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.

If a later consensus changes the classification of a source's reliability, such that an article deleted at AfD would now meet GNG, would all previous deletions need to be bashed through DRV per #3 or could an uncontroversial request be made at WP:REFUND? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader I assume you have some specific case in mind? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Just asking generally, since the answer is probably the same for any source in red/yellow on WP:RSP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily - it would depend *why* the consensus had changed. If the reason was that the source had become more reliable, then the source used in the deleted article would still be from the period where it was not considered reliable. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That would require mulling at WP:DRV . REFUND is mull free. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be uncontroversial, until there is evidence of controversy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think we'd be looking for the restoring sysop to make a judgment call. Taking into account the full text of the RSP discussion close, and understanding the background and context, does this request amount to an uncontroversial restoration or not?—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's rare for a deletion discussion to hinge on a single source. And when WP:RSP does change their opinion, it's likely to be a single step on the Blacklisted to Generally Reliable spectrum. So it's unlikely anything RSP does will trigger a notability epiphany. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)