Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion

In that deletion discussion, do you really believe that the participants as a collective group simply misunderstood and got it wrong? Are you tempted to renominate the page for deletion?

Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking. When asked directly, they may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the closer was wrong, consider nominating at “deletion review”. Deletion Review considers only cases where the closer was in error in evaluating the arguments, not those where the close was reasonable in view of the arguments presented, however much you disagree with those arguments. Closes of "no-consensus" are rarely overturned at Deletion Review --in such cases it is better to wait and then bring another AfD.

If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them.

In the case of no-consensus, where the reason for no-consensus was a failure to agree despite substantial participation, the longer the time the better the chance of getting consensus in a discussion involving additional people, instead of just repeating the disagreement. In case of no-consensus because of inadequate participation, most re-nominators also wait a while, because if it comes as an entirely fresh issue it may attract more comments.

The following recommendations are arbitrary, but seem reasonable:

Renominating for deletion

• If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months.

• If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months.
• If the XfD discussion was closed for procedural reasons unrelated to the topic or content of the page, you can generally renominate the page immediately.

Requesting undeletion

• If the XfD discussion was closed as “delete”, do not nominate the page to be undeleted for at least one month, unless you know and can prove you satisfied the objections.
  • Instead, spend a month gathering more independent reliable sources so that you can improve and change the article upon undeletion.
  • If it was not a blatant copyright violation or personal attack, you may request the article be userfied so that you can work on it.
  • If it was something that was deemed un-restorable for whatever reason, you may create a new article on the topic as a {{Userspace draft}} or using the article creation wizard. Even if re-creation is blocked, an admin can decide on the basis of the new draft.

Requested moves

"We have a long tradition that after a WP:RM is closed that it is not re-listed for six months after the last listing. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"

Advice on renominating

When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.

Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.

See also

• WP:RELIST – guideline on immediate relisting
• Wikipedia:Attempting to overturn recent consensus
• Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive