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.
This page has archives.Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot IIIif there are more than 5.
Your thoughts, please
I'm getting representations on my talk page disagreeing with my closure of 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?—SMarshallT/C 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. —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. 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. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
DRVPURPOSE 3
There is some discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous) about 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 VPM.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Samuel Kwame Boadu
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 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. 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 @SmokeyJoe.
Courtesy ping @Naraht who rejected the draft originally. StarMississippi 12:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. However, this is not the correct place to submit a deletion review. Please see the instructions on the page for more details. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 10:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
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".
@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? 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.
“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. 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.—SMarshallT/C 07:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
This discussion began at 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 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 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 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 significant new information are referred to by 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 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 significant new information that should be discussed at DRV?
At present, 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 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:
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.
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?
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. —Cryptic 01:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
So "significant new information" is supposed to be for new sources, but now we don't want to allow it to be used for new sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 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. 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. —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:
More information ChatGPT response to "How to get an article restored on Wikipedia" ...
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., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YourArticleName). 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., Draft:ArticleName).
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:
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?
Close
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. JumpytooTalk 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. 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. @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. StarMississippi 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 (such as significant, newly discovered sources for an article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion less than six months ago) has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
2.9: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old articleany article that was deleted more than six months ago, where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead, and consider sending the article through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. (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? 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Can anyone provide an example of 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. 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? 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. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
How will the AFC reviewer find out about the existence of the AFD? 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. 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. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
The AfC reviewer scripts create a warning about of any prior deletion. 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.
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.
The AFD said that the article was being deleted solely due to lack of sources demonstrating notability. WP:G4"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? 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? 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? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree with this - even if 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. SportingFlyerT·C 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. 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”.
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 significant new information, and was confused by the ambiguous case. 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[1][2][3][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". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I will ask the same question again. What is significant new information that needs to be considered by DRV, rather than the normal AFC sequence? 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. 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.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.—SMarshallT/C 16:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of 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 protected after a deletion discussion, or
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been 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 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 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 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 prohibited content will not be restored.
Obviously, notifying the closer is not required. That's what you meant to type, right?—SMarshallT/C 16:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
correct. will update - 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.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. —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. - Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I've been saying this for nearly twenty years. 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.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.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.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.—SMarshallT/C 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?) 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.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. —Cryptic 18:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. What I understand is that the 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 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Change #5 from
if a page was protected after a deletion discussion
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. 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. —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. 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:
Do you think that would work? 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!—SMarshallT/C 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? 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.—SMarshallT/C 23:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that I disagree with User:S Marshall, but I may have missed something. S Marshall writes: 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 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?—SMarshallT/C 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing wrote: Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter) Why not tell them either to submit a draft or to put the new article in article space subject to AFD? 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Enos733 has, above, proposed a replacement for the two parts of 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.
So does someone have an idea about what the RFC should ask, or should I go ahead and compose a draft RFC for review? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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.
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? 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.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
you cannot get any help from anyone. I hope I never wrote that.
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.
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).
I asked how to get help without first writing a draft, and you said 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 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.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
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.
I could try a bold revision (leaving out the repetition of notifying the closer (since that is already in the instructions). - Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
That would be an effective way of finding what WP:BRD calls the "Very Interested Person". 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. 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Robert, there was a bold change to the language, based on the above discussion, so the RFC created below does not match the current language in the purpose section. The bold edit was announced and no one has attempted to revert it. I do not think an RFC is necessary at this moment. - Enos733 (talk) 14:49, 22 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 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). - 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. 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. SportingFlyerT·C 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 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.
Such requests will be speedily closed.
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. StarMississippi 13:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
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
I read deletion review purpose point 3 as if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);, so some clarification requested. Cheers, ···Peter Southwood(talk): 06:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
This is confusing due to this RFC referring to an old version. These are two completely different “point 3”s.
Old
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
Current
3. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
That one fits under PURPOSE #1. You disagreed with the reading of consensus. You even had some agreeing with you. I don’t see anything here discouraging a nomination like that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Most editors who commented on the nomination before new sources were brought up !voted to endorse the closure, and it does seem that a delete close was an arguably reasonable interpretation of the discussion there given the alleged lack of policy basis for 2 of the keep votes. The close there was explicitly based on DRV Purpose #3, as editors like Malinaccier, Star Missisippi, Cunard, Alalch E. all pointed out.
Had DRV Purpose #3 not been invoked, the article would not have been restored to draftspace. @Aaron Liu whatever happened to that article? Katzrockso (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
me_irlI ran into a wall, did not edit the draft for 6 months, and when WP:G13 neared I moved it to User:Aaron Liu/Contao.@SmokeyJoe Katzro's right; the close of the DRV rejected the #1 argument and found consensus for a #3 argument. (I don't understand the exact logic of that but I've never been one to obsess over bureaucracy and so haven't thought much about it till now.)
The original closure is endorsed insofar as consensus below (with some minority disagreement) is that it was a fair reading of the debate at the time. However, per PURPOSE#3, consensus is clear to allow recreation.
5_template�Sorry for not replying sooner. I accidentally cleared all my notifications (which I was misusing as a to-do list) a while ago and I guess this one slipped through the cracks. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
None of this is about DRV closes. Talk of the close is off-topic.
DRVPURPOSE#1 was a valid reason for the nomination, and it always will be.
If DRVPURPOSE#3 is clear, there was no need to go to DRV. You still can, but you’re wasting your own and others time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
How does a discussion about changing valid DRV rationales not affect its closes i.e. evaluation of arguments brought up? I'll add that the close seems to be a correct summary of the participants' opinion.If I recreate, what's stopping the page from a WP:G4? (Yes, I would be recreating to draftspace. But if I finish soon enough, I'd move it to mainspace or AfC it, and it would seem like a G4 if I did not discuss.) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I think you are mixing up a reason to take a challenge to DRV, and whether that challenge ends up being successful. I’m not sure I understand you.
What stops a WP:G4? A new source with new information will. However, current practice prefers to Draftify recreated deleted content that doesn’t meet G4, and that is another controversial matter. I think AfD should be used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The DRVPurposes are not only reasons to file a DRV; they are also the criteria evaluates against to determine success.Thanks, looking at the G4 wording again it does seem it allows draft recreation especially for explicit improvement. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I would prefer it if all contested deletions were reviewed in the same one (1) place. Optimally, that place would be deletion review. DRV has oversight of when deletion is misused, and can bring to the community's attention issues such as RHaworth's behaviour. DRV has a pool of highly experienced users with content expertise who can give the appropriate guidance to newer users. And DRV is explicitly a zero-drama location.But I also think that many DRV regulars, prominent and vocal among whom is SmokeyJoe, won't tolerate DRV being used in this way. These users only want to review the selected cases they choose and, because they are volunteers, the community doesn't get to force them. Therefore I might have to accept that contested deletions of the kind that DRV doesn't want to process have to get dealt with somewhere else.In that case, when a new user just wants to create an article, they get given a confusing flowchart which looks like: "If there are genuinely new sources, then go to place X, generate a draft, and wait for a random interval before we make a decision, and by the way, we don't define genuinely new sources; otherwise go to place Y, where you might or might not be told to generate a draft, and wait for a fixed interval before we make a decision; and there is no location where we will make a decision before you've generated a draft." This is utterly crappy for new users and shouldn't happen, and I dislike it.—SMarshallT/C 12:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Newcomers need to be told somewhere prominent: "(1) If you can do it, do it; ((1') if you can do it but aren't sure if it's a good idea, ask at a talk page, at the Teahouse / Help desk, a WikiProject's talk page, browse user categories and find someone with matching interests, pick a recent editor from that or a similar article's page history, if it's about creating an article, use AfC etc.) (2) if you can't do it because only an administrator can, ask an admin to do it for you, and if that thing is undoing something an admin did, ask that same admin to undo it; (3) if you asked an admin to do it because only an admin can and they refused, start a discussion at the relevant forum to form a community consensus to do it (and if you aren't sure what the relevant forum is, ask)". That's how we empower newcomers to do things themselves. Ultimately it's all about doing the most you can and the best you can yourself. To reinforce this idea and make it a credible principle, there needs to be a clear flowchart what to do when you objectively cannot do it yourself. —Alalch E. 19:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I feel that User:S Marshall misrepresents my positions on some points:
(1) I would prefer it if all contested deletions were reviewed in the same one (1) place. Optimally, that place would be deletion review.
I am in firm agreement with this, but with emphasis on “contested”. If the deletion, as it occurred, is not contested, then the statement does not apply. “It was deleted in that old AfD, but new sources overcome the reasons in the AfD” is NOT a contest to the old AfD.
SmokeyJoe, won't tolerate DRV being used in this way. “used in this way”. I completely support S Marshall’s first paragraph, read at face value, read with the plain meaning of contested, and so this quote statement is false. I support DRV being used for any and every contest of an AfD, or any deletion, or any close of a deletion discussion.
(2) SmokeyJoe, won't tolerate DRV being used in this way. “won’t tolerate”. Nonsense. If any user in good standing brings anything to DRV, I tolerate it. I more than tolerate it. I frequently respond, attempting to be constructive. If an editor in good standing wants to bring an obscure unclear question to DRV, it should be entertained. When someone brings new sources, but no deletion contestation, I am in the habit of looking at their sources and commenting on them, subject only to my time being available. All I am objecting to is the old DRVPURPOSE #3 inviting users to make an inefficient DRV nomination, and with the rationale that is it wasting their time, not mine.
In contrast, there are some things that I dislike spending my time on, and for these, I do not engage.
(3) SmokeyJoe, won't …. This is not about SmokeyJoe. It is about many DRV nominations, linking an old AfD, not contesting the AfD, but bringing, sometimes not bringing but asserting existence of, new sources, and asking permission to recreate. It is not SmokeyJoe, but broad participant consensus, often to usually, that explicitly states that the nominator did not need to come to DRV, that they had the better option of bold re-creation, or re-creation through AfC.
DRV is for reviewing deletions that are contested. Where is the contest? New sources are not the basis of a contest to an old AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not workable to announce that new sources justify re-creating a deleted article. Because what a new user sees as "new sources" might not be.We need experienced users to make a judgment. Are the new sources actually new? Did they pre-date the previous AfD? Is it reasonable for us to think the AfD took them into account? Are they reliable? Is there new scholarship, or has something new happened? These are things that we need experienced, good faith users to assess. And not at AfC or REFUND because neither AfC nor REFUND have the oversight function that DRV does.It ought to be here, if you lot were willing to do it.—SMarshallT/C 13:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
AfC currently lists 7852 drafts that were previously deleted. 387 are unreviewed. Would you have them all come to DRV? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
When someone actually wants to move one to mainspace, yes, if I was Ruling Tyrant of Wikipedia, then I would have each and every one come to DRV. If someone ever does give me that lofty status, I will also decree that DRV must be willing look at sources and see if they're really new and really a decent basis for an article without the new user having to write a draft first. In the rather unexpected event that DRV's workload starts to exceed its resources then I would cap the number of such reviews per day and put any excess in a queue.—SMarshallT/C 15:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
That dumbs down our newcomer users and is bureaucratic, although one might not notice it at first. When are they going to start thinking for themselves and taking responsibility? "Hey, look, a new source, can I create the wiki now?" ... "How about now, look, a new profile came out" ... "My AfC was rejected but I added great new sources, please look into this and issue me a permit to create the article" etc. Then: "A-HA! User bad, he created an article without a formal permit, he is disruptive" etc. It just can't function like that. Sometimes things do turn out like that but then they're palpably silly. —Alalch E. 16:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I could go to Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist and request technical enablement of an article about Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski, because the individual has become wiki-notable when before he was wiki-non-notable. I could show the new sources and a draft as a proof of concept. It's wrong if that would 100% be refused. An admin should consider the request. It is possible that creation through a blacklist should be done, or the rule should be removed, and an admin can do it if the new facts justify it. —Alalch E. 15:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It wouldn't be removed until the article already existed. Especially not in a case where (unlike that one) the page had been deleted through a consensus-based discussion. One of the maintaining admins (of which there are very few, typically two - Pppery and I) might simultaneously move an article to mainspace and unblacklist if the original blacklisting was a unilateral decision and the admin that did it isn't responding, or might move/create through the blacklist but leave the rule intact when preventing the creation of the page in question wasn't the intent of the rule (as in the recent case of tɕʼtɕʼ); but in general the blacklist is an implementation page, not a decision-making one. Which is why MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Delist BFDI (and unsalt) went exactly nowhere and why Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 25#Battle for Dream Island is headed for unanimity. —Cryptic 16:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Agreed entirely with Cryptic. We also might create a draft over a blacklist rule that also includes drafts (which isn't strictly needed, because you can draft in a userspace sandbox). And also agreed that DRV is usually the correct venue for challenging decisions like the blacklist rules on BFDI. * Pppery *it has begun... 16:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(Just noting for other readers of this discussion that I agree that DRV was the correct venue to bring up recreation of BFDI) Don't you think that you might still do what is needed to create the Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski article on my request, if I showed you new sourced, a draft... I should't be going straight to DRV for that, right? —Alalch E. 16:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd tell you to ask whoever asked for it to be blacklisted. In this case, that would be Star Mississippi. Because A) it's their decision being reversed, not mine, even though I was the one to make the implementing edit to Mediawiki:Titleblacklist, and B) they're much more likely to be aware of all the other related titles that had been created and salted, and the rest of the subject's history on Wikipedia. If they declined, I can't imagine a circumstance in which I'd overrule them. —Cryptic 16:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(Just prefacing by saying that I agree; trying to distill a principle). So DRV is not necessary when the admin who had made a relevant decision to preempt recreation of a page has been talked to and consents with the page's recreation. Then, It can be brought to Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist. And sometimes this will, after all, be the same admin who has implemented the rule. Do you agree? —Alalch E. 16:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
We don't need to be telling the person who asked the admin that. And we certainly don't need to be directing them there first, nor implying that it's the next place to go if the deciding admin disagrees. This is akin to saying "If the deletion is entirely uncontroversial, go to Special:Undelete, not WP:DRV". —Cryptic 16:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need to be directing them there first -- before talking to the relevant admin (I wouldn't have thought so yesterday, but I do now, after this conversation) -- nor implying that it's the next place to go if that admin disagrees (not something I would have ever intended to suggest), but: Why do we not need to be telling the person who asked the admin that they can file a request at Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist if the precondition is met? Is it because the admin is supposed to handle it by talking to you or Pppery and you'll only hear it from the admin directly? —Alalch E. 17:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not that we're snubbing non-admins. It's that we're not deciding whether to do something (except sometimes in our own capacities as individual admins), but how to do it. If, for example, someone wanted to recreate Sanket Mhatre (voice actor), they'd ask OwenX; he'd say either "No, go to DRV" or "Yes, I'll move your userspace draft there" or even "Yes, I'll unsalt and unblacklist, create at your leisure". If he didn't feel confident in removing it himself, I'd expect him to ask for help on Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist or maybe ANI; it would be unusual, unhelpful, and confusing for everyone involved if he instead said something like "Fine by me, go ask yourself at Mediawiki talk:Titleblacklist".But all this is getting rather far afield. In no case are we going to respond well to "Hey, AFD deleted this page, and I came here since it's blacklisted [because it was created at eighteen different titles afterward] and I've got these BRAND NEW sources!" Even if we were willing to deal with that, and had the manpower there to make it remotely practical, it's the wrong venue. Single admins should not be making that kind of evaluation. —Cryptic 17:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree. I think this kind of takes us back to the original DRVPURPOSE#3. It will be that that was a functional and well-worded item after all. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, do come to DRV ... if you cannot recreate it yourself (good faith and marginal competence are assumed, and that's sufficient to overcome G4). So DRVPURPOSE#3 was fine all along and just needs to be narrowed down somewhat. For example: If technical obstacles to the deleted page's recreation are in place (such as creation protection or title blacklisting) and the administrator who decided that the page should not be recreated has declined a recreation request: DRV may be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. —Alalch E. 18:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm in broad agreement with that, with one quibble. For the same reason we no longer require people to first ask the deleting admin before coming to DRV in the general case, we shouldn't in this specific circumstance either. Encouraging it is fine, and it'll typically be much faster if that admin agrees to the request, and if someone comes to DRV first we'll do our best to drag that admin into the discussion anyway; but that admin is still going to look like a distressing authority figure enough of the time that it'll discourage legitimate reviews. —Cryptic 00:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I've been offline for two weeks. Is this BFDI or Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski? Sorry I'm not fully following this but if there's a SALTing of mine that is no longer needed, please feel free to remove it @CrypticStarMississippi 23:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
It was Trajkovski, and used only as a hypothetical example. —Cryptic 23:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Will fully read these threads as soon as I can. StarMississippi 23:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll also add that I personally view proposals to recreate deleted (and especially salted or title blacklisted) articles with much more skepticism than the rest of the community (as a personality quirk that ultimately extends from being autistic and thus having a srict desire to follow the rules). So it's close to impossible to convince me to create an article or draft on the intended target to override a blacklist rule - I've only done so once to my knowledge, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive370#Redirect (and that instance was later deleted at AfD anyway). Which is why it's best for this sort of thing to be handled at processes involving community comments and a formal closure than through one being handled by admins boldly. * Pppery *it has begun... 16:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 10 closure?
It's been over a month since the discussion was started, and over 2 weeks since the last input. I know it's a tricky case, but a resolution would be good please. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Request to undelete UNKLFNKL
My article was unreasonably deleted out of dismissal as I stated in the editor's notes when recreating the article for the second time and would like it re-reviewed as the user sprauge Thomson decided to ghost me after placing candidate for deletion status, despite me re-editing the article and placing numerous verifiable sources. I would like my article to be un-deleted and placed under investigation. Johanxhi (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Please follow the directions to list the article for review. This is not the page for that @JohanxhiStarMississippi 01:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Contradictory instructions for dealing with salted/blacklisted titles
So presupposing that the protecting admin declined or was unresponsive/unavailable, WP:DRVPURPOSE #6 tells editors they may use DRV to request removal of salting or title blacklisting. Conversely, WP:DRVNOT #2 tells editors to request removal of salting or title blacklisting at the other respective noticeboards (WP:RFSALT and WP:RFUP). Is this contradiction a problem? And if so, how should it be remedied? Left guide (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
6. if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting
It’s a lot of words, and for a non-DRV matter.
DRVPURPOSE #6 implies a procedure with thought behind it, which is not true. I suggest cutting #6. If SALT is in your way, follow the usual instructions. Eg read WP:SALT. If the text at WP:SALT is not clear or good, you only make things worse by creating alternative instructions at another place, such as DRVPURPOSE. Fix the instructions at WP:SALT.
I suggest that if DRV has a definite role with UNSALTing, it is in resolving a complaint about a denial to UNSALT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
"resolving a complaint about a denial to UNSALT" seems like a good basis for different language for #6. That item, no matter how worded, should be in, because it is entirely accepted as a valid basis for reqesting a review at DRV in practice. WP:DRVNOT#2 should not be understood as contradicting that; instead, the idea is that these venues should be used before DRV: DRV is resolving a complaint about a denial to UNSALT -- after removal was requested at WP:RFSALT (just noting that this is a shortcut to MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist) or from the protecting admin, or at WP:RFUP (depending on the type of measure) and declined.(But Cryptic said above that WP:RFSALT should be left out because that talk page is not a forum that decides such requests and is just a talk page to request technical implementation of decicions already made, meaning that a request-granting decision by the protecting admin or a consensus decision is generally needed before removing a rule; and, therefore, WP:RFSALT is not something that should be tried out before DRV) —Alalch E. 16:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 4
Not going to reopen this, but you guys should have pinged the participants for this. I had no idea there was a DRV.
Actually I do not really have a problem with the logic Owen used, but I do agree it was more of a super vote than a consensus. And FWIW I had a bit of a discussion with Asilvering on their talk page about this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asilvering/Archive_24#AFD_Relists which could have been relevant in the DRV as well. - Indefensible (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Significant New Information
I reverted a bold edit from October, restoring the text if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; which was boldly deleted on 25 October here. It was re-added on 27 October as if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of article. This was generally discussed above, but the exact wording was not agreed on by the community. I disagree with this wording and generally don't think this instruction needs to be specifically changed, but restoring it to its original version was reverted by SmokeyJoe on the grounds that it was "added after substantive discussion" (we discussed it, but this wording did not have consensus.)
So I'm starting this thread to ask:
Do we have consensus to change if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page to the text which was added on 27 October, if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of article? SportingFlyerT·C 01:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't say so.—SMarshallT/C 12:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Adding a "request" parameter to Drv2
I suggest adding a "request" parameter to {{Drv2}} with something like this documentation:
|request= is the action you want the review to result in. In almost all cases, this is "Overturn the deletion discussion's closure to keep", or to whatever else you think the correct assessment of the deletion discussion's outcome would have been, e.g. "... to no consensus", "... to delete", "... to merge" or "... to redirect". If the deletion log makes reference to a speedy deletion, your request would normally be "Undo the speedy deletion".
The reason for this suggestion is that we see quite a few DRV requests which do not make clear what they want us to do, which makes finding consensus difficult.
I'm referencing this discussion from Drv2's talk page. Sandstein 16:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support. Good idea.—SMarshallT/C 17:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
How exactly does this differ from the existing "reason" parameter? —Cryptic 18:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
The "reason" parameter is supposed to provide the reason why the requested action should be taken. That reason often makes little sense if we don't know what the requested action is. With the proposed parameter, we actively request users to supply both pieces of information. Sandstein 20:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
No, it's the reason the review is requested. That includes what you want the result to be. If you want to expand the documentation of that parameter, which is admittedly brief, that's fine; but otherwise, what would you want the output of this to be? Bolded text stuck in front of {{{reason}}}? —Cryptic 22:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
I sometimes don't understand what the person who starts the DRV wants. Expanding the documentation might help, but will people read it?—SMarshallT/C 22:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
If they're that confused, then another parameter isn't going to help. It's still going to be an extra shrubbery demanded of every review request, most of whose goals are perfectly clear. —Cryptic 23:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Okay. There are two things we want to know: Why they're asking for the review, and what outcome they want. How do we make sure the requester knows to tell us both things in one parameter?—SMarshallT/C 23:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Rename it to something like what_and_why? Expand the standard commented-out text that appears at the beginning of each daily subpage? Give an example for the parameter at WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review? (But many people leave |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png and |article=Foo from the example usage untouched.) —Cryptic 23:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
You know what? I'm happy with any of those.I'm mindful that the reason why DRV works as well as it does is because Cryptic makes it work. Year in, year out, if someone buggers up a template at DRV, it's almost always Cryptic who fixes it. Therefore Cryptic has the biggest stake in this and I'm happy to do it Cryptic's way.Maybe consider doing several of those options, as they're not mutually exclusive.—SMarshallT/C 00:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
The description for {{{reason}}} in step 1 at WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review should also be at least slightly expanded with "and what it should be changed to" (or similar wording; probably better if it goes before the "why" part).Cards on the table: my biggest fear here is that the intention is not to add a parameter to {{drv2}} itself, except as a proxy to a new parameter in {{DRV links}}. That way leads to headers like ODI Global (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD| [sixteen pages of LLM-generated screed] |restore) and I don't want to have to be the one to clean them up. Even if it's just an enforced modifier to what gets output by {{{reason}}}, so {{Drv2|...|reason=All the keep voters are now blocked as sockpuppets of each other.|request=overturn to delete}} ~~~~ turns into ODI Global (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) overturn to delete All the keep voters are now blocked as sockpuppets of each other. ~~~~ then I'd still view this as a net negative, and not just because I irritate discussion closers by hardly ever making bolded votes myself. —Cryptic 01:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Cryptic is the bloke who makes the DRV process work, often by hand. Any change that gets us all the information is a suitable fix for this, as far as I'm concerned, and I hope that'll be a good fix as far as Sandstein and SmokeyJoe are concerned too. Let Cryptic be the one to edit the template so we can be 100% sure it's done in a way that works for him. I agree on updating the page header instructions.—SMarshallT/C 09:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten an answer for how the parameter is supposed to be used by the template. (I've given a couple examples of ways I hope it's not.) —Cryptic 09:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
@Cryptic, I defer to your technical expertise. If you consider that it would be technically easier to maintain a single "reason" parameter and to instruct the user that within this field they must also indicate the desired outcome, that would work for me too. However, a second parameter would all but force the user to do this. I envision an output of the template similar to this:
Action requested: Overturn closure to keep
Reason: The closer mistakenly dismissed 15 "keep" opinions as LLM-generated, but I typed them all myself.
“I sometimes don't understand what the person who starts the DRV wants”. Me too. Sometimes I infer that they don’t either. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support. What do you want? Undeletion back to mainspace? Draftification? Overturn the close and relist? Change the close? An apology? Acknowledgment that you were right? - SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. However, this is not the correct place to submit a deletion review. Please see the instructions on the page for more details. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 10:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
