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.

I propose to add the following to the the purpose section:

Present a revised draft of a deleted article for a determination that it may be moved to mainspavce; or sources for a revised version for a determination that it may be recreated in mainspace. If ther is consensus to move to or recreate in mainspace, This should be taken as conclusive evidence that G4 does not apply with regard to the previous deletion discussion.

This has been practice for some time (years in fact) but it does not technically fit any of the listed purposes, and in a current discussion there is an argument that such a request is out of scope for DRV. Besides, as per Process is important, the instructions should match our practice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree, in that there should be a precondition that the standard routes for recreation have been denied. These are (1) Bold re-creation fixing the previous reasons for deletion; (2) WP:RFUP denial where the page is SALTed; (3) Decline or rejection of a submitted draft; (4) Refusal of undeletion to draftspace or userspace at WP:REFUND.

DRV should not be used for pre-emitive G4 proofing. Admins are supposed to understand the wording of WP:CSD#G4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe I don't see why someone should be required to jump through any of those hoops, and i k now this has been done often enough in the past. I am merely seekign to codify longstanding practice. In particular, if someone has created a new draft on the topic of a previously deleted article, believing it to address the issues, why should a wiat though the long delay of AfC be needed, when a not-overburneded forum is at hand, to get a consensus result instead of a single reviewer's view. That isn't what AfC reviewers are primarily supposed to asses, anyway, and a non-admin reviewer could not fully asses the changes from the deleted version. If the page is salted denial at REFUND would be automatic, what is the point of insisting on that when it would just come here next anyway. I don't follow your logic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • • Because, DRV should not be a first port of call for things that are not even reviews of a deletion. Yes, a few people have come to DRV requesting approval for re-creating a mainspace page, but my memory is that these are mostly contentious and post refusal at REFUND. They are also frequently denied. If someone really wants to make the case at this highest court for content, it’s better for everyone if there is a draft presented, so that everyone can know what others are talking about. A test of a serious draft is it being submitted, and submitting is very easy to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, and while admins are indeed supposed to understand the wording of WP:CSD#G4 I have seen quite a few cases whare G4 seemed to be used pretty automatically based on the mere fact of a previous deletion, and I'll bet you have also. And a DRV discussion can help a good-faith drafte know wha tis still needed, if something is, much better than just a G4 deletion would. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • True, I think I have seen a lot of G4 overreach, and definitely a G4 deletion is a good reason to come to DRV. AfC helps too, and for an ordinary topic I think AfC should be used for a review prior to a formal challenge of the refusal at DRV. Using DRV to get article advice is a poor use of DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Cases in point:
    • David Nemer (Jan 2019)
    • TriStar Products (Jan 2019)
    • Plini (Feb 2019)
    • [Kenny Biddle]] (Feb 2019)
    • Howard Edelstein (Feb 2019)
    • Proposed Portland Ballpark (Mar 2019)
    • Mike Schmitz (Mar 2019)
    • Ephixa (Mar 2019)
    • itel Mobile (Mar 2019)
  • An average of 3 a month. I am sure I could find more in other months. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I’m seeing red links. Aren’t red link evidence of the futility of using DRV in that way? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't think so. My point is that such issues are routinely brought to DRV. In some cases the consensus is not to allow recreation. In some cases recreation was allowed but the article was later deleted by an AfD, or the article was draftified and has not yet been accepted back into the mainspace. If only things sure to be approved were brought to DRV in this way, there would be no point to a discussion. The point is to allow a consensus decision on the issue, and my point is that we have been allowing such decisions on a regular basis, as I claimed above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I also submit that the biggest most valuable purpose of DRV is continuing education for admins involved in the deletion processes. Inviting even more business dealing with newcomers pushing dubious topics doesn’t fit that purpose at all. I think it gets DRV reviewers into the habit of off the cuff rejection of their poor DRV nominations. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Such cases should be rather exceptional, and not encouraged. Either the new draft avoids the problem, G4 doesn't apply, and the discussion is unnecessary, or the new draft has the same problems, G4 would apply, DRV will say "no", and a discussion is unnecessary. Sure, admins sometimes misfire on G4, but in those cases a discussion could be had here, resolve the situation, and hopefully said admin will learn to pay more attention. WilyD 08:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• DRV has been doing this for at least ten years. By longstanding custom and practice, it's become an undocumented, easter-egg feature of the venue. Clearly, it's a good idea to add something to DRVPURPOSE. Uncontroversial versions can be recreated directly, controversial ones should be brought here.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• As a newer editor I find this issue confusing, and I think it would be good to clarify procedure. Please let me know if my understanding of current procedure is correct:
  1. If an article is deleted (via either AfD or CSD) and salted (creation protected), and I want to recreate a new version, I have three options (per WP:SALT):
     1. Ask the salting admin to unsalt; if they decline, I can appeal that at DRV
     2. Ask for unsalting at RFPP; if it's declined, I can appeal that at DRV
     3. Go straight to DRV
  2. If an article is deleted (via either AfD or CSD) but not salted, and I think the deletion was wrong, I go to the deleting admin's talk page, and if they decline to undelete, I can appeal the deletion at DRV
  3. If an article is deleted (via either AfD or CSD) but not salted, and I want to recreate a new version (presumably that fixes whatever the deletion reason was), I can just do that WP:BOLDly. I don't have to ask anyone first. Then, if someone thinks the new version is substantially similar, they can tag/delete as G4, and if I want to appeal the G4 deletion, I go to the deleting admin's talk page first, and if they decline to undelete, I can appeal the G4 deletion at DRV
     • Even if my appeal is unsuccessful, if someone else wanted to recreate the article yet again (fixing whatever the issues were), they can just do that without having to ask anyone first, and if someone still thinks it's substantially similar, they can tag it as G4. This cycle of bold-recreation-followed-by-G4-tagging can continue until the title is salted

  So DRV is to appeal deletions, and to appeal saltings, but a deleted-but-unsalted article can be recreated WP:BOLDly without needing anyone's permission first. Is that right? – Levivich 20:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think there are nuances to that last limb. If the deleted-but-unsalted article is being recreated (1) by an experienced and trustworthy user in good standing, (2) who has read the reasons for deletion and is satisfied that they have overcome those reasons, and (3) it was deleted once, then yes. If it's been deleted more than once after AfD or other community consensus, then I think it would be good practice to bring their draft here before recreating.—S Marshall T/C 14:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• I roughly agree with everything Levivich wrote. Ideally, people will not come straight to DRV. Talking to the deleting admin, or creating a new page that fixes the old page’s problem, are much preferred actions. However, DRV is attended by nice people who do not summarily reject premature appeals at DRV. This should not be converted to a written encouragement for newcomers to come straight to DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• If a topic has been deleted more than once after AfD or other community consensus, then I think it is very good practice to use REFUND and draftspace to create a better draft. I think that draft should be submitted before bringing it to DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Or can they just close giving no reason at all? And if they do have to give a reason but fail to, is there a way to appeal that? Richard75 (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Most closers will elaborate when asked. – Levivich 23:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt answer. Richard75 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Richard75: If it's abundantly clear, I think a one-word AfD close is fine. The more complicated things are, the more it's important to explain your reasoning. Either way, if somebody asks for elaboration, the closing admin really does owe you some sort of answer, per WP:ADMINACCOUNT. If an admin flat-out refuses to give you an explanation, there's two ways to appeal. If you believe the close was demonstrably incorrect (as opposed to just not how you hoped things would go), use WP:DRV. If you believe the admin's unwillingness to respond to your query rises to the level of administrator misconduct, then WP:AN is more appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As the closing admin, I have been requested on my talk page to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes (2nd nomination) for further discussion, based on new information. I am willing to do so, without a formal DRV. Do I simply undelete the article and its history and "relist" at AfD, reopening the 2nd nom?  JGHowes  ^talk 19:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Basically, yes. You could do one of two things. One would be as you describe, i.e. start a new discussion. The other is to continue the existing discussion by reverting the AfD page back to just before your close, and doing a normal relist from there. I tend to prefer the later, if it's soon after the original close. If it's been a long time, or the original discussion was badly marred by socks or disruption, I'll probably go the other way. Either way is acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, RoySmith, reverting the AfD page back to just before my close last month for a normal relist to continue the existing discussion, is what I meant and have now done. I just wanted to make sure. The DRV instructions mention consulting the closing admin as a first step before submitting a DR, but I didn't find any specific instruction for the closing admin if they concur with the appeal.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks fine. The only thing I'd add is a maybe link in the relisting comment to the thread on your talk page, so people can find it easier. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)