Deletion sorting after a relist outcome in a DRV

It appears there's no requirement (or even a recommendation) in the DRV closing instructions to renotify projects (deletion sorting) when an AFD is relisted. The relisting often seems to be missed, and this potentially impacts attendance at the AFD. Is there any reason to not this, similar to the AFD creation recommendation at WP:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. I've added some to deletion sorting that I've been aware of in projects I'm interested in - but some get missed. Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Most WikiProjects are inactive. Most article talk page WikiProject taggings are done with no involvement by the WikiProject membership. How often does a WikiProject notification generate input? How often a renotification? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I seldom see WikiProject notifications for most projects, only deletion sorting. That's what I'm primarily referring to (though if there are notifications of either type in the AFD, I'd just suggest restoring them. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
If you think it’s a good thing, do it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nfitz I'm confused. If an AfD has been deletion sorted before DRV, those tags don't go away when it's relisted later. So what change are you asking for here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The tags - which is just text - stay in the AFD. But the deletion sorting lists (such as WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada are not updated to reinclude the particular AFD - at least as far as I know. It's a very manual process. Nfitz (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirecting Band to Record Label

Hello, I don't think the following requires a structured investigation, so I'm simply using this talk page for discussion. I noticed this recently-closed AfD about a band: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockdown Project. The result of this AfD was to redirect the non-notable band to their record label, probably because that was the recommendation of the only person who voted. I have participated in thousands of Bands/Musicians AfDs over the years, and I don't think I have ever seen this outcome. At Wikipedia:Notability (music) there is nothing about redirecting a band to their record label, and in my experience it is either rare or unprecedented.

Therefore I think this AfD outcome is contrary to policy, and may set an unfortunate precedent. A rash of unknown bands could be redirected to record labels which I find inefficient. (Also, what if a non-notable band was signed to multiple labels? Which would be the redirect target?) I realize that redirects are usually harmless, but I think the outcome of this particular AfD should have been "soft delete" based on usual procedure. Perhaps after a discussion here the decision can be modified. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Plus a ping to Liz who closed that AfD. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Doomsdayer520 this seems in the wrong place. I think you want these instructions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I said in my opening sentence that I did not think a full investigation is necessary, just a discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Unless policy says "don't do it", it isn't contrary to policy. It might be novel and possibly unconventional, but that doesn't mean it breaks any rules. I also think it's unlikely to set a precedent or become a new convention that other cases will follow. However I would say that unless there's a reasonable amount of coverage of the band in the record label article, the redirect doesn't make much sense. Personally I would have closed as a pure delete and if you're genuinely concerned, the right thing to do is open a proper DRV discussion. WaggersTALK 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Redundant instructions

Currently, the instructions for opening a new DRV are this:

Extended content
 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages: 

((subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
)) ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files: 

((subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
)) ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

((subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
)) ~~~~
3.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

((subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME)) ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>((Delrev|date=2024 June 23))</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>((Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 23))</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>((Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 23|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG))</noinclude>
 

This makes no sense to me. Step 1 is redundant: when you click the link at the very beginning of Step 2, it takes you to a preloaded edit page... with everything from step 1 done automatically. Copying the template skeletons is completely pointless. As such, I am going to remove it and renumber the remaining steps. jp×g 03:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/DRVClerk.pm doesn't use Wikipedia:Deletion_review/New_day, it uses a copypaste of that page hardcoded into the script, so I've made a request for it to be updated. jp×g 04:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
More