sure how editors would ever "determine if sufficient sources exist for us to ever have an article" given that we do not have access to all given knowledge on a subject or even know what pieces of knowledges exist but are currently inaccessible to us. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 01:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:(And I've seen ''plenty'' of Wikipedia editors who didn't want to poke out UPE sockmaster's eyes. We were never able to get people to agree to a speedy deletion criterion for advertising until it was imposed on us by the WMF's then-general counsel, Brad Patrick; and years later, we couldn't get people to agree to requiring paid editors to so much as disclose until, again, the WMF imposed it on us from above. I'm pessimistic enough about the state of regulatory capture here that I've always been afraid to go look through the usernames who kept us from making those decisions on our own, because I'm half convinced that a good third of them will have been discovered to be part of UPE editing rings and been blocked, and another third were just never caught. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC))
:I think the rise of "significantly new information" DRV's is that sometimes ChatGPT and other LLMs will directly tell someone to go to us if their article was deleted through AfD, putting DRV at a higher priority than AfC:
{{collapse top|ChatGPT response to "How to get an article restored on Wikipedia"}}
Getting a deleted article '''restored on Wikipedia''' depends on ''why'' it was deleted and ''who'' deleted it. Here's a clear, step-by-step guide:
----
🧾 1. Check the Deletion Type
Go to the deleted article’s URL (e.g., <code><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YourArticleName</nowiki></code>). You’ll see a message explaining the deletion reason, such as:
* '''Speedy deletion''' — for obvious problems (e.g., spam, nonsense).
* '''Proposed deletion (PROD)''' — for articles deleted without objection.
* '''Articles for deletion (AfD)''' — deleted after community discussion.
The type determines what you can do next.
----
🧑💻 2. If it Was a Speedy or PROD Deletion
[snip, not relevant to this case]
----
🗳️ 3. If It Was Deleted After Discussion (AfD)
This is more formal:
* Go to '''Wikipedia:Deletion review''' (shortcut: [[WP:DRV]]).
* Create a request explaining ''why'' you believe the deletion should be overturned or reviewed.
* Provide new evidence — such as new '''independent reliable sources''' showing notability, or if the deletion process had errors.
Community members will comment, and an admin will close the review based on consensus.
----
🧱 4. If You Just Want to Recreate It
You can recreate it '''only if:'''
* The deletion wasn’t due to copyright or libel, '''and'''
* You can now prove '''notability''' with solid, independent sources (not self-published or affiliated).
Before recreating:
* Use '''the Articles for Creation (AfC)''' process by submitting it as a '''draft''' (e.g., <code>Draft:ArticleName</code>).
* Mention in the draft talk page that it was previously deleted and link to the deletion discussion.
----
📚 5. Improve the Article Before Resubmission
Common reasons for deletion include:
* Lack of '''independent, reliable sources'''
* '''Promotional tone''' or '''original research'''
* '''Notability''' not demonstrated (especially for people, companies, or products)
So, gather:
* Coverage from '''news outlets''', '''books''', or '''academic journals''' independent of the subject.
* Neutral, well-cited writing.
----
⚖️ 6. If You’re Not Sure Why It Was Deleted
Ask politely at:
* [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]] (for new editors), or
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] if you think the deletion was improper.
----If you tell me '''the exact article name''' (and roughly when it was deleted), I can help you draft a polite message to the right place or person — would you like me to do that?
{{collapse bottom}}
:It's not always reproduceable (I tried a few variations and sometimes it will say AfC first), but it's enough to have people start coming here more.
:For this case, perhaps some large messaging telling editors that they do not have to go through this formal process would help guide them to easier routes like REFUND to draft or AfC. [[User:Jumpytoo|Jumpytoo]] <small>[[User_talk:Jumpytoo|Talk]]</small> 01:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for providing the AI output. We can see that the chatbot is reading the ambiguous point 3. It confuses both humans and artificial intelligence. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
*QUeen of IAR and early closes weighing in here. We do not need to waste seven days of Community/Nom time when the core issue is it doesn't need to be here. See today's two closes for the latest examples. I will likely continue to do so for these stale and clear cut ones. @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] I think the ones you raise are different and need the attention. The other opportunity to address in this discussion is the need to send them to Refund for a Draft. There are a number of admins here, myself included, who will restore a good faith request. We do not need to send them elsewhere for the sake of process. Our review is no different to that of an admin patrolling Refund. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 12:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
*:Overall, it sounds like a useful set of changes to the top matter would be this pair:
*:* 1.3: "if significant new information <u>(such as significant, newly discovered sources for an article that was deleted at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] less than six months ago)</u> has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
*:* 2.9: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting <s>a very old article</s> <u>any article that was deleted more than six months ago</u>, where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] instead, <u>and consider sending the article through the [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] process</u>. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
*:(I specify "six months", because less than that seems likely to result in an editor objecting to undeletion on grounds of editing against consensus, and because something like "recent" would just result in people arguing over whether "recent" means two weeks or two years.) Does that sound like it would reflect reality and perhaps reduce the number of needless posts? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
*::I disagree with the rewording of 1.3, because it still will result in requests here about new sources, and those really still should go to AFC. DRV should not be in the business of assessing sources. That is done by AFD participants and by AFC reviewers. I think that 1.3 should be deleted, unless someone can come up with a case that does not involve sources, and then maybe 1.3 can be reworked to describe the example. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:Can anyone provide an example of {{tq|significant new information}} other than new sources? My opinion is that 1.3 should be deleted, unless someone can provide an example that is not a new source. If there is such an example, 1.3 should be rewritten accordingly. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::What do you think will happen to an editor with 50 edits, if the AFD closes as delete on Monday, they ask for a REFUND to Draft: space on Tuesday, and they submit a 'new and improved, with extra sources' article to AFC on Wednesday? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:::If the sources were not substantially better than what was there, I would say that in my AfC review, decline the submission, and tell them to respect the consensus at AfD. If the sources were substantially better, I would ping the AfD closer to review. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::::How will the AFC reviewer find out about the existence of the AFD? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::By clicking on, attempting to go to, or attempt to create at the deleted article’s title. The deletion log will be shown, and it will point to the deletion discussion. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::If the article was undeleted, the AfD link will also be in the history.
:::::I’m not sure if the deletion history is automatically generated on the draftified talk page. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::The AfC reviewer scripts create a warning about of any prior deletion. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::So:
::::::* Alice gets a REFUND, drops in the new sources, and submits it to AFC.
::::::* AFC sees that the subject has now been proven to be notable and accepts it.
::::::* Bob, who originally got the article deleted, feels mad that Wikipedia once again has an article on a subject he believes is inappropriate regardless of sources, and yells at both Alice and AFC for editing against consensus.
::::::Right? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Bob has the option of immediately renominating at AfD.
:::::::The deleting admin, or any admin might G4 the new article, and then Alice can take it to DRV. I would probably reflexively !vote: Speedy undelete and list at AfD.
:::::::- [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The AFD said that the article was being deleted solely due to lack of sources demonstrating notability. [[WP:G4]] {{xt|"excludes pages...to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"}}. If you add sources, the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Are you saying that the CSD admins would delete it as G4 in direct violation of what the rule says? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It would be a matter of interpretation - is it not reasonable for an admin to interpret the AfD as establishing the topic has no notability and that the mere addition of sources does not surmount this problem? [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 01:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Why would "the mere addition" of GNG-demonstrating sources "not surmount this problem" of an article being deleted solely due to the lack of sources demonstrating notability? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
::I don't agree with this - even if {{tq|significant new information}} is 99.9% new sources, we shouldn't exclude the 0.01%. For instance, what if a source is excluded for being unreliable, but wasn't actually unreliable? That never happens, but we don't want to limit what people can bring to DRV. It's the last chance discussion for deleted content. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:::A “may be used” list is not exhaustive.
:::DRV will never deny a good nomination.
:::DRV is continually responding negatively to nominations based on the obsolete #3 suggestion, and it would be a good idea to get out of that habit. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*Cut #3. Edit Not#9 “undeleting a very old article” to “draftifying a deleted article”.
:Separately, the REFUND box, “ Enter the page's title: “, “Request undeletion” needs an alternative button “Request draftification”.
:- [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::Maybe replace #3 with “REFUND request was declined”. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:WhatamIdoing]] asks: {{tqb|What do you think will happen to an editor with 50 edits, if the AFD closes as delete on Monday, they ask for a REFUND to Draft: space on Tuesday, and they submit a 'new and improved, with extra sources' article to AFC on Wednesday?}}. I am not sure what the issue is. As SmokeyJoe says, the reviewer will review the draft the following month (not on the Wednesday of the submission), and will examine the sources. There is a step which SmokeyJoe does not mention, but which is the best practice for the AFC review, and that is that the '''reviewer''' will ask for a REFUND to view the deleted article to see whether the draft is substantially different from the deleted article. If not, the reviewer will Reject the draft, but we are discussing a real improvement such as the addition of new sources. There are no circumstances in which either the author or the reviewer needs to go to DRV unless the admin at REFUND refuses to provide the draft. In that case, DRV will not review the new sources, but will simply REFUND the draft for the author to improve. WhatamIdoing has described a common scenario that sometimes comes to DRV because the author thought that new sources were {{tq|significant new information}}, and was confused by the ambiguous case. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::If the article was deleted for lack of sources, and we're allowing people to get a REFUND when new sources have been found, then reusing the same words, but adding sources, should not result in re-deletion. "Alice Expert is an expert in expertise{{dummy ref}}{{dummy ref|2}}{{dummy ref|3}}{{dummy ref|4}}" is substantially different from "Alice Expert is an expert in expertise", and even if you don't agree with me on that point, [[WP:G4]] explicitly does not apply to "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:I will ask the same question again. What is {{tq|significant new information}} that needs to be considered by DRV, rather than the normal AFC sequence? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::Cryptic said above that the "significant new information" is supposed to be primarily the discovery of new sources. That the DRV regulars apparently aren't accepting this constitutes a change compared to 'way back in the day, but it does not appear that anyone here believes there is ever any "significant new information" that is not about the discovery of new sources, and they don't want to deal with the discovery of new sources. Perhaps SmokeyJoe is correct, and DRVPURPOSE #3 should be removed as outdated. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*I think it's usually discovering new sources, but it doesn't have to be. For example: One of those rackets that charge you for "maintaining" your Wikipedia article gets rumbled, and we learn that the AfD nom was editing in bad faith for pay and three quarters of the "delete" !voters were actually his sockpuppets. The AfD process can fail, and DRV is meant to be the backstop that thinks about whether it ''has''.{{pb}}This has a lot of overlap with [[WP:CCC]], actually, in that yes, consensus ''can'' change, but it usually hasn't; and we don't want to encourage people with an angle to keep asking if it's changed yet.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
===Potential Reorder===
<div style="border:2px solid grey; padding: 2ex;">Deletion review may be used:
#if someone believes the closer of a [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions (Nominations for deletion)|deletion discussion]] interpreted the [[WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS|consensus]] incorrectly;
#if a [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] was done outside of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria|criteria]] or is otherwise disputed;
#if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of [[WP:Sockpuppetry|socks]] participating in the discussion);
#if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
#if a page was [[WP:SALT|protected]] after a deletion discussion, or
#if a [[WP:REFUND]] request was denied;
Deletion review should not be used:
#to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been [[WP:SALT|protected]] against creation. Use [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] instead. (In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted. Use [[WP:REFUND]] when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted);
#because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be [[Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion|renominated after a reasonable timeframe]]);
#to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
#to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
#to point out [[WP:OTHERSTUFF|other pages]] that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
#to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] for these);
#to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]] for these requests);
#to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
'''Notifying the closer is required.''' As per [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2020/September#Consulting deleting admin|this discussion]] an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned.
'''Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise [[Wikipedia:List of policies#Legal|prohibited content]] will not be restored.'''
</div> --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*Obviously, notifying the closer is ''not'' required. That's what you meant to type, right?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*:correct. will update - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*::Notifying the closer - or deleter, for speedies - ''is'' required, to the point that it's both in [[WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review]] and in a hidden comment on every DRV subpage right above where you put your nomination, and if you don't I'll eventually come along behind you and do it. It wouldn't make sense for it not to be, because if they're in error and the DRV is merited, how else can they know to do better? What's not required (but encouraged) is ''discussing'' the issue with the closer/deleter before bringing it to DRV.{{pb}}The only reason that the placeholder you took most of your wording from is still where it is because in older DRVs, some users - including, um, me - used to refer to items in [[WP:DRVPURPOSE]] by number, particularly #8. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 17:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*:::Send me a trout. :) We will get this right (my larger point is to reorder the list so that that most relevant items are at the top rather than buried). And, unlike other editors, while I do not entirely object to reviewing deletion discussions that are eligible for refund, I do think editors should be strongly encouraged to go there and the instructions should not bury that recommendation. - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 17:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*::::I've been saying this for nearly twenty years.{{pb}} Wikipedia doesn't have much of a problem with abusive admins, and never has had. But bad admins certainly could exist and one of the checks and balances against that is DRV. DRV benefits from a concentrated number of highly focused, experienced, thoughtful regulars.{{pb}}But to a new user, the deleting sysop is a hostile authority figure. The new user should not have to go on bended knee to that person. The deleting sysop should not be a gatekeeper for the DRV process. It's just bad rule-making.{{pb}}Also, we have to be mindful that not everyone has been here long enough to understand the culture we have or the (typically) mild and prosocial approach admins take to being challenged. An experienced Wikipedian absolutely ''should'' have the courtesy to tell the deleter, but for the new person, that shouldn't be required.{{pb}}On another note, this discussion is reminding me of something I've long been peripherally aware of, which is that DRV only works as well as it does because Cryptic is manually doing the paperwork. Year in, year out. The man deserves more applause than he gets, so thank you Cryptic for everything.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*:That's really unclear. You have to notify them, but you don't have to consult them? (Also, what if they're inactive?) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
*::When the closer's inactive and I notice it, I don't notify. This happened the other day with [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 7#Tai Lopez]], for example.{{pb}}If we're going ahead and reordering (which is probably ok; I haven't seen anyone refer by number for a long time now, and #8 - as the most confrontational, it was the least likely to to be restated in prose instead - is in the same place), then I don't think we need the statement at all. Encouragement of discussion is already at the start of #Instructions; notification is already in the middle of steps to list. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 18:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:Okay. Thank you. What I understand is that the {{tq|significant new information}} of point 1.3 was originally mainly intended to refer to new sources. I would also infer that point 2.10 was added more recently to indicate that new drafts with new sources do not need to come through DRV. However, some editors see 1.3 and don't see that 2.10 negates it. So I think that 1.3 has been overtaken by revised practice as no longer useful, a case of [[Wp:CCC|Consensus Can Change]]. I was working on a draft RFC. I will revise the draft RFC to reflect the '''Potential Reorder''' and will make it available for review as a draft. When we are in semi-agreement, we can launch a real RFC. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
* Change #5 from
:* if a page was [[Wikipedia:SALT|protected]] after a deletion discussion
:to
:* if a [[WP:RFUP|request for unprotection (UNSALT)]] was declined
:Note: If the mainspace title is SALTED, AfC reviewers know what to do. They can ask at WT:AfC. They can ask the SALTing admin (matching instructions at RFUP). They can ask [[User:Primefac]]. They can ask at [[WP:RFUP]]. All of these are quick an efficient for relatively infrequent occurrences. DRV is not the right venue unless there is an active problem. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:Requests for page protection]] is a really bad place to be sending people. The admins working there primarily deal with vandalism and edit wars on well-established articles, not deletion or new page patrol, and won't necessarily have a good feel for whether a decision relating to the latter areas will be uncontroversial. Especially since they'll be reversing another admin's action. I don't have a problem with established draft reviewers asking Primefac informally on [[WT:NPP]] or wherever, but DRV is much, much competent to make this sort of decision than WP:RFUP is. And it's not like we're going to be overwhelmed; DRV used to easily handle around ten times the volume it currently does, at threeish reviews per day instead of one review per threeish days. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:::No, it is not a really bad place. It’s not the best, but it is a good catch for when Primefac and [[User:KylieTastic]] are overloaded and there’s a new AfC reviewer who should be an admin.
:::There admins there are perfectly competent to UNSALT noncontroversial requests by AfC reviewers.
:::It is a WT:AfC matter, not WT:NPP (few new pages are SALTED).
:::DRV is competent, and best suited for when the decision is not obvious.
:::For SALT blocked AfC approvals, WT:AfC is functioning as the best first port of call.
:::DRV does not want to review an UNSALT request by a newbie who has not even written a draft for us to look at. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Is the unnecessary request to get a REFUND/recreate an article the most common problem? If so, we could try something like this:
<div style="border:2px solid grey; padding: 2ex;">Deletion review may be used:
{{info|If an article was deleted due to no [[WP:NRVE|evidence of notability]], and you have found new [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent sources]], then <mark>you '''do not''' need to ask here for permission to recreate the article</mark>. Instead, please ask the deleting admin to [[WP:REFUND]] the article to [[Wikipedia:Drafts|the Draft: namespace]], add the sources, and then submit it to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] for review. |demospace = other}}
You can ask for help here if:
#if someone believes the closer of a [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions (Nominations for deletion)|deletion discussion]] interpreted the [[WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS|consensus]] incorrectly;
#if a [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] was done outside of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria|criteria]] or is otherwise disputed;
etc.
</div>
Do you think that would work? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::Nooo, we don't want to tell people they can uncontroversially re-create a deleted article because they've found a passing mention in some blog. That's not a good idea at all!—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Either DRV takes these cases and patiently reviews the sources that the editor brings to them, or we tell them to go away and use a different process. What we should not do is say "You can't re-create this without permission" and then say "Why do you idiots bothering DRV with this wrong-forum question about permission to re-create the article?!"
:::I don't care which one is picked, but it should either sound like "you do not need to ask here for permission to recreate the article – just go to AFC" or it should sound a lot like like "This is the best place to ask for permission to recreate the article". Which do you pick? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::::As I've said, I think the ideal answer would be for DRV to review all potentially controversial recreations. It's not like DRV is overwhelmed with work, is it? But I also think the DRV regulars might not want to do that job. We shouldn't force them because they're volunteers. If I'm right about that, then the worst case is, we might end up having to create a new venue.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think that I disagree with [[User:S Marshall]], but I may have missed something. S Marshall writes: {{tq|As I've said, I think the ideal answer would be for DRV to review all potentially controversial recreations. }} Why do we need a procedure for reviewing controversial recreations? We have a procedure for reviewing controversial creations including recreations. It is [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]]. AFD sorting results in AFDs often having participants who are more familiar with the subject matter than the regulars at DRV, or than the volunteer admins at REFUND or any other admin request queue. Controversial recreations will sometimes get a second review at DRV, because some AFDs will go to DRV no matter how they are closed. But why do we need a special review of recreations other than AFD? An AFD normally will indicate any previous deletions, and the nominator often will research the history of a topic. If the recreator chooses to use AFC, there will be first a one-reviewer review by AFC and then possibly an AFD. What is wrong with using AFD to review recreations, when it is already available to review recreations?
::::::::When someone wants to re-create an article that's previously been deleted, that's a place where Wikipedia needs to exercise caution, discretion, and judgment.
::::::::Most deletion decisions are the right ones, but not all of them. We need to check:-
::::::::1) Why was it deleted in the past?
::::::::2) Do those reasons for deletion still apply?
::::::::3) Should it be re-created now?
::::::::4) If so, did the deleting sysop make a mistake? (DRV has oversight of this, and therefore has a legitimate need to know when sysops make mistakes. Mostly it's perfectly innocent and not part of a pattern of behaviour, but, RHaworth.)
::::::::5) If not, how should the applicant proceed? They ought to be signposted by someone who knows. (Some applicants might need AfC, or, in some circumstances, REFUND; they might also need guidance on COI disclosures or how to work the UTRS process. There are a lot of things to consider and they ought to get targetted, personal advice that's specific to their situation from one of the highly experienced users who frequent DRV. The AfC people are great, but they sometimes don't know what you guys know.)
::::::::WAID is right that this is a problem. For someone whose article has been deleted, every door they knock on, they get told "wrong door, try this door instead."
::::::::But I also suspect that you DRV regulars don't ''want'' to deal with article re-creations. Do you?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::As I’ve said, DRV is best used to resolve problems or disagreements. And in the process, it is a forum of continual learning for all involved in deletions and the deletion processes.
:::::DRV is not overwhelmed, but that is not a reason to have it subsume other processes, like AfC and RFUP.
:::::DRV nominations like “Please review that 6 year old AfD, because I saw some new sources”, are not primarily a problem because they waste DRV time, but because they are clear evidence of poor instructions. DRV is doing fine, but the instructions need fixing. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::If you want editors to (mostly) stop asking “Please review that 6 year old AfD, because I saw some new sources” this decade, you have to tell them what to do instead of asking at the obvious place (=DRV). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::If new sources overcome the reasons for deletion in an old AfD, go to [[WP:AfC]] and draft a new article using these sources. You might want to request draftification of the deleted article (which barring copyright or libel, will be uncontroversial). Come back here to DRV if your requests are declined.
:::::::No boxes, banners, or highlights. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:No, that would be overkill. It would be instruction creep. It would contribute to further banner blindness.
:It is not the purpose of DRV to tell people how to use AfC or WP:BOLD.
:The instructions should not entice editors to think that “new sources means go to DRV”. Which #3 currently does. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::The instructions should tell editors where to go, when those editors believe that permission is needed. Silence is not going to stop the requests, even if we remove DRVPURPOSE #3. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:::There is a long list of DRVPURPOSE NOT statements that can do that. Don’t make more visual clutter, a new colourful banner box with a NOT statement to go above the DRVPURPOSE FOR statements. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
::::A colorful banner box is exactly the way to get people to notice that something's changed. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::I’m think I’ve seen a hint here that it’s largely AI generators who have been reading the DRV instructions. These “I’ve seen new sources” review requests have increased in recent years.
:::::And the instructions are so badly written that I think few read them.
:::::I think DRVPURPOSE #3 should be quietly wound back. It’s not as if a DRV nomination is required to quote a DRVPURPOSE instruction. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:WhatamIdoing]] wrote: {{tq|If you want editors to (mostly) stop asking “Please review that 6 year old AfD, because I saw some new sources” this decade, you have to tell them what to do instead of asking at the obvious place (=DRV).}} Why not tell them either to submit a draft or to put the new article in article space subject to AFD? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
::We could offer more complex instructions, but first we'd have to agree to tell them anything at all. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Enos733]] has, above, proposed a replacement for the two parts of [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRV Purpose]]. Do we want to ask the community (via RFC) to substitute that revision of DRV Purpose for the existing version, or do we want an RFC simply on deleting point 1.3, or does someone have another idea? A next step will be an RFC. There are three wrong answers as to what we should do next:
*1. End this discussion and do nothing.
*2. Revise DRV Purpose without consulting the community.
*3. Continue this discussion until the [[Day of the Dead]].
:So does someone have an idea about what the RFC should ask, or should I go ahead and compose a draft RFC for review? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
::If this group came to a consensus about how to accurately describe what this group is willing to do, then we do not need to have an RFC. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:::“What this group is willing to do” is definitely a miswording.
:::DRV will respond to any good faith appeal, and regulars will give opinions on the quality of sources and their applicability to the GNG, but it is not the purpose of DRV to be the first port of call for feedback on new sources that might overcome reasons for deletion evident in an old AfD. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 20:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Where is the first port of call for feedback on new sources that might overcome reasons for deletion evidence in an old AfD? The [[Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard]] is closed. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you are confident: Write & post the article using the new sources.
:::::If you are not confident: Write an AfC draft using the new sources and submit it. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::What if I don't want to spend time writing the article, only to have someone tell me that it's non-notable? Where can I ask Wikipedia editors a question about whether the sources I've found are likely to be judged as conferring notability on the subject? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It needs to be put in a draft, or an improved undeleted version, because, source classification, primary vs secondary, independent or not, depends on how the source is used, on what material is taken from the source and how it is used.
:::::::There used to be [[Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard]]. It died for a reason. Borderline sources, for previously deleted topics, by someone who is not sure, and who doesn't want to draft a stub, tossing up sources (usually too many), does not make for a forum that experienced editors enjoyed volunteering for.
:::::::With [[Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard]] having died for a reason, are you thinking DRV should subsume its old scope? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You edited that noticeboard 21 times. The only editor who I recognize and who is still active, who edited it more (#2 at 53 edits) is [[User:Blueboar]]. Can we ask Blueboar if he agrees that the demise of WP:N/N means that source & notability questions should go to WP:DRV? [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::WP:N/N mostly did what the Teahouse does now, namely answering questions from people whose articles have ''not'' yet been deleted, or even created. It is therefore not very relevant.
:::::::::I don't think it is reasonable for us to say that if an article has previously been deleted, and you want a REFUND/to recreate it, then you cannot get any help from anyone to determine whether your new sources might overcome the AFD unless and until you have spent (and potentially wasted) hours writing the article. It's not fair to tell you to spend hours writing the draft, only to have it sit for four months in the AFC queue and then have an AFC reviewer reject it. If it's actually hopeless, we should just tell people up front.
:::::::::(Yes, it's possible to use a secondary source as a primary one [not so much the other way, though]. But the fact that the secondary source exists is all the GNG requires, so you don't actually need anything more than a URL to figure out whether a source is "SIGCOV IRS" for a given source, to use the deletionist jargon.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|you cannot get any help from anyone}}. I hope I never wrote that.
::::::::::{{tq| spent (and potentially wasted) hours writing the article}}. This is why I link [[WP:THREE]], and would tell them to write a stub. “Hours” sounds like they are [[WP:Reference bombing]]. To properly answer the question, “do these 2-3 sources demonstrate notability?” requires mentally composing a stub.
::::::::::{{tq| we should just tell people up front}}? If only! Shall we go through the DRV archives for the sort of new sources questions we get? They are not trivial to answer, not without a draft. But if there is a draft, and the sources are good, few things give me more pleasure than to mainspace it immediately without even posting in the DRV discussion (I’m sure I’ve actually done this).
::::::::::(I would do a lot more AfC reviewing if it weren’t that every decline, reject or skip hurts).
::::::::::— [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I asked how to get help '''without''' first writing a draft, and you said {{xt|It needs to be put in a draft}}. The condition for my question is "'''without''' first writing a draft", and your answer is either "I didn't understand your question" or "you cannot get help from anyone under these circumstances".
:::::::::::So, again: Imagine that '''I am not going to write that draft unless and until''' I can talk to someone about whether my [[WP:THREE]] sources align with the GNG's requirements. Where can I ask editors to evaluate these WP:THREE sources '''before''' I consider writing a draft?
:::::::::::To properly answer the question about whether sources demonstrate notability doesn't require a draft, because we evaluate sources out of context every hour of the day at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]. See, e.g., [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcriptional addiction in cancer]] where last month I wrote "Looking at the usual [[PubMed]] results, I find [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22Transcriptional+addiction%22&sort=date&size=200&filter=datesearch.y_10&filter=pubt.booksdocs&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.news&filter=pubt.practiceguideline&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.scopingreview&filter=pubt.systematicreview 15 secondary sources] published in the last 10 years that use the exact quoted phrase "transcriptional addiction" (three of them in the title of the article)." We don't actually need to stick those articles in any Wikipedia article to figure out whether they meet all the requirements of the GNG; we can look at them and say "Oh, look, this is a review article in a decent medical journal with the exact subject of this article in its title: GNG-compliant and MEDRS's ideal, too".
:::::::::::("Hours", because that's how long an inexperienced editor spends on writing a stub, especially if they're trying to do a good job.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 07:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|how to get help '''without''' first writing a draft}}?
::::::::::::WT:DRV answer: Not recommended at WP:DRV.
::::::::::::There are many possible positive answers. One is: Ask the AfD closer on their user_talk page. Another is [[WP:Teahouse]].
::::::::::::{{tq|'''until''' I can talk to someone about whether my [[WP:THREE]] sources align with the GNG's requirements}}?
::::::::::::That’s an impressively phrased question, quite advanced. I recommend [[WT:N]]. I would be quick to answer them there.
::::::::::::- [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::I could try a bold revision (leaving out the repetition of notifying the closer (since that is already in the instructions). - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
:::That would be an effective way of finding what WP:BRD calls the "Very Interested Person". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
===Draft RFC===
I have created a draft RFC for your comments and review, at [[ Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/RFC on Significant New Information]]. After reading your comments, I may revise or reword it, and may copy it to this project talk page and launch it as a live RFC. Please review it and comment on it here. Please do not vote in it, because it is not a live RFC. Please do not comment in it; you may comment about it here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 08:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
:"'''C''' Rewritten with alternate language?" should have a prompt to suggest specific alternate language. "'''D''' Other?" is probably unnecessary, as the previous three are keep, remove, and change, and there are no actions that don't fall into those three categories.
:I suggest putting the ===Disucssion=== section above the !voting section, so that people can read questions and answers before they read votes. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you, [[User:WhatamIdoing]] - Tweaked. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
== Time limit on Deletion Review ==
I wonder if we should explicitly say that deletion review is only for closed deletion discussions (or actions) that occurred in the past 12-18 months (or 6-12 months) or if the page is [[WP:SALT|salted]]? We do want editors to use the AfC process. (I also suggest we reorder the ''Purpose'' section to highlight that Deletion Review is not for asking permission to recreate a page). - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 16:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:No. We don’t want to make a list of barriers. We should just stop inviting submissions for new sources, sources that didn’t exist at the time of the AfD. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:No +1. Plus I don't mind if people come to DRV to ask permission to recreate a page - if you're a new page reviewer, for instance, and someone's asked at DRV for permission, and the advice is go to AfC and try to see if you can make it work, I wouldn't be as quick to shut it down for being previously deleted. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
==Speedy Closes at DRV==
As long as we are discussing changes to the instructions for DRV, I think that it would be a good idea to add some rules identifying what are currently unwritten practices at DRV that certain types of requests will be closed without seven days of discussion. I would suggest that we add language such as:
A request at Deletion Review may be procedurally closed without extended discussion if:
*The requester is evading a block or a ban.
*The requester does not have the privilege of editing the article in question (e.g., the topic is subject to [[WP:ECP|extended-confirmed protection]] and the user is not [[WP:XC|extended-confirmed]].
*The request is to review new sources or similar changes to the deleted article, and Deletion Review is not required because a revised draft can be reviewed.
*The request was written by a [[large language model]] or other [[artificial intelligence]].
*The topic is listed at [[Wp:DEEPER]].
Such requests will be speedily closed.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
:While I agree and am the most frequent early closer, I don't think this needs to be documented (beyond 3, which we're discussing above) or it will be rules lawyered to death. If an established editor has an issue with a speedy close, the closer can reopen. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 13:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
==RFC on Significant New Information==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1764129667}}
{{RFC|policy|rfcid=9D3BC87}}
The introductory language of [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]] includes [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRV Purpose]] point 3, which states: {{tqb|Deletion Review may be used … if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;}}
Should [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|DRV Purpose]] point 3 be:
*'''A'''. Deleted as not necessary or inconsistent with current practice?
*'''B'''. Retained as is?
*'''C''' Rewritten with alternate language? Please provide the proposed language.
Please answer with one of A, B, or C (or the equivalent) and a brief statement in the Survey. The Discussion section is provided for extended discussion.
===Discussion===
===Survey===
| |||