 | 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: After a “no consensus” close, wait at least two months. After a “keep” close, wait at least six months. |
In that deletion discussion, do you really believe that the participants as a collective group simply misunderstood and got it wrong? Are you tempted to renominate the page for deletion?
Ask the closer about your concern. Be polite, and do not assume that they know exactly what you have been thinking. When asked directly, they may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the closer was wrong, consider nominating at “deletion review”. Deletion Review considers only cases where the closer was in error in evaluating the arguments, not those where the close was reasonable in view of the arguments presented, however much you disagree with those arguments. Closes of "no-consensus" are rarely overturned at Deletion Review --in such cases it is better to wait and then bring another AfD.
If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them.
In the case of no-consensus, where the reason for no-consensus was a failure to agree despite substantial participation, the longer the time the better the chance of getting consensus in a discussion involving additional people, instead of just repeating the disagreement. In case of no-consensus because of inadequate participation, most re-nominators also wait a while, because if it comes as an entirely fresh issue it may attract more comments.
The following recommendations are arbitrary, but seem reasonable: