Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion

Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for requesting undeletion of a page. It is for discussion of the Requests for Undeletion page. Please request undeletion of a page on the main UND page.

AfD template rephrasing

At the Sigourney Beaver undeletion discussion, concerns were raised about the wordings of {{subst:UND|afd}} being misleading and contradictory to the instructions at the top of RfU. Removing sentence 1 which is about case 1 (uncontroversial undeletion), and not case 2 (userfication), would solve part of the concern. Removing cannot be undeleted would solve the other concern. Does this rephrasing work?

−

X Not done – this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, Adminname (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.

+

X Not done. The article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page. If you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, Adminname (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.

This template should NOT be used for requests where:

• Requestor already contacted the deleting admin, and admin did not respond / routed it to RfU / was good with restoration.
• The deleting admin is no longer active.

Jay 💬 11:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

support as removal of "and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion" and "...it cannot be undeleted through this process" is needed as untrue/misleading. I feel there are probably other improvements that could be made, but for now I think the removal of patently false/misleading statements is good enough and the primary requirement. KylieTastic (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping Fram and UtherSRG. Jay 💬 07:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Would be good if it added that apart from the options given (closing admin, DRV) also the options for userfication/draftification were given, as in many cases these are perfectly acceptable Refund requests/outcomes. Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

So, something like "significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may request for a move to draftspace, or your userspace, or you may contact the administrator ..." Does that work for you? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• I have added the draftify option as suggested by Fram. Regarding MPGuy's suggested phrasing, draftification appears to become an either/or with contacting the admin. I would prefer the requestor contact the admin for draftication as well. Regarding userfication, I don't think we should encourage it, as draftspace is the proper namespace. Experienced editors who want pages or revisions in their userspace will specifically ask for it, and we needn't inform about this option to newbies or non-experienced editors. Jay 💬 05:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

−

X Not done – this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, Adminname (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.

+

X Not done. The article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page. If you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, Adminname (talk · contribs) for undeletion or [[WP:DRAFTIFY|draftification]]. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.

• @Fram and MPGuy2824: What do you think? Jay 💬 08:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks ok to me and there doesn't seem to be any opposition from others yet. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Per my previous reply to the last version, it's an improvement in the right direction so I still support. KylieTastic (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 and KylieTastic: sorry for the re-ping. I was about to make the changes but then I saw this discussion about this template which had a concern that the closing admin simply doesn't have the authority to unilaterally reverse himself. The RfU header also had a phrase .. controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process ..., but this part was removed in an edit last month. I have started a discussion below regarding that change. However, for the current discussion I'll modify my addition of .. for undeletion or draftification. to simply .. for draftification. Jay 💬 15:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

"Do not ask that pages deleted under A7, A9 be undeleted here"

Why is this? A7 and A9 are not dealbreakers in the way that G11, G15, G10, and others are. An article written by a newbie unfamiliar with policy on notability could pass straight through A7, or the criterion could have been misinterpreted by an administrator. Why is it that pages deleted under A7 (or A9, for that matter) cannot be given another chance? Somepinkdude (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Normally this sort of page could be recreated with the claim of importance, and references. If the requestor wants the deleted one back, then the deleter should be asked, as it could have been a mistake to delete. (eg deleted too fast). I would consider draftifying or userfying if the page stood some kind of chance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Changes at the RfU header

@Hex: I have a couple of questions regarding your edits to the header last month, which I think significantly changes what can be done at WP:RfU:

1. controversial page deletions was changed to controversial discussions. Did you think that controversial page deletions did not convey the meaning well enough, which necessitated the change? What in your mind are controversial discussions?
2. [controversial page deletions] will not be overturned through this process was removed. What was the reason for removal? The previous meaning of the sentence was that pages deleted at AfD may be userfied / draftified at RfU. After your change, the meaning has changed to: if the AfD had "controversial discussions", it will not be userfied / draftified at RfU.

Jay 💬 15:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jay, what I meant by "controversial discussions" was "discussions where the outcome is controversial" but perhaps that wasn't clear enough.

The second part of the edit didn't change the meaning of the sentence:

−

This means that content deleted after discussion – through deletion processes - may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead.

+

Content deleted after discussion in deletion processes may in some cases be provided to you, but that deleted after controversial discussions will not – this requires deletion review instead.

Ignoring the grammatical error of such (controversial page deletions haven't yet been introduced in the sentence), but establishes controversial page deletions as an exception to the some cases in which content may be provided. This remains the same after my edit.

After further thought, "controversial deletions" is too vague. Controversial amongst whom? If it isn't the reader, then that suggests that a deletion review is already in progress, which makes the guidance redundant. This would benefit from more specific language addressing when a DR is appropriate:

• Content deleted after discussion in a deletion process may in some cases be provided to you. However, if you want to dispute the outcome of that discussion and restore the content to its original location, you'll need to open a deletion review instead.

 — Hex • talk 14:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that "controversial deletions" is subject to varied interpretations, and the reason it may have been introduced is as a singular term for non-uncontroversial deletions, where "uncontroversial deletions" is not as vague. I'm in support of your rephrasing where you split the sentence into two sentences, and it addresses both my concerns. Jay 💬 05:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Header rewrite

Following the discussion above, I looked again at the header without hyperfocusing on one paragraph and realized that it has a lot of problems with poor phrasing and redundancy. I've put together a proposed rewrite aiming to be simple and concise.

The current version has the confusing situation of saying that some CSD are OK, some aren't, and not passing comment on the others. It would be much better to only explicitly list the ones that are permissible. As it stands:

• Yes: G6, G13, U6
• No: A7, A9, A11, F7, F9, F11, G3, G4, G10, G11, G12, G15, U5, U7

Of the remainder not mentioned:

• Implied yes: A1-A3, A8, A10, F1-F6, F8, G7, G8, G14, U1, U2
• Presumably no: C1-C4, R1-R4, G1, G2, G5, G9

Please take a look at my new version and let me know what you think.  — Hex • talk 15:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Question about G5

I recently deleted Draft:Clifton Hood as a normal administrative action under WP:G5. However, even though I just deleted this draft because it did fall under G5, I'm actually familiar with the subject matter and think this draft is possibly salvageable. In theory would someone be able to request undeletion of this draft if they were in my situation? I'm not going to undelete myself due to my involvement now, but just wondering this as a theoretical question. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

If a an established editor (been around long enough to not be a sockpuppet and appears to know what they are doing) then if they take responsibility for the article then I think it could be undeleted. The requestor could be expected to modify the article enough so that it is not eligible for G5. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Call me crazy but I think if you see a way of improving the encyclopedia that involves restoring something you previously deleted, then you should just go ahead and do it, and not worry too much.  — Hex • talk 10:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Limitation of Firefly bot

A lot of requests we see here are from editors immediately after their draft has been deleted, usually the same day, or within a day or two of their draft being deleted. Most of these deletions, and hence undeletion requests, could be avoided if the FireflyBot was notifying authors before the deletion, not just the first time, but for every subsequent deletion. This concern was described very well by Liz at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 88#Request for Co-operator for User:FireflyBot as well, and DreamRimmer said DreamRimmer bot III is available as a FireflyBot backup. Since FireflyBot's operator has been inactive for years, can it be suspended until he is back, and DreamRimmer bot III take up the operation, including this new request? Jay 💬 19:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)