Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2022/October

Deletion review/Purpose
The language in point 2 of the "should not be used" is super clunky:

Any thoughts on copyediting it? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If you want to challenge a deletion decision, the first step you should consider is asking the deleting sysop on their talk page to change their mind. This is optional but recommended.  If they decline to reverse their decision and you are dissatisfied with their reasons, or if you choose to skip this step, then when you start a deletion review, you must inform the deleting sysop on their talk page.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are at "should" not "must" for notifying the closer at this point. I actually think it was "consider notifying", but "should" seems better IMO.  Mostly because you *should*.  But otherwise that's good.  I just think the whole thing has somehow gotten poorly organized.  That text doesn't really belong in a section labeled "Deletion review should not be used:" Hobit (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, it's currently a "must". The way it currently reads, one should "consult" and must "notify" the closer to file a DRV. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is pretty obvious. Just missed it.  I'm fine with the change, but I think an entire rewrite would be ideal. Hobit (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should just remove it. Whether to discuss/notify doesn't have anything to do with DRV's purpose and is covered adequately in in the following section. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This came up because of a number of users, especially me, challenging DRVs which were filed without first consulting the closer. We could just change it to "without notifying the person whose decision you are challenging". Stifle (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)