This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

is it then in order for a sysop to G11 the draft? I would personally think not?— S Marshall  T/ C 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Without knowing which page you're talking about, it's impossible to judge. If (for instance) the sysop subsequently noticed that the page was an unambiguous copyright violation which hadn't been spotted in the DRV, they'd not only be within their discretion but compelled to delete it once they became aware. ‑  Iridescent 13:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking about Draft:Kabir Helminski? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Jimfbleak has annoyed S Marshall after all; if I was a betting man, I'd guess that one of them feels more strongly about it than the other. —— SN 54129 14:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

——, thanks. Even with a normal SD tag, it's common for admins to delete for different or additional reasons to that in the tag. In this case I deleted as per the SD tag, but another editor drew my attention (on my talk page) to the DRV. I therefore restored and deleted as promotion by a (declared) COI editor, which I don't think was the thrust of the DRV. It's a bit like when an article survives an AFD for notability, and is then zapped because it's obvious promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit, when I first saw it had been deleted, I had a brief WTF moment. But, my DRV close did state that it narrowly addressed the G12, and this stated an addition reason (A11), so I moved on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is really bad, though. I mean, it's catastrophically bitey. We set the new user's expectation that there will be a 7-day discussion after which the article's destiny is decided, and they will get to have their say during that discussion. With that expectation set, they not unreasonably anticipate FairProcess. But then some other sysop can come along and unilaterally overturn the result without discussion? The word "kafkaesque" is overused on Wikipedia but I'm struggling to find another way to characterise this.— S Marshall  T/ C 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm that "another editor" but yeah, I think it would be wise, especially in draft space, to give someone a bit of time to fix the draft before redeleting it. It's probably fine from a copyright viewpoint, certainly fine from a legal liability to Wikipedia viewpoint, and the promotional problems are, I'd assume, fixable. And I'd have gone with Douglas Adams rather than Kafka, but yeah, it doesn't seem the friendliest. But we tend not to be friendly to declared COI editors, which I get, but which I think will just up the number of undeclared COI editors... Hobit ( talk) 21:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hobit, So long, and thanks for all the articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, at least two other admins have commented here, and if they disagree with my deletion, I'm happy for them to restore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason 3 for requesting Deletion Review, in the instructions, states: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". However, DRVs that are requests to re-create a previously deleted article, or an article that has been stubbed to a redirect, are often told, by some of the regular editors here, that such requests are a waste of DRV time, and to just submit the draft for AFC review. It appears that the instructions do not match the actual practice. Either reason 3 should be dropped to match actual practice, or narrowed and clarified to match actual practice, or requests involving a previously deleted (or redirected) article should be reviewed, rather than scolding the requester. Which should it be: Change the instructions, or change the practice? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed this is confusing and should be resolved. My 2 centijimbos is, following WP:NOTBURO, DRV should only be involved in a re-creation when absolutely required. The usual procedure should be to prefer bold re-creation. I don't agree with requiring anyone to use AFC if they don't want to. Where bold re-creation is not possible or appropriate, other methods that are available should be attempted first (e.g.: discussing with a closing or salting admin, WP:REFUND). When it comes to re-creation, DRV should probably be limited to appealing SALTings, REFUND denials, and WP:G4s of recreated articles. These are the general principals that come to mind. There are probably situations and scenarios that I haven't thought of. It might be useful to list out the various re-creation scenarios (salted, not salted; prior article AFD's; prior article CSD'd per various criteria; REFUND denied; etc.), and then see which of those scenarios should involve DRV. Levivich ( talk) 04:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• • DRV should not be the first port of call for overturning SALTings. The prior port of call is and should be WP:RFUP (noting that page says to first ask the SALTing admin). DRV is a high level review process, and it should not be subsuming lower processes. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection works and its process should be respected by DRV, reviewable by DRV where it is denying inclusion of content. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks, and yes, agreed. I'd forgotten about RFUP. And agreed DRV probably shouldn't be the first port of call for anything. Levivich ( talk) 04:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, DRV#REASON 3 is not correct, and I do not think it has ever been correct. Significant new information come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page is justification to recreate the page. If you are not sure, ask the deleting admin. If the deleting admin does not immediately agree, or you are still not sure, use AfC. You may either start from scratch, or request a WP:REFUND. I think this definitely applies "as a rule" if the AfD was over 6 months ago. If it was under 6 months ago, ask the deleting admin. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Previously (I'm not sure when it changed, I just looked at a random day in 2012), point #3 was explicit that it was only talking about scenarios where you needed the history for some reason. Yes, if a new page isn't G4-able, and isn't SALTed, there's no reason to not just create it. REFUNDable pages needn't come here, but that wasn't the point. But (apart from possibly discussing it with the closing admin), DRV is the place to bring drafts for pages that have been salted, or request a history be undeleted where REFUND doesn't apply. I'm skeptical WPP:RFPP is well suited to handle unSALTings, since they're probably not typically straightforward enough, but there aren't any examples in the archive to be certain about. Wily D 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • “ if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". If the page was salted, this would be a straightforward unsalting. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC). For deSALTing, ask the admin who did it. If they are not active, ask at RFUP. If an admin says “no”, and you think you can establish a consensus with a seven day discussion, then go to DRV. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • That section previously read: "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article", which makes it clear why someone might come to DRV rather than just create a new page. Otherwise, sending people to RFUP for deSALTing seems like a bad idea, and I don't understand why you're always interested in sending people away from DRV to other forums less well suited to consider a request. RFUP is a call and answer forum, and undeleting pages that have been SALTed probably should typically have a discussion, by people who're well versed in deletion policies and practices, not protection ones. Wily D 14:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • why you're always interested in sending people away from DRV to other forums. Because of scope creep, and avoiding bureaucracy. If a call and answer page suffices, use it. DRV is a week long discussion forum that exists to correct mistakes, overkill for procedural requests. If the SALT was due to excessive spam creation, and now there is "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page”, that’s a procedural request, one that could have gone to the SALTING admin if still active or otherwise gone to RFUP. Save DRV for where there is something to discuss. Clarice Phelps was a good example of a salting resolved at DRV. Certainly, anyone *may* used DRV, but I think it is better and easier for the requester if they *first* ask at REFUND for an undeletion, or RFUP for unprotection. The statement of denial will help them with the DRV opening statement. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
        • No, sending them to RFPP is typically going to be scope creep and more bureaucracy (and really, point #3 has been here for at least a decade, so there's definitely no creep). If something can be REFUNDED, people should go there (and I see no reason not to speedy close and REFUND if they end up here by mistake). SALTed pages might be resolvable by the closing admin, but I have to believe that unSALTing is very, very rarely a procedural request. Wily D 09:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Wily, OK, yes, if a requester files a deSALT request at DRV, we don't send them away. However, the text at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection (salting), aka WP:SALT, currently includes the text:

            Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request.

            I think that is written well, with the option in the right order, (1) ask the admin; (2) try WP:RFUP; (3) use DRV. The encouragement to pre-write a draft is very good. Procedural de-SALTing is required if there was a history of repeated spam creations and G11 deletion. My point is directed at experienced Wikipedians at AfC who might direct newcomer drafters to DRV due to the corresponding mainspace title being historically salted. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
            • That text doesn't try to enforce the order (though it may suggest it implicitly), so it's hard to object to (apart from I'd say "may be helpful" rather than "is helpful"). Wily D 09:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, bold article creation should be the default position on Wikipedia, except in specific—narrowly specific—circumstances. —— SN 54129 11:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• There are a couple of related cases in which DRV is the right venue: cases where the title is salted, so the requester can't just recreate it, and contentious cases where the requester wants the edit history restored. I know WP:REFUND exists but it's only for uncontroversial cases. Requests to restore AfDed articles to mainspace where the AfD was closed as "hard delete" are almost always denied. Requests to restore them to draft space are usually referred to the deleting admin, assuming they're still around and still an admin. Most don't care but it's possible they may say no, in which case the usual advice is to go to DRV to get a consensus. It's also possible that the admin reviewing at REFUND may decline, in which case the next course of appeal is DRV. If we're getting rid of reason 3 I think we should have something else which covers these cases. Hut 8.5 19:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support removing Reason #3. I also support rewriting Reason #9 of reasons not to use DRV ("such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.") and prioritizing that reason. I also think that if a deletion discussion is over one year old, it should be sent to WP:REFUND unless SALTED. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Alternatively to removing Reason #3, I suggest considering adding the underlined words:

  #3 (DRV-YES)
  if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, and a request to recreate the page has been denied

  -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• In rewriting #9 (DRV-NO), I suggest replacing the current "For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead." with

  For uncontroversial undeletions, try WP:REFUND first.

  -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose removing, or even changing, reason 3. A separate recommendation to WP:BOLDLY recreate articles – and similarly to use WP:REFUND to get at deleted content – unless there is good reason to think such an action would be controversial should be entirely sufficient. Modernponderer ( talk) 12:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Modernponderer, could you please expand on what you mean? You seem to want to support easy REFUND and encourage unilateral BOLD recreations, but these are discouraged by #3. #3 has been read as implying that a drafter of a new version should make their case at DRV. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@ User:SmokeyJoe, it does not "discourage" anything, let alone something that isn't even mentioned. That's not even the purpose of this list anyways. It would be more accurate to say that it permits an editor to turn to DRV in the given circumstance, except even that isn't really accurate per WP:NOTBURO (not to mention WP:IAR). In reality, the list is here to protect DRV nominations from other editors who might be tempted to close them as "not fitting the purpose of DRV".

In short, these reasons do not prevent anyone from using other venues. If however you are concerned that they cause some confusion regardless, please feel free to add a separate clarifying statement per the above suggestions. Modernponderer ( talk) 11:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. Let's describe how things work. A sourced draft is current best practice. Guy ( help!) 23:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Two Examples

I will provide two examples of context for reason 3:

Draft:Kyle Kulinski ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Shahid Buttar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first one is a wounded animal that needs to be shot, but I am mentioning it probably as an example of misguided use of reason 3, which may be a reason to rework or delete reason 3.

The second one appears to be the sort of case that reason 3 is meant for, and so is a test of whether reason 3 is a good reason. Articles have been deleted after two deletion discussions. What should an AFC reviewer do with yet another draft? Accept the draft, knowing that a third AFD is probable? Reject the draft, based on the two previous AFDs? Ask the author of the draft to go to DRV as per reason 3? That is what I would have done until recently, except that some other DRV regulars scold about it. (Yes, User:SmokeyJoe, you do scold about the use of reason 3, and it is unpleasant, although you are being marginally civil.) I chose in this case to tell the submitter to discuss on the draft talk page. It is the sort of case that is described by reason 3. So should reason 3 be used, or be removed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• There's a third one at DRV now, Sandeep Maheshwari, where we're telling people to get it reviewed at AFC. I'm slightly concerned that the AFC reviewer won't necessarily be an admin, the page is salted, and the AFC reviewer is quite likely to be a bit worried about the page history, so there's a not insubstantial risk of the guy posting here, getting told to write a draft and submit it for review there, and then getting told he's in the wrong place and sent back here. I'm minded to crosspost this discussion at WT:AFC: does anyone object?— S Marshall  T/ C 20:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

User:S Marshall Cross-post away. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Done.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• DRV is for reviewing bad deletions, including bad calls of a consensus, and process failures. It is also for reviewing decisions to deny recreations, decisions to not remove create protection. This means that some repeatedly deleted titles will come to DRV to discuss recreation. However, it should be the case that someone has asked for removal of creation protection. DRV is a review forum not a port of first call. For SALTing disputes, the advice is at WP:SALT. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well the title says it all, I used to start afd's and deletion reviews in the past, but I'm not sure if it is allowed or ethical to vote on it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 07:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

DRV is more reflective and respectful than many (most) AFD discussions so bold votes and rebuttals count for less. If you open a DRV you wouldn't also formally !vote later (and if you did the closer would likely gloss over the situation). You could add a helpful comment later but it would be very unwise to harangue anyone. You may certainly start or comment in a DRV concerning an AFD you participated in, but it is courteous to say you took part in the AFD. However, anyone commenting at DRV will certainly have read the AFD carefully and seen the situation. Sometimes people from the AFD also turn up at DRV (occasionally in force) and re-argue the merits of the article. The regulars then shuffle their feet, reassured that whoever closes it will be disregarding the noise. Well, that would all be an ideal maybe. Thincat ( talk) 08:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• DRV is like AfD in that respect: it's assumed that the nominator supports overturning the result, and they don't need to leave a bolded !vote to restate this. If you nominate at DRV and then leave a bolded !vote it may be seen as misleading, because it looks like you're another editor taking part. So feel free to leave comments after nominating but don't leave any bolded !votes. Hut 8.5 10:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• There's no rule against nominators voting, but a nom vote won't affect the outcome.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)