User:Splash/Deletion Review

1. Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate, whether the article was deleted or retained in some form, unless:
   • They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question — this is always the preferred course of action;
   • An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above;
   • In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
2. Deletion Review is also to 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.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process, not content.

The presumption of this process is that the person closing a deletion debate correctly interprets that debate. Thus, after 5 days:

A closure is left unchanged unless there is a strong consensus among participants in the DR debate, often interpreted as being around three-quarters of participants concurring, that the closure should be amended.

• For these purposes, any action requiring retention of the article in some form is interpreted as being opposite to a deletion. If there is the necessary consensus to overturn a deletion, but no consensus on what should be done with the undeleted article, it is returned to AfD.
• It is also possible for DR to directly mandate the relisting of an article on AfD if there is a similar consensus that this is the appropriate course.

The presumption of this process is that the person closing a deletion debate correctly interprets that debate. However, it should be harder to mandate the changing of a keep/merge/redirect outcome into a delete than to turn a delete into a keep/merge/redirect. Thus, after 5 days:

1. If a majority of participants recommend the undeletion (in some form) of an article that has been deleted, it is undeleted;
2. If there is a strong consensus, often interpreted as being around three-quarters of the participants, that a non-deleted article should be deleted, it is deleted.

• For these purposes, any action requiring retention of the article in some form is interpreted as being undeletion. If there is the necessary majority to overturn a deletion, but no consensus on what should be done with the undeleted article, it is returned to AfD.
• It is also possible for DR to directly mandate the relisting of an article on AfD if there is a majority that this is the appropriate course.

The presumption of this process is to favour undeletion/non-deletion in a similar way to current practise on AfD favouring non-deletion. Thus, after 5 days:

An article is kept (or undeleted if necessary) unless there is a strong consensus among the participants that it should be deleted.

• For these purposes, any action requiring retention of the article in some form is interpreted as being undeletion. If there is the necessary majority to overturn a deletion, but no consensus on what should be done with the undeleted article, it is returned to AfD.