This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Perhaps this page should have some mention of renominating, for example under WP:DRVPURPOSE it could read "Deletion Review should not be used: to renominate an article for deletion" and have a link to WP:RENOM or something like that. I mention this only because I ended up here trying to find the policy on renominating an article and it took me awhile to realize I was in the wrong place! --NoGhost (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think WP:RENOM is worth its space. It was a missing a piece of advice, and its points seem well agreed with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Modified proposal - How about I edit WP:DRVPURPOSE so that it reads:

Deletion Review should not be used: 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (see Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion);?

--NoGhost (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review § Steps to list a new deletion review step 1 states "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly." I think we should change this to "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly." I see no reason why an attempt to discuss the matter with the closer shouldn't take place before a deletion review regardless of whether or not they're an administrator (unless it is repealed altogether). Step 4 already states "Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion". — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• You have a point. Another is that non-admins should not be closing discussions if their close may be challenged, and consequently, this is instruction creep. Can it be fixed without increasing the word count? Can the word count be reduced? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You also have a point. A non-administrator shouldn't close a discussion in a way they believe could be controversial. Unless the system is changed so that if anyone expresses disagreement with a non-administrator closure it is simply reopened and relisted (uninvolved administrators may already reopen discussions in their individual capacity), deletion reviews of such closures are inevitable. "Attempt a conversation about the deletion discussion closure with the user who closed it on their talk page before listing the matter here. This gives them a chance to clarify the rationale behind their closure, amend it, or reopen and possibly relist the discussion. It is possible that there was a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a review may not be needed. If things don't work out, note that you tried in the listing." is a slight reduction in size which may be an improvement. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: How about Before listing a deletion discussion here, attempt conversation about it with the closer on their talk page. They may clarify, amend their closure, or reopen and possibly relist the discussion, negating misunderstanding, making a review unnecessary. If unsuccessful, link it in the listing if proceeding.? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)