Matthew Axelson – No action taken. Editors here and at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Modified DRV instructions disagree about whether this is a case for DRV, and there is no consensus here to do anything in particular. Sandstein 08:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Matthew Axelson (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Filing on behalf of User:Delta fiver, who submitted this article for review at WP:AFC and received a comment from reviewer User:Robert McClenon indicating a willingness to submit a DRV on their behalf, but then seemingly went silent. I have accepted the AFC, moved the draft article back into mainspace at Matthew Axelson, and restored the previously-deleted revision history there for review. The previous AfD only had three participants and had to be relisted twice, so a relook at this should be warranted. Since the AfD closed in 2017, a post office in California was named after Axelson last year, which may add to his notability claim. Additionally, one of the "delete" !votes indicated precedent for deleting members of the four-person team was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Dietz, but that article was recreated and a subsequent AFD resulted in it being kept. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment from closing admin: As I indicated to Robert McClenon on my talk when they first raised this, I don't think DRV is needed here. If coverage increases after deletion to the point that the previous reasons for deletion are no longer applicable, recreation should be allowed without having a whole discussion here. Regards So Why 07:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] The aforementioned reason, was as to why I didn't take it to DRV, I assumed it was not required as previously explained on SoWhy's talkpage. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 10:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] User:Robert McClenon is wrong to think that cases like this are suitable for DRV. The AfD is old, and if someone thinks reasons for deletion have been overcome, they may re-create. If someone else disagrees, they may nominate it at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment to User:SmokeyJoe and anyone else - It says at the top, in reason 3 for using DRV, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;". It is often said, by experienced editors including DRV editors, that that isn't a use of DRV. So who should I believe? What appears to be a guideline, or what experienced editors say is their interpretation of a guideline? Maybe the instructions at the top of the page should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] It is a use of DRV, but the instance isn't correct here. If a page has been deleted and the discussion isn't fresh, there's no reason why someone can't try to create a new page with the new information without having to go to DRV to overturn the AfD. If my page gets deleted two years ago and kept now, it does not mean the original AfD was incorrect, and DRV is to check to see if the the AfD was incorrect. If for instance my page gets deleted now and I turn up a week after the AfD with all of this information that was ignored by the participants demonstrating I'm notable, that would be an instance in which the "significant new information" would apply to a DRV. Not sure how clear that is but hope it helps. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] If experienced DRV editors like those discussing it here disagree on how all this works, we should probably fix up the directions. I agree it's not really needed here, but I also agree that isn't at all plain from the directions. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] I have modified the DRV instructions to fix this problem. Discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Modified DRV instructions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Matthew Axelson – No action taken. Editors here and at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Modified DRV instructions disagree about whether this is a case for DRV, and there is no consensus here to do anything in particular. Sandstein 08:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Filing on behalf of User:Delta fiver, who submitted this article for review at WP:AFC and received a comment from reviewer User:Robert McClenon indicating a willingness to submit a DRV on their behalf, but then seemingly went silent. I have accepted the AFC, moved the draft article back into mainspace at Matthew Axelson, and restored the previously-deleted revision history there for review. The previous AfD only had three participants and had to be relisted twice, so a relook at this should be warranted. Since the AfD closed in 2017, a post office in California was named after Axelson last year, which may add to his notability claim. Additionally, one of the "delete" !votes indicated precedent for deleting members of the four-person team was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Dietz, but that article was recreated and a subsequent AFD resulted in it being kept. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: As I indicated to Robert McClenon on my talk when they first raised this, I don't think DRV is needed here. If coverage increases after deletion to the point that the previous reasons for deletion are no longer applicable, recreation should be allowed without having a whole discussion here. Regards So Why 07:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned reason, was as to why I didn't take it to DRV, I assumed it was not required as previously explained on SoWhy's talkpage. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 10:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon is wrong to think that cases like this are suitable for DRV. The AfD is old, and if someone thinks reasons for deletion have been overcome, they may re-create. If someone else disagrees, they may nominate it at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:SmokeyJoe and anyone else - It says at the top, in reason 3 for using DRV, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;". It is often said, by experienced editors including DRV editors, that that isn't a use of DRV. So who should I believe? What appears to be a guideline, or what experienced editors say is their interpretation of a guideline? Maybe the instructions at the top of the page should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a use of DRV, but the instance isn't correct here. If a page has been deleted and the discussion isn't fresh, there's no reason why someone can't try to create a new page with the new information without having to go to DRV to overturn the AfD. If my page gets deleted two years ago and kept now, it does not mean the original AfD was incorrect, and DRV is to check to see if the the AfD was incorrect. If for instance my page gets deleted now and I turn up a week after the AfD with all of this information that was ignored by the participants demonstrating I'm notable, that would be an instance in which the "significant new information" would apply to a DRV. Not sure how clear that is but hope it helps. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If experienced DRV editors like those discussing it here disagree on how all this works, we should probably fix up the directions. I agree it's not really needed here, but I also agree that isn't at all plain from the directions. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the DRV instructions to fix this problem. Discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Modified DRV instructions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.