Deleted page is suitable to describe another relevant organisation (not the one it was initially created for).
"African Wild Dog Conservancy" was originally created for an US-based NGO and rightfully deleted after AfD discussion. The same organisational name however is also used in Namibia for a government gazetted conservation area. I propose that the page is used for the Namibian entity. My initial edit for this purpose was reversed, with reference to the deletion discussion. The page currently exists, but serves as a redirect to "African wild dog". If agreed, my edit of African Wild Dog Conservancy can be restored. Calidumpluviam (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. What the OP wants is not within the scope of Deletion review. They were given incorrect advice. This is about an entirely new article about a topic that never had an article. Creation of new articles is allowed. Creation of new articles over redirects that have content about a different topic in their history is allowed. If someone thinks that the new article is not suitable for inclusion, they should start an AfD.—Alalch E.12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a bit of a dilemma for the appellant -- undoing a redirect established by an AfD is generally going to be reverted, and a discussion on the talk page is likely to be lightly attended (or at least it would have been until brought here). It seems to me like the prior deletion will need to be overturned prior to having a new stable article under this title. However, based on the appellant's sourcing and a BEFORE search, I don't believe the Namibian African Wild Dog Conservancy would qualify under GNG or NORG, which would ultimately result in a second deletion decision should the first AfD be overturned. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Dclemens1971 that while technically outside the scope of DRV, the appellant is unlikely to be able to create the new article on the page the old AfD (correctly!) placed a redirect. Instead, I suggest they create it at Draft:African Wild Dog Conservancy (Namibia). If it passes AfC, a move request to the current page will be better attended and far more likely to reach the outcome the appellant is seeking. Owen×☎13:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP here. I agree with this approach and have proceeded to create a AfC, anticipating that this will be the consensus of the discussion here. Thanks for your advice.41.182.56.70 (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we could agree that our remit should include giving advice in cases of non-obvious efforts to deal with previously deleted titles. I get that we say "there's no barrier to doing that" a lot, but if we don't... who will? Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to create, overwriting the redirect. Might be good to include a "other uses" template to point to the current redirect target though. No need to use AfC. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's going to get AfD'd if it's created in the form that the appellant first created it. Going through AfC is a good recommendation to ensure the appellant can get some advice on sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
