Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2021/June

The Spartaz project
I really respect Spartaz' long service to this project and he's almost always displayed excellent judgment. He's made so many closes that it's inevitable that we would disagree on a few of them; but over the years, he became one of the closers I trust the most.

But.

At the end of March, Spartaz closed a bunch of deletion discussions with very perfunctory closing statements and then slapped up a "retired" notice on his userpage. He's retired before, of course, but this time he's been gone a while, and a couple of his closes have come up at DRV. Users have obviously been unable to contact him on his talk page, and indeed some users might not have tried, seeing the "retired" notice as meaning that his decisions were unchallengeable.

I think this behaviour is out of character for Spartaz and may indicate some external stressor or other issue. So today I went over his last few closes. Discarding the ones where Spartaz closed in accordance with a unanimous consensus or I could otherwise see at a glance that he was right, I came up with:


 * Articles for deletion/Vishveshwarya Group of Institutions
 * Articles for deletion/ABES Engineering College
 * Articles for deletion/Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology
 * Articles for deletion/Aquib Afzaal
 * Articles for deletion/Noor Takaful
 * Articles for deletion/St Hugh's Boat Club
 * Articles for deletion/Mohammad Zubair (cricketer, born 1987)
 * Articles for deletion/National Institute of Management & Technology

In the circumstances, I don't have full confidence in those closes. But I'm very reluctant to start a mass DRV nomination. Please, could one of the DRV talk page watchers with the necessary experience look at each of them in depth and decide whether any need a DRV?—S Marshall T/C 10:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they're all generally OK. The four colleges are fine because all of the Keep comments are cookie-cutter WP:ITSNOTABLE yet don't explain how the places are notable.  On the cricket articles the point that GNG is not met is not really refuted by anyone (and consensus is > Delete anyway).  I might have relisted Noor Takaful but that's the only thing I can really disagree with. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLS and WP:ATHLETES. Perpetual division in the community about where the content inclusion boundary should go. Wikipedia is bloody awesome, but taking too much interest in the perpetual divisions can create that sense of futility. Wikipedia is awesome, but it is not everything, and sometimes one needs to take a break, try a new hobby. Maybe he tried to push through the sense of futility. As for the articles, they are boundary point articles on a boundary that will never be precisely defined. There are routes for recreation if anyone really wants to. I don’t think DRV-ing them is a positive action. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. If anyone wants to re-create the college articles with actual sources that aren't primary (which was the problem with all of them), I don't think that would be an issue.  As it was though, they didn't show evidence of passing GNG. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Vishveshwarya Group of Institutions should have been a relist - it's asserted it's accredited, which turns out to be true, which could have been resolved with a relist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES holds that accredited degree granting institutions are usually kept, so I think that follows.  I haven't got time for the rest at the moment. Wily D  11:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but that wasn't the closer's fault. Nobody mentioned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or any other relevant policy that would support keeping the article. Relisting would probably have been better but the 'delete' close was reasonable given how the discussion went. I am not sure that an actual DRV listing would be needed here. Perhaps a request for undeletion (either to mainspace or as a draft) can be made at WP:REFUND, given that Spartaz is retired. Nsk92 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't see anything clearly wrong with any of those closes. I'm not sure where the lack of confidence comes from. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lack of confidence comes from perfunctory closing statements against the numbers. It is very disconcerting for the average editor, they look like supervotes.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact the closes aren't improper, though. Not writing a rationale doesn't mean a close is poor. The singular issue here is that Spartaz isn't currently available to explain the close. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * not improper, but yes poor. Closing discussions isn’t only about getting the right decision, but in wrapping up a learning process, and it is important for at least one person. If an explanation is needed, it should be given.  Non expert wikipedians, present in the discussion or arriving to find it later should not have to ask the closer to get an explanation for a non-obvious close. Spartaz was doing too many perfunctory closes against the numbers, and explanations should have been provided. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I am mainly thinking about what to do next as a practical matter. I think that WillyD is correct that Vishveshwarya Group of Institutions, at least, deserves to be undeleted, per the above WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES argument. The question is how to go about doing that. If Spartaz wasn't retired, a request for undeletion could be made at their talk page. But now some other method needs to be used. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious, but... WP:DRV? Regardless of whether closer is still around, articles deleted after an AfD aren't eligible for a WP:REFUND. You'd have to have a consensus here that it should be overturned. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They may be REFUNDed to draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or any other relevant policy is an odd thing to say, since SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't policy. In fact, it's listed at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a section of Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which is a supplement to a policy page. The section refers to a formal consensus-establishing RfC on the topic. On the other hand, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay. Nsk92 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was as a result of that very RfC that OUTCOMES was added to AADD in the first place (and FWIW the consensus the RfC established was that Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, overturning the presupposed consensus of time immemorial.) ——  Serial  16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is correct. But ATA is still an essay while WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a part of a supplement to a policy page, so it certainly carries greater weight. The relevant section of ATA, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMESSAYS, doesn't actually say that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be used in AfDs, rather it says that it can be used but carefully, by providing additional explanation. The specific example given of a "bad" AfD argument given in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is, in my opinion, pretty weak and confusingly chosen itself. One of the RfC's conclusions was that accredited degree granting institutions are usually notable and that sources covering them usually exist although in many cases are only available offline and looking for them requires extra time and effort. This situation seems tailor made for restoring the article to draft space (I believe SmokeyJoe is correct that such a restoration to draft space can be requested and granted at WP:REFUND), while a more careful search for sources is conducted afterwards. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your original meaning. ——  Serial  18:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. ATA is just a bucket list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say in deletion debates, and some of its logic seems very shaky to me.  Even the authors didn't see it as a guideline (see this discussion).—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * People can say the things in ATA all they want. However, closing admins may (and probably will) ignore them.  Personally, I will completely ignore ITSNOTABLE and JUSTNOTNOTABLE "votes" unless they actually hsve a rationale. "This is notable because other things like this are notable" is the same thing IMO. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think they're all fine. I'd maybe have relisted a few just to be on the safe side, but none were closed against consensus. Bear in mind that some of the ones on Indian colleges were a batch of similar nominations with similar arguments made on both sides, so it's normal to take into account the consensus across discussions, rather than the just the individual head count. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * St Hugh's Boat Club could usefully redirect to St Hugh's College, Oxford. Ingratis (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The latest of these is a GA but look more closely. This creation arose from this AfD which Spartaz closed as "delete and redirect". That supposed consensus did not stick as the topic was re-expanded and then passed a GA review.
 * Excellent judgment? Consider their ostensible creations.
 * The previous case is Kane Tanaka – currently the world's oldest person. Again, the ostensible creation arises because Spartaz closed this as "delete and redirect".  And again this did not stick, being overturned at DRV.
 * My impression is that Spartaz is not a good fit as an admin of the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. This morning, I happened to notice that the current top 10 read articles were:
 * Mortal Kombat (2021 film)
 * UFC 261
 * Kamaru Usman
 * Rose Namajunas
 * Shadow and Bone
 * Jorge Masvidal
 * Shadow and Bone (TV series)
 * Valentina Shevchenko (fighter)
 * Josh fight
 * Ashley Cain (footballer)
 * People who don't like such demotic topics will naturally be uncomfortable with Wikipedia, which abounds in them. And even more traditional topics are problematic.  For example, the matter seems like the legend of King Canute who famously could not hold back the tide.  But, I find that King Canute redirects to Cnut the Great which says nothing at all about this and so you have to look elsewhere to find the popular story of King Canute and the tide.  This is remarkably shocking but so it goes...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything of concern here. I might have relisted some of them, but none of the closes seem against consensus or irregular in any way.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ABES Engineering College is also an accredited degree granting institution, so per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the proper outcome would have been a relist, not a delete. Wily D  09:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * These all seem like proper deletions, albeit sometimes with unsatisfying closing statements. My impression is that none of these would these would be undeleted (relisted at best) is bright to DRV. Anyone who wants to nominate these at DRV is welcome to- Spartaz being retired doesn't change that, except thatit might take an extra few days to verify that he's not actually going to answer at his talk page. I'm not seeing why we need to do anything differently to our normal procedures. Or invite silly wharrgarble about Spartaz's fitness to wield the mop for that matter. Reyk YO! 11:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WTAF
Flattering as it maybe to be the subject of a project, this thread epitomises the reasons for my departure and the petty nastiness and rulefuckery over things that are not actually rules sucking away what little fun I had been taking from my participation here. I was astonished, but not surprised by comments in recent DRVs basically saying that since I had quit the decisions I made could not stand (but in a much more judgemental and nasty tone). At least I wasn’t labeled as as someone who wasn’t a wikipedian! And what do I get here? More of the same but admittedly with some nice comments too and without the nasty tone.

As noted, I have been an admin for a very long time and, while I acknowledge that norms change, I have been sad enough to look through the current versions of the policy pages covering admins closing deletion discussions. There is not a single word about closing admins being required to provide explanations for closes, nor is there any advice concerning where and when comments are helpful. I have been closing discussions since 2007 and if anything provide more commentary now than ever before. This harping about my closes over an undocumented requirement is just ... well ... odd. , &.

Maybe I have just been here too long? Maybe I’m no longer in synch with how the community thinks? Maybe you just need a thicker skin these days or people round here just got nastier? I don’t know and it could even be that my judgement has just degraded over time? What I do know is that over the years I have done a lot of good for this project and at one point, when we had them, I was even trusted to close the majority of DRVs but the tone around here is no longer what it was. What I do know is that I deserve better as a person (and like all of you I am not just a name on a screen) then some of the invective and judging that has been directed my way recently. Frankly nobody should come to the site and expect that the default engagement with other volunteers is going to be critical, judgmental and personal. Unfortunately, that’s no longer the case and its what made me question why I should spend what little personal time I have helping out here. So do what you like with my closes, but some of you need to take a hard look at the way you engage with other editors. For those of you who said nice things, thanks and don’t let the bastards grind you down, but I’m not in a place where I can deal with it politely anymore. Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are a number of editors (I am not including the OP of this thread) who need to be politely steered away from deletion related processes because they are not capable of interacting well with those that disagree with them. The community has for many years been unable to deal with this issue except in the most egregious of cases, however. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I should also clarify that S_Marshall is in now way a target for my above comments. Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And it seems like a least some of the sticking point is that we've let certain people say and do whatever they like for so long that throwing the book at the next person to be a belligerent annoyance at AfD seems like selective enforcement, and not without justification. Reyk YO! 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have missed this; I don't actually follow WT:DRV, so I did not see it at the time. Spartaz, I'm assuming the "At least I wasn’t labeled as as someone who wasn’t a wikipedian!" crack was directed at me, based on a late 2012 incident, which just seems sad on multiple fronts. 1) that you apparently took my critique of the facts (Controversial close, you archive without responding, then quit) as "judgmental and nasty" when it sincerely wasn't intended to be, and 2) I've apparently lived rent-free inside your head for the past 8.5 years when, in fact, my Wikipedia contributions have been infrequent and spotty, and I think this is the first time I've critiqued any of your actions in recent memory. I'm genuinely sorry for both counts, and wish you all the best. It's been 7.5 years since I resigned my admin bit. I highly recommend it.  If you do come back, I hope you see this apology, and hope you find something on Wikipedia that's genuinely fun to do for you.  But I'm certainly not going to ping you and generate an email message: if you're enjoying life off Wikipedia, by all means don't let me be the one to interrupt that. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Someone listed Deletion review/Log/2021 May 19 at MFD
They script-notified AnomieBOT but didn't see fit to notify this project. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 19. Anomie⚔ 17:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the nomination. As to notify here, I was under the impression Twinkle informed parent pages of nominations to delete subpages, much like it notifies the talk pages of targets of redirects nominated for deletion.  Nomination was based on ignorance, sorry for wasting everyone's time. Hog Farm Talk 18:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

TheAboLaptopAccount's sandbox
User:Athaenara recently deleted my everything on this user's sandbox because this isn't a web host, and I (was and) can't treat Wikipedia like it is. I want to receive the contents of it back, not on Wikipedia, because I worked very hard on it and need to show it to someone. Is there a way I can get it back? (Not here). Unknown... (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ザアンノウンエディター (talk • contribs) 03:28, June 12, 202 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely the wrong place for a refund quest. You were misinformed. The proper place -- as opposed to this page devoted to discussing the mechanics of a unrelated Wikipedia process -- is Requests for undeletion, which is a page with actual traffic.
 * Also, a reminder: nobody here works for you. We're all volunteers. --Calton &#124; Talk 03:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. You can ask the deleting admin to email it.  You can go to WP:REFUND and ask for it emailed.  You can ask for it to be temporarily undeleted, and promise to tag it db-u1.  All these things should be quickly and readily agreed to be done.  This assumes that you do not want to contest the deletions as justified.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the problem; the editor DID ask, and the deleting admin -- for reasons I do not understand -- referred the editor HERE. --Calton &#124; Talk 03:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. As User:Athaenara has, at User_talk:Athaenara, decline the request, it might be consider controversial for REFUND, and so  might make a DRV request.  The productive benefit of this request might be the community continuous learning about REFUND requests.  Did User:ザアンノウンエディター fail by not being clear about the requesting being temporary or for email?  Does User:Athaenara need a reminder about being nice to people?  Does the community have little patience for NOTWEBHOST material in unserspace to the point of not wanting to give even productive editors a little grace?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As a prominent notice on my own talk page says, "ANY reliable administrator is free to reverse ANY administrative action I have taken, whether page protection, page deletion, user block, or anything else." – Athaenara  ✉  04:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, this is now listed at Requests_for_undeletion for an email copy - someone will likely get around to that shortly, DRV meta-talk isn't required. — xaosflux  Talk 09:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Delete Point 3 in WP:DRVPURPOSE
Should clause 3 in the Deletion Review Purpose, which has to do with re-creation due to new information, be removed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Clause 3 states that "Deletion review may be used… (3) if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;". In practice, editors who request to re-create an article because of new information are advised either to re-create the article, in which case there may be a new deletion discussion if other editors disagree as to notability, or submit a draft.

Enter Yes or Support, or No or Oppose, in the Survey, with a brief statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes, per proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination, with the caveat that I don't hang out at DRV much, so my !vote should be (un)weighted accordingly. But this proposal seems reasonable: DRV is essentially a place to make appeals when things go wrong at AfD, and that's a distinct situation from a change in circumstances. Our process for changes in circumstance of just recreating the page seems to work fine, so DRV shouldn't be brought into it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking my !vote per concerns from SportingFlyer and other DRV regulars, which give me pause. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Struck pernom from indef-blocked editor.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, DRV is not used in practice that way. Maybe some advice could be added for editors who are considering recreation of a previously-deleted article instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: New information warrants review. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There's no point in telling users to come here for that reason if in practice they are just told to re-create the article or submit a draft. P-K3 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. When not salted, the de facto practice appears to be that an editor re-creates the deleted article, somebody zealously WP:G4's it, an admin compares it to the old article and realizes it's different, then the G4 is declined. When salted, the de facto appears to be to submit a draft, an AFC reviewer accepts it and requests an un-salt. Neither of those workflows currently uses DRV, so we should change the codified procedure to match current practice. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * AfC is not required by any policy. It's the default process for non-confirmed accounts, however one can just ask someone on IRC to move a page into the mainspace and (per policy) that's equally valid. Equally it's unacceptable to require it for salted titles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually these cases don't belong at DRV, but sometimes they do. Clarice Phelps could not have been discussed anywhere but here. But I agree that this is a somewhat exceptional situation, and usually DRV should not be involved. —Kusma (t·c) 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per others here, but do try to clarify the road to re-creating an article deleted at AFD. Should editors try other approaches first? —Kusma (t·c) 08:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose As a DRV regular, I strongly oppose the removal of this. While we do see a few DRVs where we tell users to just recreate the article because they're trying to recreate something which was deleted a long time ago, that's the process working, especially if the person isn't a Wikipedia regular! It's not as if DRV has too many discussions. However, #3 has a couple points that everyone above has missed. First, recreating a recently deleted article, even if something new arises, has the potential to be exceptionally disruptive. Second, deleting #3 would probably prohibit discussions such as Deletion review/Log/2021 February 23, which reviewed a five-year-old deletion, or Deletion review/Log/2021 March 9, which wasn't procedurally wrong, but where new sources were identified after a recent deletion. Also, while we generally would tell users to submit a draft, that's almost always as a last resort: you don't want to prevent someone from improving the encyclopaedia. With a huge AfC backlog, forcing an unhappy user to use the draft process or even pass an AfC won't be as efficient if DRV would otherwise be an option (not to mention if an article were recently deleted I'd be less willing to pass it as an AfC reviewer.) What we're confusing here is that many users, generally inexperienced users, will ask at DRV for permission to re-create an article that was previously deleted a long time ago: those DRVs are very easy and gives people confidence that their work won't be deleted in the future. The proposal is based on the assumption that all #3 DRVs are just told to re-create the article, which is incorrect. We gain nothing from deleting this. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but... we need to get a grip on what deletion review is and isn't for. I'm disappointed that nearly three years on from the Aimee Challenor deletion review I started, we're still seeing people nominating pages that they want to recreate on the strength of new sources, only to be told by half of participants that it's not what deletion review is for and half that it is. It's at least fitting in that the instructions, even when read in full detail and full context, also half-indicate that it is what DRV is for and half-indicate that it isn't. I would like this as a purpose of DRV—sometimes you want somewhere to establish consensus that a topic is newly-notable rather than going through the pain of writing it properly and seeing it AfD'd again. Though maybe adding that to the scope of AfD (with "undelete"/"keep deleted" options) would be optimal. WP:REFUND is not like what I mean because it's a lot cheaper than an AfD assessment of "keep" and done by admins, not the community. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming back to add that I strongly support 's suggested new #6 and adjusted #3 from the discussion section, as resolving the outright rule conflict that currently exists. However, I still think it misses out slightly on what I describe above: sometimes you want somewhere to establish consensus that a topic is newly-notable rather than going through the pain of writing it properly and seeing it AfD'd again (i.e. I don't care if an admin refunds it because REFUND is a lower bar than WP:N, and I want to know if it's notable). — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DRV does not rule on notability. That is the purview of AfD.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ...which is why I suggested that as a new option also, but at present you need an article to exist in order to AfD (you can't nominate a deleted article for undeletion). — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we add instead of remove. Keep #3, since it's intended to catch a lot of scenarios, not just the situation described above. Instead of a "uncontroversial" deletions under the "not", we instead "permit" add something like "#6: to clarify when a previously deleted page can be re-created if the page was recently deleted, or re-creation might be controversial." to the list of DRV purposes. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding #6, replace "when" by "whether"? Not sure, but "when" looks like referring to timing, which doesn't seem to fit the second part of the sentence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm with SportingFlyer. This has long been a key part of our role, and I oppose removing it.—S Marshall T/C 01:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is one of the only ways to get the undeletion of something which is substantially the same that was improperly deleted through discussion somewhere (consensus can be wrong or fickle on occasion) potentially endorsed by the community (a hail mary to those with hopefully a more critical eye in some senses is rarely neccessary), and, importantly, thereby make it uneligible for G4 (i.e. it will definitely get another deletion discussion that the nominator references should it be fated for deletion again). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. I will address the concerns of the opponents below.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SportingFlyer's strong rationale, but with Bilorv's caveat clarification is needed. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the first of 's arguments concerning the potential for disruption if we do not have a way to override DRVs in the light of new evidence when that appears shortly after an AfD is closed. I'm not persuaded by the 2nd argument. With respect to 's point about the equivocal wording, is there a case for changing the text to make the equivocal nature of this route. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but... what Bilorv said. I don't think it should be required to use DRV before restarting a previously deleted article, but it's good to have a specific place to build consensus for it should someone want to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reword. New information does not mean going straight to DRV.  DRV should only follow a lower level rejection.  Namely, the deleting admin says "no", or REFUND says "no", or AfC says "no", or a desalting request at WP:RFUP is denied.  It is not logical to review a deletion decision due to new information.  DRV reviews the deletion decision based on the evidence  at the time.  DRV can review the denial of permission to re-create.  IF boldly recreated, DRV can review the G4.  I suggest:"3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, and permission to recreate the page has been denied, by the deleting admin, or at WP:REFUND, WP:AfC, or WP:RFUP."  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are other situations that could fall under this criterion. For example, a DRV with sockpuppets voting to delete, which may need to be re-evaluated if it's only later discovered that they were socks. For notability reasons, yes, the article should just be recreated, unless the title is salted and that's not possible. In which case it would also have to be kicked up to DRV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A DRV with sockpuppets is a matter for WP:IAR, surely, not a case common enough to need codification. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And for salted titles, the common practice I've seen and use is to say "Create it as a draft; if AfC approves it, I'll unsalt it." That shouldn't really need a DRV either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Re IAR: IAR should be exceptional, and where something is non-trivial enough to be documented it should be. That new information comes to light is not really exceptional. The same concept is documented at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and should be equally valid for deletion closes. Sockpuppetry is just one example, but sockpuppetry at AfD (alone) is not uncommon.
 * As for salted titles, there is no policy that requires anyone to use AfC (expanded on above). While I guess no admin is obliged to take an action and thus can always pocket veto, if an admin explicitly declined a request to unsalt at RFPP with the rationale "take it to AfC" I'd say they're making up policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Admins at WT:AfC, User:Primefac for example, have made it very clear that they will quickly UNSALT a mainspace title on request by an AfC reviewer approving a draft, so that is a viable option. It does mean, however, that a draft exists. AfC is optional.  An alternative option is to REFUND to userspace, draft there, and then go to WP:RFUP to request the unsalt. REFUND and RFUP are simple requests with a simple result, and a decline there should point to DRV not AfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly support SportingFlyer's suggested new #6 and adjusted #3 (as seen below) with some renumbering so that these items are next to each other (that is not split apart). --Enos733 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Some rewording of this item is needed but certainly not removing it altogether. DRV is a venue of last resort for undeletion requests that are not eligible for WP:REFUND or where WP:REFUND has been denied for some reason. Here I mean not just requests to restore something directly to mainspace but, more importantly, requests for a copy of an article deleted after an AfD to be restored as a draft or to user space. For example, if the deleting admin is no longer available (e.g. if that admin is retired or is no longer an admin), such requests are technically not eligible to be filed at WP:REFUND, and WP:DRV is the only venue available. We should not cut out that route completely. Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – There are times when content is deleted by explicit community consensus with good reason, and that sort of strong consensus should not be unilaterally overturned without review. Removing this clause eliminates the only space where that review can take place. Did the proposer not notice that WP:REFUND only applies to articles that were uncontroversially deleted? RGloucester  — ☎ 20:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Godsy. I would add that WP:AFC is oftentimes too inefficient for the recreation of articles after new information has come to light. feminist (+) 05:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd be happy to support rewording this but not removing it entirely as there are several situations in which DRV is the right forum to use for this. For example if the decision to delete the article was very contentious then it's probably best if we had a discussion about recreating it. If the title has been salted then it won't be possible for someone else to just recreate it, and a discussion may well be preferable to the decision being made by a single admin. WP:REFUND also generally defers to DRV in cases which are at all contentious, or when the deleting admin objects to the proposed action. For example if you request that an article be draftified for improvement there and the deleting admin objects then the usual advice is to go to DRV. That wouldn't be possible if this clause is removed.  Hut 8.5  07:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if new material and sources come to light, I see no reason to not use that venue. It's much easier to add to than recreate. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the rationale above. Sea Ane (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose but I fully understand where this proposal is coming from. It might be good to add some guidance about when to use DRV for this purpose.  Basically DRV is a good choice when the AfD was quite recent (months, not years) or when there is reason to believe G4 is going to get invoked. But it should be generally allowed even when it's not a best choice. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose withdrawal or close as SNOW opposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose realise that I failed to actually cast a !vote. Some of the proposals are going to require individuals running into a G4, before coming here, and that feels like almost encouraging biteyness in what is already a difficult field for non-deletion/creation adepts to navigate. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
In November 2020, language to change clause 3 was proposed, but an editor disagreed, saying that we want Deletion Review to be as welcoming as possible. The disconnect between the language of clause 3 and the usage of DRV has a result that is far from welcoming; it causes new editors who believe clause 3 and so request permission to re-create a deleted article to be bitten for misuse of Deletion Review.

There are three possibilities. The first is to delete point 3. The second is to change the scope of Deletion Review to consider cases where there is new information. The third would be to decide that the discrepancy is for some reason correct. The first action is the most consistent with existing practice. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC) 3. if significant new information has come to light since a recent deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. 6. if permission to recreate a page has been denied at WP:REFUND, WP:AfC, WP:RFUP, or by the deleting admin. New wording is italicised. Seems like it would solve the problem we're trying to solve. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or we can just accept that not everyone understands the rule that articles that were deleted a long time ago can probably be boldly recreated if the sources are there, and we can treat them with respect and point them on their way. This is not a problem. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Three of seven currently-open drvs are clause 3's. Of them, only Deletion review/Log/2021 May 17's afd is old enough that we normally tell people to "just recreate it". —Cryptic 22:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I, too, have concerns that we'd be upticking the amount of unwarranted duplications with extremely marginal new sources that may occur were we to remove this. Obviously, we get quite a few already, but this seems likely to up that. On top of that, it'd be rather irksome for an editor to have to create a new article and only then get to find out if it would be deleted, which #3 allows to be functionally avoided. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a disconnect between clause 3 and the culture of DRV. Filers who present new information at DRV, rather than an error by the closer, are regularly bitten for misusing DRV.  If clause 3 is kept, then the participants should understand that clause 3 filings are entirely appropriate, and that scolding their filers is uncivil.  Do the editors who favor keeping 3 also favor changing the culture of DRV so as to be friendly to clause 3 filings?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but perhaps language to clarify that clause three is to be used sparingly and for rare or extreme cases is due. Most of the time consensus falls on the correct side, so clause three filings must present a strong case and be thoroughly thought out. Civil chiding is perhaps not unreasonable if invoking the measure as another way to rehash a discussion that does not deserve a second look. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be worded to allow for discussions of recent deletions where new information has come to light? If a page was deleted 2 months ago, a DRV discussion may be better than a BOLD re-creation.  If it was deleted 4 years ago, we shouldn't encourage a DRV discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought. Per, what if we made the following changes:
 * Support your #6, by why keep #3? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Every recent deletion challenge should involve talk with the deleting admin, and if they do not prevent recreation, why DRV?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussing with the admin is not a prerequisite, and in any case, the petitioner may not have agreed with the admin's decision. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DRV requires a dispute to review. If the “petitioner may not have agreed with the admin's decision”, that is a textbook focus for DRV to consider. “New information” is not. You don’t have to talk to the admin, alternatives are to recreate and protest a G4, or protest a declined WP:RFUP. DRV may deny recreation, or allow recreation and refer continued dispute to AfD.  I have forgotten to mention: WP:REFUND to draftspace and improve, or otherwise create a draft, is highly recommended to give the DRV something to look at.  Highly recommended does not mean prerequisite, but be warned that DRV tends to be curt with hypothetical protests. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's where the fundamental disagreement which has led to this discussion comes from. I don't think DRV requires a dispute to review, DRV requires a deletion to review. If something is obvious to the regulars, it may not be obvious to the petitioner. My proposal was a compromise, but I'm not actually sure it's needed if we just clarify that point. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DRV requires a disputed deletion to review. If the AfD was done correctly, DRV will endorse it.  Too often, people come to DRV seeking permission to recreate based on new information, when no such permission was required, and a week or more of discussion by many experienced Wikipedians is wasted volunteer time.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, this is exactly where we disagree. I have no problem with someone coming to DRV with new sources looking for permission to recreate - those are very easily dealt with. It is a general discussion board for problems with deletions, not strictly a conflict resolution discussion board. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirming, we disagree. I think people coming with new information asking permission to recreate are wasting time and space.  If there is no one telling them “no”, then they can, and DRV will tell them that, and it carries no weight because if anyone disagrees then it goes to AfD.  DRV does not AFD-proof the new creation.  And if they did not create a draft, then it is a waste of time over a hypothetical.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If they create a draft for a previously deleted article, the fact DRV told them they could would be of great help to an AfC reviewer, especially considering most AfC reviewers aren't admins who can't see the deleted page. It's not as if they get brushed off with a "no you can't" - typically respondents review any available sources and give a thumbs up or down. You're right it doesn't AfD-proof the page, but it can be very helpful, especially to non-regulars. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The added #6 is, in practice, what we've always used to figure out if #3 requests need to be here. We don't need both; clarifications belong next to what they're clarifying. —Cryptic 15:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As an administrator who deletes stuff, I don't hand out "permission". If someone asks me to use the undelete tool, or to reverse a decision, I either accept or refuse to do so.  I am an ordinary person deciding what I do.  Outwith using the create protection tool I am not giving or taking away permissions.  SportingFlyer's point about treating non-administrators with respect is a good one.  Wordings should not mislead people into believing that they are subordinates.  Without prejudice to whether this is a clarification of an existing point or a point in its own right, I suggest wording that does not talk about "permission".  For example: 6. if consensus to re-create a page has not been reached at WP:REFUND, WP:AfC, WP:RFUP, or the deleting admin has not accepted a request to undelete or re-create. Uncle G (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all requests for undeletion are requests to re-create an article in mainspace. Sometimes a user asks for a deleted article to be restored as a draft or to user space. If the deleting admin is for some reason unavailable or unwilling to grant such request and the article was deleted via an AfD, right now such requests are not eligible for WP:REFUND. My understanding is that the only venue for considering them is DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general principle but this alternative wording would create problems of its own. consensus to re-create a page has not been reached at WP:REFUND, WP:AfC, WP:RFUP - those processes don't operate by consensus and never create a consensus for anything. You make a request and either it gets done or it doesn't. the deleting admin has not accepted a request to undelete - this needs to be if the deleting admin actively objects to recreation. There is one prolific AfD closer who never undeletes articles, ever, but doesn't mind if someone else does.  Hut 8.5  11:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - I didn't see you suggestion that I withdraw this RFC, because I stopped watching it after seeing that the opposes were significantly outnumbering the supports. I didn't withdraw the RFC two or three weeks ago, and I think that withdrawing it would be a mistake.  The consensus is against removing DRVPURPOSE 3 but in favor of a review of DRVPURPOSE.  This RFC, which has now run for 30 days, should be closed in that way, against removing DRVPURPOSE 3, but in favor of a review of DRVPURPOSE.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - One conclusion should be that appellants who are relying on point 3 should not be bitten, and that other editors who rebuke the use of DRVPURPOSE 3 are good-faith in the wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Broad review of the state of the text of DRVPURPOSE
It could be simpler, more concise.
 * DRVPURPOSE #1 #2 #4 #5 all are about reversing a mistaken deletion.
 * DRVPURPOSE #3 is for after a good deletion where new information happens
 * DRVPURPOSE is missing "An unSALT request was refused", or unSALTing is controversial.

DRVPURPOSENOT is quite rambly.
 * There are nine DRVPURPOSENOT points
 * 1 to continue arguing
 * 2 repealed
 * 3 OTHERSTUFF
 * 4 PROD, or if re-creation already happened and you want the history undeleted, go to REFUND
 * 5 = #1
 * 6 = #1
 * 7 = ATD-M applies; go to REFUND
 * 8 = #1
 * 9 New information, and uncontroversial go to REFUND.
 * We could merge DRVPURPOSENOT #1,3,5,6,8. #4,7,9 could be worded better. #2 doesn't need to be stay at the top of DRV, I think it is completely accepted.

A simplified short form would be:
 * If undeletion is uncontroversial, go to REFUND
 * If undeletion is controversial, go to DRV. (the lede at REFUND says this)

Good advice, probably goes in a linked essay, and not in DRVPURPOSE, is:
 * If you go to DRV to argue for a controversial re-creation, it is easier for all involved, you and the reviewers, if your draft the re-creation. Consider the advice at WP:THREE.  Even if re-creation will be controversial, it is probably uncontroversial to get the deleted material REFUNDed to draftspace or userspace, and it might be helpful.  It is almost always a good idea to politely ask the deleting admin.

However, regardless of the above "good advice", in cases of new information:
 * Drafting is not required before going to DRV
 * Asking an admin is not required.
 * DRV may not be your ideal venue, but if you go to DRV, DRV will listen. Unless you are not in good standing.  or WP:NOTHERE.  Or rude.


 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that that's what DRVPURPOSE should say. I wouldn't go so far as to say that DRVPURPOSENOT is rambly, but I wouldn't object to tightening it up.  I would refine your "in cases of new information" to say:
 * Drafting is not always required, but is certainly very helpful.
 * Asking the deleting admin is not required, but is certainly polite, and often a useful first step. It's policy that admins must explain their deletions to good faith users who enquire of them.
 * DRV may not be the ideal venue, but we will always listen to friendly and collegial enquiries about deletion decisions from good faith users who are trying to build an encyclopaedia. In some cases it could be our role to signpost you to somewhere else.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, I thank User:SmokeyJoe for drafting a reworking of Deletion Review Purpose. Second, I will explain that I thought that it was easier to change the purpose statement of DRV than to try to change the culture of DRV.  Third, I will quote SmokeyJoe as saying, "if you go to DRV, DRV will listen".  That is a normative statement, and it has not always been true in the recent past.  I will also quote User:S Marshall as saying, "we will always listen to friendly and collegial enquiries about deletion decisions from good faith users".  That is a normative statement, and it has not always been true in the past.  Are SmokeyJoe and S Marshall saying that editors at DRV should not rebuke or bite other editors for bringing suboptimal requests to DRV?  I agree that DRV should be friendly to editors who say that the circumstances have changed.  DRV has sometimes been unfriendly to such editors.  Are they saying that the culture of DRV should be friendly?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that the purpose of DRV is to find and repair errors in the deletion process. If we're unwelcoming, people won't want to bring errors to us, so we won't find them and we'll fall at the first hurdle.  It follows that to be unwelcoming is to undermine the purpose of DRV.
 * For this reason I think that DRV should be collegial, respectful, and keen to listen to good faith editors. We're not required to be "friendly" specifically, but there's no reason not to be.  I think that historically we were better at this than we are now.
 * I'd prefer that DRV participants were less curt and less formal at DRV than is the current norm, and that more of our replies should demonstrate that we have read and considered the nomination statement as well as the deletion discussion.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we give useful advice at DRV, but DRV would be aware of the limits of its scope. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - On 17 May 2021, an editor said, about a request to restore Zach Everson, "This is not what deletion review is for." But the filing was exactly what point 3 is about.  So either point 3 is obsolete, or that comment was mistaken.  This isn't the first time that a filer has been rebuked for a point 3 filing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DRVPURPOSE #3 sits odd with DRVPURPOSENOT #9. Some improvement needs doing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have written a proposed rewrite of DRVPURPOSE at Deletion review/Purpose 29 May 2021. Transcluding below: --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Further comment on the above: The old DRVPURPOSE has too many overlapping words.  Too many words means both that (a) they probably wont be read; and (b) it is hard to find relevant stuff.  The proposed new #2 implicitly covers the case of a denied deSALTing.  The grey italics are for removal if agreed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you made "what DRV is for" far too simple, but I completely support making the "what DRV is not for" simpler. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it too simple, though? I think disputed deletions is what we do, and I can't think of any kind of disputed deletion that would be better placed at any other venue.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I strongly prefer the current wording to this concise version. I think it explains what we do much better. I'll have a crack to present another version - don't have the time at this very moment. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think for instructions, less words is better, and every extra word and clause needs good justification. The more words, the less likely they’ll be read, and if read, the more likely they’ll be misread. It’s not the role of DRVPURPOSE to explain what DRV does. The role of DRVPURPOSE is to help someone contemplating DRV to know whether that are in the right or wrong place. They’ll find out soon enough what DRV does. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with here.  The NOT part looks very strong. The "what DRV is for" is too vague in places.  "A deletion discussion was closed incorrectly" is too vague--we mean things like closer error, not incorrect in the sense the user disagrees with the outcome, and we should be clear and not assume people will read the NOT part once they found a match in the first part.  Hobit (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You think “a deletion discussion was closed incorrectly” implies “user disagrees with the outcome”? I sure don’t. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's clearly vague - again, we're writing for new users here, who won't understand the difference between "I disagree with the outcome" and "the closer erred." The simpler text does not do that. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You think “if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly” is substantially clearer than “A deletion discussion was closed incorrectly”? I don’t. I don’t think DRVPURPOSE is the place to assert that WP:Consensus is the policy for how to correctly close deletion discussions, or that a review of a close of a deletion discussion has to be articulated in terms from WP:Consensus.  I don’t think it matters why the close was incorrect, DRV is a venue to review it.  I don’t think the simpler text is “vague”, I consider it less restrictive, and easier to read an interpret. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The former is more specific. If I'm at DRV for the first time, "closed incorrectly" is vague. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose proceeding against the objections of Hobit and SportingFlyer, because their “too vague” objects are “too vague”. It is better for the purpose to err on the side of “too vague” because overly detailed or overly specific can be read as excluding anything not specified as within scope, and DRV should be broad for things raised, outside of the frequent nominations that are ill-considered that are best covered under DRVPURPOSENOT or advice.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, although I agree with you, I can also see that while you do have consensus to make the proposed changes to "DRV is not for", you don't have consensus to make the other changes you suggest.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not for *me* to have consensus, but is a decision for what are *we* going to do. The DRVPURPOSENOT rewrite cannot proceed without the DRVPURPOSE rewrite, because several points are reworked collectively, with swapping.  I think there is a case to proceed because the “too vague” objections are not substantive.  A broad statement of purpose, basically disputed deletions and controversial recreations, *is* a good brief description of everything ever entertained at DRV.  Most people explicitly want DRV to be permissive to nominations, and this is well achieved by the broad statement of purpose, and is well balanced by the apparently agreed DRVPURPOSENOT and DRVPURPOSEADVICE.
 * Are the two objections substantive objections? Or are they statements of hestitency, reserving the option to improve the text later?  Giving the objectors time to explain is not proving productive.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to improving DRVPURPOSENOT, but the DRVPURPOSE is still vague and unclear to users who might be unfamiliar with DRV. I do not think there's consensus yet and will revert if you change it, but I think we're getting closer. I also have no idea what's not substantive about the opposition. Enos733's comments below to retain that line makes sense. "A speedy deletion did not meet the criteria" words the first part of the sentence better, but eliminates the very important "or is otherwise disputed." "There were substantial procedural failures" makes no sense. We have to define that the procedural failure occurred during a deletion discussion or a speedy deletion - it is only obvious to us because we're regulars, even though it's under the "disputed deletions" tab. We also lose #3 completely. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not have to detail every possible procedural failure, you’re asking for a bureaucratic nonsense. No. It is the job of the DRV nominator to detail the procedural failure.
 * #3 “if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page” This would be the crux.  This is NOT good reason to come to DRV, unless it is controversial. Compare with the current #9 “ for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead”.  The proposed “ Requests for re-creation, where the case is controversial” covers it perfectly. If you don’t think it is controversial, don’t go to DRV, go to REFUND and the further advice there. If you do think it is controversial, then DRV, as per the instruction at REFUND.
 * If you think you can word it better, why don’t you give it a go? Or do you think the status quo is good enough, wordy, redundant, and with contradictions, and repeatedly supporting waste of time nominations? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the current wording of the DRVPURPOSE part. I've also gone on the record saying I don't think we have a problem of "waste of time nominations." You're assuming a lot of a random editor to know the difference between controversial and uncontroversial. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SportingFlyer, I have edited the proposed rewrite here. I don't agree that the more concise wording is any less complicated for anyone who would be reading it, but neither do I read anything wrong with the old text.  Except #4 "if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted", which I don't think is worth keeping, but maybe someone can explain what it means that I don't see.  If someone can't tell what has been deleted, then they need to ask, not start a DRV nomination.
 * Please review and consider editing to fix your concerns. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because #2 is redundant with #1 and should be removed, leaving the current #3 as #2. SportingFlyer, it would really help if you would please kindly supply a draft showing your preferred wording.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I Support the above as much better than the current wording, and in line with practice. I seem to recall that most of DRVPURPOSE and DRVPURPOSENOT were written long before draft space existed. The climate around AfD has changed over the years, and the deletionist/inclusionist wars seem to have simmered down to agreeing that most marginally non-notable things get merged or redirected like WP:ATD has said all along. Hobit's suggestion for further refinement also has merit.  And, in closing, Get off my lawn. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SupportSmokeyJoe's proposed rewite with retention of the existing DRV purpose "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" instead of “A deletion discussion was closed incorrectly” --Enos733 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, the two say the same thing, except verbosity and that the first pointlessly raises a notion of a third party random “someone”. How about “The closer of a deletion discussion interpreted consensus incorrectly”. Remove “the” from “the consensus” because it should not be presumed that the discussion produced a consensus, indeed most DRV discussions feature no consensus. I note that (1c) can be taken to cover cases that are not subject to interpretations of WP:Consensus or WP:Closing discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Enos733, I made the following edit to the proposed new text here. Please review, and improve on it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer's proposal
Deletion review may be used:
 * 1. to review whether a closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus correctly;
 * 2. to review disputed speedy deletions;
 * 3. to review substantial procedural errors in the deletion process;
 * 4. to review any information not available at the time of deletion which would justify recreating the deleted page;
 * however, if the deletion is old and re-creation uncontroversial, you may use WP:REFUND or simply re-create the article from scratch. See WP:DRVNOT #2d.

Deletion review should not be used:
 * 1. to review disagreements with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
 * 2. to review deletions in the scope of Requests for undeletion, including:
 * a. pages which were deleted via the proposed deletion process;
 * b. history-only undeletions, where a deleted article's history gets restored behind a new, improved version of the page;
 * c. requests to re-use previously deleted content on other pages;
 * d. for undeleting very old articles where substantial new sources have become available.


 * 3. for requests that simply continue the deletion discussion, argue technicalities (such as a discussion being closed ten minutes early), or attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a clearer re-write that doesn't substantially change DRV's scope. Can see a couple spots where I might make small changes, but am happy with this draft. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Merging the SportingFlyer and SmokeyJoe proposals
I get:

I like that.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't support this compromise, it introduces far too many issues. DRV#2 would disallow disputed speedy deletions that were done within the criteria. DRV#3 seems to lower the standard of "procedural errors" for review. DRV#4 is not It requires the definition of "controversial" versus "uncontroversial" which is unclear, and says REFUND "may be" the better venue, which is wishy-washy. While the "however..." sentence in my proposal does require an understanding of "uncontroversial," I think this can easily be defined further, as in the page isn't salted or hasn't been deleted multiple times, which isn't the case in the clarification sentence. DRVNOT#1 isn't clear enough - "after consensus has been determined" may imply that the DRV closer's determination is final. DRVNOT#2 - isn't that exactly the purpose of DRV, to determine whether consensus was judged incorrectly? I also don't like the wording in DRVNOT#3a. I do like the reword at DRVNOT#3d. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Implementing the WP:DRVPURPOSE rewrite
Per 's close, there is a rough consensus to re-write DRVPURPOSE. At the time of the close though there were multiple competing proposals, all of which agree a rewrite to DRVPURPOSE is necessary. I'm starting this discussion here in order to facilitate discussion for the new DRVPURPOSE. One of the biggest issues here is that there's really not that many users commenting on the process. Since there are currently three competing proposals proposals, perhaps we break this down into chunks in order to gain consensus, and then start an RfC advertised at the village pump? SportingFlyer  T · C  12:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DRV should STOP the scope creep into becoming a gateway for non-controversial recreations. The word “controversial” belongs in any statement of purpose concerning new information.  Without controversy, if the reasons for deletion have been overcome by new information or sources, then DRV is not appropriate. Any editor may recreate. New editors without confidence can use WP:AfC.  New users who don’t know what controversial means should ask.
 * DRV should not be doing source analysis except to resolve a dispute.
 * The deeper valuable purpose of DRV is ongoing education of closers, where the closer strays from community expectations. If there is no review action, then it is not deletion review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ”to review any information not available at the time of deletion which would justify recreating the deleted page” is the result of scope creep. DRV should instead review the decision to deny recreation, whether it is a refused desalt, or a G4 deletion, or an AfC failure to approve a submission to recreate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This really wasn't what I was after with starting this section, especially considering consensus was just found against removing #3 (nor do I agree with you on this). There's some clear areas where the DRVPURPOSE wording can be improved, especially clustering the WP:REFUND requests - my goal here is to agree on what's not controversial, so we can make those improvements. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DRVPURPOSE#3 is controversial. I think we’ve mostly agreed that it should be about controversial recreations, except you disagree. On all of your disagreements with mine and S Marshall’s proposed rewrites, I disagree right back, or at least don’t understand what you say.  I worry that a wholesale rewrite that ignores the problem with #3 will only further cement the current word of #3, and I think that is your objective.  Can I ask, why do you think DRV should entertain recreation requests without a dispute of controversy being on the table? SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If something's been deleted, that is itself a controversy - someone thought an article could be created on the site, and someone else decided, for whatever reason, that there shouldn't be an article. I'm actually not fighting for #3 as much as I'm fighting for clarity over when DRV should be used. For instance, I don't like the "for example," wording because I think anything at DRV should fall neatly and clearly into one of the categories. I also agree DRV isn't necessarily needed for permission to re-create old articles, but I also don't see any major issue with telling the petitioner that they can go ahead and create the article, since that gives at least some semblance of confidence their work won't be deleted again. DRV only gets a couple of requests a day at most, and the users who typically ask for permission typically either aren't admins or experienced editors, or have a very specific request. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I'd prefer "disputed" rather than "controversial", mainly because of brevity. I disagree with SJ when he says DRV "shouldn't be doing source analysis", because source analysis is so central to the task of writing an encyclopaedia that it's on-topic virtually anywhere.  What we shouldn't (normally) be doing is relitigating the XfD, but where a good faith user is making a credible case that XfD got the source analysis wrong, then I do think DRV needs to redo the source analysis.  I don't understand why SF is "fighting for clarity over when DRV should be used".  It's a venue for reviewing deletions.  We don't have a problem with people bringing the wrong discussions here.  When it does happen we signpost them.Let's stop bikeshedding about the exact wording: bikeshedding on talk pages is a terrible way to write.  SJ should be allowed to make incremental changes at a leisurely pace directly in the policy, and if SF sees changes he doesn't like, then he can make his own incremental changes, but please, SF, without reverting to the version that (per consensus) we're abandoning.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 01:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to go with "disputed" over "controversial". To ask for a review, there needs to be a dispute, or disagreement, but that dispute does not need to be controversial.  In fact, the collegiality at DRV is one of its outstanding features.
 * I could explain what I mean better on "DRV shouldn't be doing source analysis". What I mean is that re-creation after deletion on the basis of new sources that overcome the reason for deletion should not require the article proponent to being the sources to DRV for analysis.  The new source analysis can be done at AfC, or the draft talk page, or RfUP, or the admin's talk page.  The dispute would then be that the admin has mis-judged the sources, and then yes, DRV participants will re-do the source analysis, as we often do.
 * I am generally very happy with S Marshall's copy editing, and I really wish we could move forwards. I am very impressed with S Marshall's "Advice" section and I think it likely to make a huge difference to editors who read it.
 * Some pedantry: The DRVPURPOSE subpage is not policy, and neither is WP:DRV.  DRVPURPOSE is mean to to be helpful text, and DRV itself is a process page.  The relevant policy is WP:Deletion policy.  Was it properly deleted as it should have been?  Is it right to keep it deleted? Did the admin, or closer, do things right? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify what I mean by "fighting for clarity:" right now, someone who isn't familiar with DRV can read the guidelines and know exactly when to/when to not use DRV. I fear that making the guidelines less specific will lead to more "It's a disputed deletion because I don't like the outcome!" The current guidelines only have two problems as I see them: first, the guidance on restoring very old deletions isn't clear, and second, DRVNOT is a mess. You could also add the fact DRV#4 is never used, but that's not even really a problem. If we're going to do this incrementally, the first clear change we can make is grouping all of the WP:REFUND-related DRVNOT prongs. We could also add text above the box saying deleted content that you wish to restore can be handled in one of three ways: DRV, REFUND or article re-creation without restoration, here's when to use DRV. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I find our current guidelines hyperdetailed, incredibly specific, and so long that they defend themselves through sheer verbosity against ever being read. I think the idea that someone who doesn't like an AfD outcome will wade through all that cruft to make sure it's OK to raise a DRV is a bit hopeful.  Brevity will serve us a lot better.  Please kick us off by making whatever changes you're willing to allow.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we could change tact entirely, and I have an idea there, but I'm up too late. Until then, I think an uncontroversial change is adding in your text grouping WP:REFUND: 3. Reviewing uncontroversial requests that are within the scope of WP:REFUND, such as:- a. Reversing the proposed deletion process (such articles are automatically restored at WP:REFUND); b. History-only undeletions, where the article's history gets restored behind a new, improved version of the page; c. Requests to re-use previously deleted content on other pages; or d. Requests to undelete very old articles where substantial new sources have become available. Say the word and I'll make the edit. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)