1

According to the talk page , this article should have been deleted. I fully agree. This sounds very dangerous. I’m re-nfd.

2

The original article, published in July, was nfd’d and deleted, the current article according to the history, has never had an nfd tag on it before today, so the discussionpage reflects a previous, deleted article of the same name.

3

Looks like the article was deleted, but the talk page was not. Went ahead and deleted the talk page as well. Closing this discussion.

4

That’s right, we don’t delete the discussion pages when we delete articles as they carry the history of NFD discussion. If there’s confusion when an article is recreated we blank the staledated messages. You’re not the first and won’t be the last to get caught out by dates.:slight_smile:(Reopening discussion, these things will sink naturally over time.)

5

I figured since the history of the pages are still available (to admins anyway) these pages can be deleted. That’s what I’ve done anyway when deleting pages…

6

Ok, it might be best not to. Non-admins have an interest in NFD outcomes, they’re also more likely to be the authors. Do other admins do this?

7

Keeping the discussion page intact may be confusion to non-admins when they have created a page with the same title, meaning reviving/using the same discussion page. I’ve had countless of messages concerning on why their article was deleted or up for deletion when it doesn’t violate the policy. However, in all those cases, people overlook the dateof the NFD reviewing/kept/deletion template and/or the past discussions concerning it. If it’s seen outside of the box, past discussions can be useful and helpful to understand how controversial an article title can be. IMHO, it just depends what the title is, and moreso, the content of the article.

8

If there’s a discussion that seems to be creating confusion over whether the current revision is being considered for deletion (when it’s not) I usually archive the part of the discussion that refers to a deleted version. I can understand the confusion; when you scan a page, you don’t stop and read the date of every comment. Well, at least I don’t. If I didn’t know the comments could be referring to an old revision of the page, I would never think to examine the dates.