Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Links

I was looking for this page and it took nearly forever to find. I had to click through 47 pages just to find this ONE. WikiPedia seriously needs to have its policies and guidelines pages restructured with a more logical layout. (Lady Serena 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Only AFD and MFD?

I note that the page refers only to relisting at AFD or MFD, but surely items undeleted could (should!) be listed at CFD, TFD or SFD as well... shouldn't that be mentioned? Grutness...wha? 09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, God for it! --Celestianpower háblame 21:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update to reflect WP:PROD

I have taken the bold step to update the "exception" section of this policy to reflect the new WP:PROD policy, that anything deleted through that process can be undeleted on request, in particular "Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article may therefore be immediately restored by any admin without discussion.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Suffrage

If this is truly policy, it should be reflected in practice. This policy is violated daily by numerous administrators. --70.218.50.194 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Suffrage

Within the 'Suffrage' section, wondering if there would be any objections to creating a link to the 'sockpuppet' article since it is a neologism? Many people may still be unfamiliar with this term. Personally I had to perform a separate search to learn about this excellent new use.--Rlefson 17:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. Rossami (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes in article subject status?

I'm wondering what proceedure is in place to handle the case where a page is created on a subject that fails notability criteria, the page is then deleted and protected, and the person later becomes notable. As I read the DRV guidelines, that article should never be undeleted, because 'process' was followed correctly. Should a one-time junk article ban the subject in perpetuity? Dgies 05:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the guidelines. First, page-protection is not applied as a matter of course. Protected pages are only created if vandals are repeatedly re-creating the same deleted content in defiance of or in willful ignorance of the community's consensus decision. If the page is not protected and if significant changes have occurred, then anyone can create a new article. Note: That new article may itself be nominated for deletion if other readers do not agree that the changes to the subject's notability have been sufficient.
In the case where the page is still protected with the {{deletedpage}} tag, it is often best to make the draft on a sub-page in your userspace and to very clearly document what has changed since the AFD decision. Once you have a solid, fact-based and verifiable draft, you can petition at DRV to have the protection lifted and and your draft moved into it's place (and, if appropriate, to have the deleted history restored).
I'll also note that because of the community's continuing problems with vandalism, you should expect some skepticism and be ready to show that there is truly new evidence which was not available or was not considered during the deletion debate. Rossami (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy for undeletion of Images

Now that images can be undeleted is there any policy about the process? It seems that if one admin can delete an image because it is improperly tagged, another admin should be able to undelete it if presented with the proper tag information. Since I haven't seen this spelled out anywhere, that is the tact I will take unless I hear otherwise. (I'm an admin.) -- Samuel Wantman 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be handled with a template (which I have just created). If someone wants an image undeleted, they could edit the "Image" page and add the correct tags and source information. They would also post a template {{ImageUndeleteRequest}} which puts the image page into Category:Requests to undelete images. This way any admin could look at the category, examine the tags and source info and undelete images when appropriate. -- Samuel Wantman 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

delete process- what happened to Intangible Economy?

I recently read an article that was titled Intangible Economy but cannot find it anymore. I searched in the delete logs, but could not find it. I am not sure if the article was up for deletion, I did not notice if this was the case or not. It was rather interesting and I was disappointed when it could not be found.

I would like to know if this was deleted according to policy, and if so, why does a search on the delete logs not show? Everywhere that I have tried searching for this topic, comes up nothing. I am confused why is the case. Can anyone help? --Knot2afrayed 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Intangible Economy nor Intangible economy have ever existed. Perhaps you're looking for Intangible asset? -Splash - tk 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


No, it wasn't Intangible asset. Hmmm...I am baffled. I could have sworn it used to exist, but I cannot find any evidence that it did exist. It is currently mentioned in Information Age and Factors of production. If I am mistaken about this, I am sorry. But I really do remember it as clickable entry of its own. But, it is entirely possible I was simply reading about it in several different articles with other titles. I appreciate the quick response.--Knot2afrayed 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


We want to know more about == Chiricheppu == cartoon monthly


friends and fans of [[chiricheppu]]

The word "Moob"

I'm a new user to this site. I was searching for the word "Moob" in Wikipedia and found that it was deleted and protected from the site. I have no clue why it is so. I'm requesting that it be added back in. The word "Moob" is the name and language of a group of people called "Mong" or "Mong Leng" (see also Hmong). If any of the Wikipedia admins see this, could you please redirect all searches on "Moob" to "Mong" or "Hmong." Thank you! Tomx 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This title has repeatedly been deleted. The deleted versions were either neologisms (deleted after an AFD discussion because Wikipedia is not a dictionary) or rather obvious pranks (deleted as vandalism). Given the unfortunate history of this page, would you please provide a source for your assertion? If it can be verified, I or any other admin would be happy to unprotect the page so you can edit it. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Informing the creators is being ignored

This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental change to DRV

Discussion is underway at deletion review to discuss a possible shift of DRV reviews from a majority rule process to one that is more consensus-based. As it specifically deals with a portion of the process here, it would be lax to not notify folks of the discussion who may not be paying attention there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

List of deleted articles?

Hey so I couldnt' find an answer to this question. How can I view a list of all the articles that used to be on my watch list, but have since been deleted? Could we put the answer to that question in some easily searchable place? Thanks. Mathiastck 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are still on your watchlist. They just don't show up on any of the "recent changes" views. From in your watchlist, click the link at the top which reads "display and edit the complete list". Then scan the list for the red links. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion doesn't count as a recent change? Mathiastck 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Not the way that particular piece of software works. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that's my primary feature request then :) I understand it's not likely to be granted, but deletion is the biggest change I can think of! Mathiastck 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Queries should go to the deleting admin in the first instance

I've restored this important bit of policy: Discuss the deletion in the first instance with the deleting administrator if you are concerned that a page may have been wrongly deleted.

It's only disputed deletions that need to go to deletion review. In many cases the deleting administrator will simply say "oops, I boobed" and restore. This restoration of our written policy, if followed, should lighten the load on deletion review. Administrators also have discretion (see the exception clause) to undelete, and if they think it's merited to take the deletion to AfD. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of process

I've added the following caveat to Deletion "out of process". as a reason for requesting undeletion:

But beware of disputing deletions simply because a process was not followed. Undeletion requests for inappropriate items do not succeed.

The reasoning here should be obvious. We don't restore clearly inappropriate items simply because they were deleted in an unorthodox fashion. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


I've also re-ordered the reasons for requesting undeletion. Obvously the most important question to consider is: "would Wikipedia be better off with this deleted item?" If the answer is no, then obviously there isn't any point in requesting its undeletion. --Tony Sidaway 04:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to spell this out by adding the following:
  • If the answer to the question "would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is obviously "no", then do not request undeletion.
If this seems too obvious, please remove. My impression from some deletion reviews, however, is that not much attention is paid to this important matter. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Suffrage

I've removed the section titled "Suffrage". It said:

Anyone is allowed to give comments or opinions here. However, as with other voting pages, a user's vote may be discounted if that user has a lack of edit history (for instance if the account was created after the DRV nomination, or all the user's edits are related to the article), or the user is a probable sockpuppet. There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the undeletion policy, but rather to pertain to the specific process of "deletion review". Presumably suffrage conditions (is it really still a vote?) are described there. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Exception clause

Somebody has added "or it gets deleted again after you restore it" to the caveats for the exception. It should not get deleted after restoration, obviously, without at least an AfD. It's not a good idea to legislate in order to normalise pathological conditions. --Tony Sidaway 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless this step would be pointless bureaucracy

I've removed "the undelete debate suggests" qualification from "Unless the undelete debate suggests this step would be pointless bureaucracy" in the procedure for restoring admins. We do get a number of singularly pointless "procedural" deletion debates coming from deletion review, and reducing this tendency would be desirable. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Update 1.4

In the article you say "See the Special:Log/delete for a searchable list of deleted pages; see archives for deletions prior to the MediaWiki 1.4 upgrade." Could you include the date of thus upgrade in parenthesis. TonyTheTiger 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Content review undeletions

When you do a temporary undeletion for content review/rewriting, is it usual to:

  1. Undelete all revisions;
  2. Move page to user subpage;
  3. Delete resulting redirect;

...or just copy the text of the last valid revision to the user subpage, with a note in the edit summary of where it came from? It seems like the former would be more 'right' for purposes of the GFDL, but might make tracking the deleted article down later difficult. Help? -- nae'blis 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For me, it depends on the requestor's intent, the size of the page, the complexity of the edit history and the reason why it was deleted. Here are some of my considerations:
  • If the requestor intends to attempt a good-faith rewrite, I'm more inclined to undelete and move.
  • If the edit history is simple (only one significant contributor), I may copy-paste the last version and attribute the content in the edit summary.
  • If the intent is to validate an AFD or speedy-deletion decision, just the last version can be enough because there's no GFDL impact yet. (If the decision is overturned, we would still have to perform the history-only undeletion but that's a simple step.)
  • If the edit history is complex (in this case, that usually means lots of vandalism which could have thrown off the deletion discussion), I am more inclined to undelete and move so that the requestor can wade through the different versions.
  • If the page is small enough, I may copy-paste to the user's Talk page, not even to a sub-page.
  • If the deletion discussion indicates that the content was offensive, potentially violated privacy considerations or was completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, I'm likely to cut-and-paste the last version out and email it to the requestor.
  • Likewise, if the user's stated intent is to move the content out of the WikiMedia projects altogether (into some other GFDL-compliant wiki), I'm more inclined to email it.
  • And, of course, if I think it's a bad faith or inappropriate request, I'll close it as "declined". That's very rare, though.
Personally, I don't think that one-size-fits-all rules work very well. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very helpful. I wasn't so much looking for a hard-and-fast rule as some guidelines; I may include some of that on the category page for admins who undelete, or something... -- nae'blis 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Two provisions that have never been enforced

  • If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen because someone was not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MFD), or because the article was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored.
    • If the answer to the question "would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is obviously "no", then do not request undeletion.

I'm not sure when those were added, but not being aware of a discussion has never been successful as a plea to overturn an XfD decision. Also, the "Wikipedia would be better" is implied in the nomination, it's really meaningless as a provision. ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Switch to consensus

During discussion last month, WP:DRV changed its mechanics from majority rule to decision by consensus, and now reads as follows.

If there is a Wikipedia:consensus to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a consensus to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is no consensus, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.

The undeletion policy still shows the old majority-based wording. I propose updating it to follow the new text at DRV. Tim Smith 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No one's objecting, so I've performed the update. Tim Smith 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored the majoritarian version and added a "qualified" modifier after reviewing the debate at WT:DRV. It sometimes helps to consult the two admins who have closed the vast majority of deletion reviews over the last half year why DRV substantially differs from XfD. ~ trialsanderrors 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't believe the reverted to version accurately represents recent practice either. It still implied that normally we'd run for ten days before endorsing deletion, which certainly isn't the case. This diff is the edit I just made, which I believe is at least closer to current practice. It also uses some consensus wording. GRBerry 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the whole ten day provision is an odd duck anyway. I'm not even sure if it's still needed since we now actively {{relist}} low-response nominations rather than keep them around at the bottom of the pile. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the current wording confusing: "if at least three people and a qualified majority of voters have voted for undeletion, including the person who proposed it, the page may be undeleted by a sysop." Why does it say "qualified majority" instead of "consensus"? Also, the "may be undeleted by a sysop" implies that there are alternatives, but it doesn't say what the alternatives are or guide the sysop in choosing between them. Kla'quot 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bumping this down to make it more visible. I'll try to write up a version detailing how DRV's have been closed by Xoloz and me over the last half year, and presumably by others before then. Also, here's the comment I left of GRBerry's talk page earlier on the issue:

Well if DRV changed to consensus it was done without consulting either Xoloz or me, and we've done upwards of 95% of the closures at DRV for the last half year. As far as I'm concerned, deletion review is still the forum to gain cloture, i.e. to establish whether the need to discussion is exhausted. The "passed-down" procedure is that of qualified vote count, which works under the assumption that DRV is mostly a forum where policy is interpreted and not applied as at the XFD forums, and different interpretations are normally considered equally valid unless there is clear counterevidence of misapplication of policy or the comment is a simple AfD redux (or the voter doesn't have suffrage). I usually do it in a two-step procedure, by throwing out clearly unqualified opinions before counting and going through a more detailed analysis only if the result is close to a borderline between different decisions. In general, XFD discussions are chaired by the closer while in DRV discussion the closer acts mostly as a secretary. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More to follow. ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try to summarize the procedure in a few sentences. Reviews run for five days with few exceptions (very frivolous nominations and cases that can be resolved amicably). After five days a tally is taken and the decision is overturned if there is a strict majority of at least three opinions. If there is a majority of at least three endorsements the review is closed as endorsed. In case of a tie or insufficient numbers the review continues until the impasse is broken. (A tie of more than three votes is usually an endorsement, but I normally prefer to keep it open until the tie is broken.) The ten day provision is mostly a terminus for reviews that attract no attention whatsoever, and I don't think it's been invoked recently, in particular not since we started to actively relist low-reponse reviews, although it's not bad to have just in case. DRV rarely makes "final" decisions, meaning in most cases the review is about whether the discussion should continue, but if there is near-unanimity for one outcome it is usually implemented, more so when a deletion is overturned than when a keep/no consensus closure is overturned. I don't have a fixed number for near-unanimity, but it's somewhere around 80%. In that case it depends a lot on whether the minority is trying to persuade or to obstruct.

DRV was created as the forum where admin abuse of deletion policy is discussed, and it is also un-appealable outside the dispute resolution channels, so it matters that the DRV closers should be restricted in their decisions or we'll end up with an infinite hierarchy of appeals courts for abuse in the next lower deletion forum. That doesn't mean there is no margin of discretion for the closer, and in particular attempts to corrupt the process (by votestacking or meatpuppeteering) should be noted and countered. In cases where the result is hard to discern I usually create a list with three columns "Endorse", "Overturn" and "Comments", where Comments includes all opinions which are inadmissible for counts (with a marker in which direction they go, and jftr, a "pure vote" is never a qualified opinion, there must be evidence that the editor has tried to weight the merits of the opposing positions). In cases of apparent votestacking that Comments column can get very long and tends to work against the votestackers. Nominator and closer act as plaintiff and defender, so I write their names above the Overturn and Endorse columns, and other than to determine whether the review got sufficient responses I don't count them.

So while there are always cases where individual judgement is required, a DRV closer should be very reluctant to invoke it, and only to unearth the "sense of the community". This distinguishes it from AfD, which pretty much has turned into a "best argument (in the eye of the closer) wins" forum. ~ trialsanderrors 09:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I am still trying to get my head around it. Thanks! Kla'quot 05:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this for a while, qualified majority is a lower bar than consensus. I think consensus is a better standard, provided that if there is no consensus and an adequate number of opinions 1) for review of an XfD we default to endorsing the XfD close and 2) for review of a speedy we default to listing at XfD. GRBerry 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Numerically they don't differ. The (antiquated) numerical standard for AfD's is 0–50% = Keep, 50%–supermajority = No consensus, supermajority–unanimity = Delete. DRV mirrors that. The only difference is in how much discretion it gives to the closer. ~ trialsanderrors 08:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to procedure for closing debates

There are two parts to this proposal:

  1. This proposal is for closing debates that resulted from a deletion following an XfD discussion—if accepted, this should also be added as part of the procedure for creating the deletion review. Include a link from the AfD to the deletion review subpage. This could be done either on the AfD page, or perhaps from the XfD talk page. Either way, I think it is useful to provide this link, since AfDs are often used a precedent for either future speedy deletions or for future XfD discussions.
  2. When overturning a deletion, add a notice to the page's talk page about the deletion review similar to the {{oldafdfull}} etc. notices added for XfD discussions. This would not be required for overturned PROD deletions, but would for overturned speedy deletions as well as overturned XfD deletions.

—Doug Bell talk 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am using {{multidel}} for overturned AFD deletions; that template can handle discussions in mutliple forums. (There is an alternative for multiple AFDs, which I don't recall at the moment, but I've found multidel more useful for complex histories.) GRBerry 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

SyCip Gorres Velayo and Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Forgive my ignorance. I am not sure if this is the right place to ask for undeletion but I will give it a shot. I have yet to "read and understand" policies. I have recently updated the article for SGV (tagged for deletion) but it was still deleted. I have also asked in talk pages on how to get it out of that list. I have searched but is unable to understand the rules. Can an admin undelete the said article? I really put sometime into editing it. BURUGUDUY 09:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)BURUGUDUY

Merge notice

There have been complaints that Wikipedia policy is too spread-out and confusing. As discussed on WP:LAP, the deletion policy has been rewritten and simplified in an effort to alleviate this. As a result the undeletion policy should now be redundant, in that it contains no material not already present there. To further simplify the issue, it should be redirected there. Note that we are well aware that "undeletion" is not the same as "deletion", but the two are obviously related; our blocking policy and protection policy also cover unblocking and unprotection, respectively. >Radiant< 13:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't object in principle, but more content is going to be needed at the target page and at a guidelines page. The target page currently implies that the only routes to undeletion are the acting admin reversing themselves and a full deletion review. We aren't that strict; this policy allows other admins to correct obvious deletion errors. This policy language is in the fourth paragraph of the section "Simple undeletion".
We also need to add the deletion review mechanics to a page like Deletion Guidelines for Administrators. GRBerry 13:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Both done. Please copyed :) >Radiant< 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The mechanics were already at Wikipedia:Deletion process where we discuss the mechanics of all the other deletion-related processes. Rossami (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In general I agree that this page should be closed down and the key provisions for DRV should be listed at DP. Two caveats:
  1. Both WP:UNDEL and the new text still imply that any admin can reverse a deletion "clearly 'out of process'". In my experience this has never found widespread consensus, and also tacitly invites wheel warring.
  2. We have a fair amount of "case law", where things are done in a certain way based on precedence, e.g. speedy closures of repeat nominations and the provision that a speedy deletion of an article that was previously kept at AfD is a de-facto nomination for review. Clearly reducing the text in the policy increases the reliance on this kind of case law. If that's ok with everybody we can go ahead and keep the shorter text. If not we should codify this into the new policy.
~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Out-of-process" Clause

  • T&E - I agree that the "out of process" clause may be tricky (and indeed it has been used for wheel warring in the past). I would not object to its removal, but note that it has been here for awhile. I've added a note about closing renoms to WP:DEL. I'm not sure if we need to point out that speedies-after-AFD can be put on DRV, considering the policy says that any speedies can be put up for review. >Radiant< 14:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that the "out of process" clause can cause problems but it is also an essential check-and-balance. Admins are human and sometimes make mistakes - and sometimes the mistake is so obvious that it just needs to be corrected. In some of those cases, a quiet and immediate correction does less harm to the project (and to the feelings of the participants) than a full DRV discussion would. Most of the time, that kind of correction does not result in a wheel-war.
      If there is a likelihood that the decision will be contentious, it should be discussed by the community. Improper uses of the clause are a problem for the community and cause great stress among the participants. But in my opinion, the bad actions of a few are not enough reason to hamstring the good admins who are successfully defusing tense situations today.
      I would make one change that seems to have gotten lost somewhere in the past year or so. When the speedy-deletion process was first approved, it was with the clear understanding that any speedy-deletion that was contested in good faith could be immediately restored by any admin as long as an AFD (then VfD) discussion was immediately opened and that we would all abide by the AFD decision. We are now forcing a lot of those decisions through the Deletion Review process when they should be going straight to AFD. Rossami (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem with the current situation is that it conflates two things: 1. Snap judgments that went the wrong way (mostly based on missing info or misinterpretaion) and that should be fixed rather than discussed to death; and 2. Egregious out-of-process decisions (including IAR decisions) that need wider community input. That's why I proposed to split DRV into a "requests for restoration" and "nominations for review" section. The first one can be overturned by any admin without an implication of admin error, while the second one focuses on admin error and needs community consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • An example. Please consider Jen Banbury and its history and logs. It was a newly created article, not in the best shape. It was speedy tagged. I found it on speedy patrol, and was in the process of editing to remove the tag when another admin deleted the article. I promptly undeleted, and went on to edit the article so as to make it, IMO, clearly not a deletion candidate. Should i then have listed on AfD? To what end? I am not known for being a fan of WP:IAR or of ignoring policy (see WP:PI). Should the new policy explicitly handle such cases? If so, how? Obviously we don't want to encourage wheel-wars. What about a statement that an out-of-process deletion may be summarily restored, but if there is any doubt or dispute it must be taken to AfD or DRV? Should the fact that the article was promptly edited to address concerns matter? If so, how should that be put? DES (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Once you continue to edit the article I don't see a problem. I usually send the deleting admin a courtesy notice essentially saying that I found enough sources to establish notability, so I recreated and expanded it. The disagreeement only comes in when you restore as-is, because that's when you actually challenge the judgement of the deleting admin. On AfD, I'd say nominating it procedurally gives you a reprieve against speedy redeletion if you post something to the effect "I restored and expanded this previously deleted article, please comment if you think notability has been established". ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I did notify the deleting admin, although it was more in the nature of a complaint -- I felt that even the inital version was clearly not subject to speedy deletion, although absent expansion WP:PROD or AfD might well have seemed reasoanble. I felt that this was a symptom of the often over-hasty use of WP:CSD A7 (nn-bio). The deleting admin disagreed, but that is a debate for another place. In any case, how should should thins kind of situation be taken into account in the revised/merged policy page, or should it? DES (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree with T&E's concern that the clause is used in two ways - one appropriate, the other far more troubling. I don't yet see how splitting the DRV page would solve that. In the first scenario (snap judgment based on missing data, etc), an experienced admin doesn't need the overhead of a listing. Be bold, politely fix it and move on. An average editor, on the other hand, is not going to have the data or knowledge to know whether to post their undeletion request in the "requests for restoration" section or the "nominations for review" section. How will decisions get parsed into the two sections? Who will make that call? And if they're already making that call, why not just fix the simple problem immediately?
          I think I don't understand your proposal properly yet. Rossami (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • There is actually no reason to split it into two sections. If it's a Prod, A7 or G11 → request, otherwise → review. That's something the DRV regulars can handle, just like currently Prods that are listed in the reviwe section can be restored by any admin. Of course as it is now we have one review section and three request sections, so even merging the three into one would be an improvement. ~ trialsanderrors 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)