Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive
This is an essay on the deletion policy.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
|This page in a nutshell: Avoid relisting a deletion discussion if a consensus has been firmly and recently established.|
Sometimes during deletion discussions, editors may see a discussion which clearly shows consensus against their personal opinion and may be tempted to "relist" in an attempt to gather more support for their "preferred outcome."
Relisting a debate that has no opposition to the stated position brings no purpose. For example, if a WP:AFD discussion consists of a nomination and then another editor agrees with deletion but there is no opposition to keep, this should function the same as a WP:PROD and WP:SECOND that has been unopposed. Once the standard time frame has passed and no reasons to keep has been provided, the article can reasonably be assumed to have developed a WP:CONSENSUS to delete. Even without the WP:SECOND, there still may be reason to delete the article if there is no opposition or reason provided to keep the article.
Editors who choose to relist a deletion discussion should make sure that they are doing so when consensus is not clear. Relisting articles for further discussion when a clear consensus has already been found can be disruptive to the process. However, before adding a wikilink to this essay on an XfD, the editor should be sure that the reasoning given in support of the apparent consensus is sound and supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, the reference to this essay could itself be disruptive.