Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Ramayana: Part 1 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This non-admin closure is not appropriate for a contentious topic (all India-related articles); especially as this was a 2nd nomination; I left a message on the closer's page, which [had] remained unanswered [before I initiated this DRV]. Requesting a relist to let a clearer consensus emerge and a close by an administrator. -Mushy Yank. 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I was tempted to just reopen the AfD per WP:REOPEN, and immediately re-close it as Draftify - again. The appellant is right that this probably should have been handled by an admin. But beyond that, the close correctly reflected consensus, especially when you consider that the previous AfD for it, with similar source strength, was closed only three weeks earlier. But in respect for Mushy Yank, whose tireless work in AfDs likely saved dozens of articles from untimely deletion, I chose to see what others here think. Pinging @CNMall41, Nathannah, RangersRus, BD2412, and Krimuk2.0, who participated in the AfD. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding @Sribrahma. -Mushy Yank. 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I have no problem with Sribrahma chiming in on this, if you believe the article falls under the Contentious Topics sanctions, please note that Sribrahma is not EC. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure I understand. What does Sribrahma's user status have to do with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? -Mushy Yank. 16:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Once a topic has been assigned by Arbcom to be contentious, any uninvolved admin may impose the standard set of restrictions, the most common of which is limiting participation to only editors who are EC. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. OK, sure, but that's not the case yet. -Mushy Yank. 21:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - As nominator of the both the first and second AfDs. The page could have been speedied due to the fact it was only 20 days since the page was moved to draft upon completion of a discussion. There were only two keep votes, one of which mentioned a redirect or draftification as something to consider. Even the page creator (who should have never moved it out of draft space in the first place), recommended draftification as an WP:ATD.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus to draftify on both AFDs (noting that a large number of users participated in both of them). While this close probably should have been left to an administrator as a contentious subject, the closer got this one right and opening it for an admin to close the same way is just process for the sake of process. I strongly disagree with CNMall41's claim that the page could have been speedied as significant changes were made between the versions art the first and second AFDs such that the draftify equivilent to WP:G4 would not apply. Frank Anchor 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorseish; this wasn't a BADNAC but I think non-admin closers should agree to any good-faith request to revert a close, since that signals it's sufficiently contentious to require an admin. But with OwenX above noting that he would make the same close decision, overturning this particular close would just be an exercise in bureaucracy. FWIW, Mushy appears to have miscounted the "keeps" and I do think the consensus is for draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the close that reflects consensus, and as the close that is consistent with policies and guidelines. The non-admin closer made a good-faith error in closing the AFD, but it is a mistake where Deletion Review can endorse the close rather than either reopening or relisting. There is no need for a relist, because this AFD was essentially a relist of the first AFD. User:RangersRus had a good idea in the first AFD and in the second AFD that the draft should be move-locked. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Dubey (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The actor has done 4 lead roles now after the deletion. Please review the deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.203.73.23 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow new draft. The 2022 deletion was correct. I see little point in restoring the 58 words of prose in the deleted stub, but have no objection either. As for the sources originally cited there, one is now a 404, another was a brief mentionin the TOI, and the third was this one. It looks like there are more sources now, of varying quality. Owen× ☎ 14:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a !vote and I am certain the original deletion closure was correct. But I don't think that 103.203.73.23 is thinking about the 2022 AfD, rather about the 2025 A3-CSD. Not the right venue, but restoring the speedy-deleted page (even stubbish as it seems it was) or the original article (if it is better; or provide that user with the texts of both) into a Draft could be seen as helpful/friendly/a clear token of good will and might be perceived as such by 103.203.73.23, if they are a new user. (This actress seems now notable and I suppose an article about her could be expanded into a decent page with a little help.)-Mushy Yank. 15:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025 version isn't getting restored. You can see its entire content in the creation log. —Cryptic 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion. The title has not been salted. The requester can create a draft and submit it for review at AFC. Restoring the deleted article that does not show the recent roles would be a mistake and would encourage a lazy approach to creating a new article. Perhaps DRV Purpose 3 should be clarified that it is not the approach to be used for persons who have recently become notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Significantly outdated BLP drafts and articles from the period when the subject was found to be non-notable should usually not be undeleted, because such content is generally substandard BLP content which doesn't even make for a reasonable start of an article.—Alalch E. 23:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See the negative statements at DRV Purpose, including point 10:

  Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

  We (DRV) often don't cite this point, although we do follow it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Archive of the first source, which OwenX omitted. I'd hope those in a recreated draft would be substantially better than any of the three. —Cryptic 10:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was the one who filed this complaint. I can't understand what most of you are saying. I just want to know can the contents of the 2022 deleted version be put back since the actress has done enough lead roles? I will work on it, improve it and make it a suitable article Countoninnerbeauty (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Editors, including myself, have been responding to your request to review the deletion. Everyone agrees that the deletion was carried out correctly. You did not state that it was done incorrectly; you suggested that the reason for the deletion, which existed at that time, may no longer exist. Normally, that, in itself, is not a reason to review a deletion. You did not need to initiate this discussion and could have simply created a new article on the topic. (Alternatively, you could have created a draft and asked a reviewer of drafts to decide whether it should be accepted as an article.) While this discussion is unnecessary, one related outcome could precisely, as you desire, be putting the contents of the 2022 deleted version somewhere for you to work on them. This type of action is always optional, i.e., not required to create an article on a topic when a previous article was deleted. And that is what editors have been specifically considering in this case. No one responding up to this point thinks that this should be done. It appears that this will not be done, meaning that your request will be declined. You will need to write an entirely new article (or draft). When you do so, please use significantly better sources than those cited in the deleted content. If you do not use better sources, what could happen is that you will have put in effort into creating a new article, but it will be deleted again, even though it has more text, lists the new roles, and cites more sources; that is not something that anyone wants to happen. —Alalch E. 13:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]