Wikipedia talk:Recreation of previously deleted pages

Instruction creep?

Why is this a separate page? The short paragraph at WP:CSD seemed perfectly adequate to me. What additional understanding is created by having a separate page here - a page that most of our readers won't read but that will inevitably drift out of synch with the controlling policy at CSD? Instruction creep is a bad thing. We really shouldn't be creating new pages like this unless there is a compelling benefit to them. Rossami (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have actually tried to dispute some of these policies myself. Here, I am trying to outline these more clearly. Sebwite (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rossami. All this does, sadly, is introduce another place where policies and process may be inconsistently applied. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete section

I'm a bit confused by the speedy delete section, surely any page - recreated or not - is eligible for speedy deletion if it meets any of the speedy delete criteria not just the five listed? Guest9999 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted material

I proposed that recreation of oversighted material be forbidden. -- IRP ☎ 21:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the oversite committee so I'd say no. Are they good people? :) Lumenos (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems w/ a7 and construction tag, instruction creep

There is no reason to delay deletion or AFD a page that clearly meets CSD#a7. AFD'ing an article about "my cool boyfriend," or "my cool garageband," or "the local crab eating champion" would be a waste of time and energy. This is why A7 was created. Just because the creator insists upon recreating such does not transform the article into asserting notability. Having to wait 7 days to delete an obviously CSD'able article because of a "construction sign" on it is not a great idea. Not deleting it the same day as the addition of the construction sign just adds to the work load without any benefit. The article creator can always work on the article in his userspace until it asserts notability. And yes, this looks like instruction creep. Dlohcierekim 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What guess 999 said. Dlohcierekim 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreating a page because it was deleted illegitimately

I propose a new, "Valid reason for recreating a deleted page"; that the page was deleted without abiding policy or due process. A single person can delete a page, correct? Are we to assume these individuals will always respect policy and not game the system? (I think that some core policies are flawed, but that is another can of worms.) Lumenos (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an administrator has the ability to delete a page. Hopefully, all administrators know better not to delete any pages without following the guidelines in place. Sebwite (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is WP:Deletion review for an improperly deleted page, which will get it back and also administer a WP:TROUT to the deleter if necessary. I think a problem for your proposal is that it would be used as an excuse for re-creating properly deleted pages by those who, for instance, disagreed with the decision of an AfD; and it would be up to New Page Patrol to notice that this had happened. JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

This proposed policy seems unnecessary to me. G4 is clear and concise and generally used very effectively. This proposed policy doesn't improve on G4, it only makes it more complex.--RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Category/Page

Is a category a page? does this article cover categories? Becky Sayles (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)