:::::To say that this article "existed in 2023" is bizarre, since it lasted only three minutes (minutes, not days) before its contents were removed/reverted as highly problematic (and this wasn't the only reversion of this IP author's work). While there's a redirect—and a redirect is not an article, but a courtesy so Wikipedia readers can find some information about the topic—that isn't an article, and any article that has been gone for that long has never, in my experience, been considered anything but new when recreated. I'm with Chris Woodrich on this. One exception: if the new article reuses material from a previously deleted article (and I don't count things like birth and death dates that have a predetermined format), then the new article should be expanded 5x to the extent that material is reused. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 17:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

:::::To say that this article "existed in 2023" is bizarre, since it lasted only three minutes (minutes, not days) before its contents were removed/reverted as highly problematic (and this wasn't the only reversion of this IP author's work). While there's a redirect—and a redirect is not an article, but a courtesy so Wikipedia readers can find some information about the topic—that isn't an article, and any article that has been gone for that long has never, in my experience, been considered anything but new when recreated. I'm with Chris Woodrich on this. One exception: if the new article reuses material from a previously deleted article (and I don't count things like birth and death dates that have a predetermined format), then the new article should be expanded 5x to the extent that material is reused. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 17:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

::::::Meh, if it is in the article history we have to take into account the expander might have used it. That's asking too much of the reviewer to evaluate what material has been reused and what hasn't and doing the math on that. It also isn't clear cut on the part of the person being reviewed (ie this prose counts, this doesn't when calculating 5x exapansion). I don't think that's fair to either participant, which is why the guideline has the statement "We don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article". It's much simpler and fairer to just go off of the most recent version of the article in article space prior to expansion which is what was done here. The 2023 version was briefly restored in 2026, and has been in the article history for three years. For me this is just a simple matter of identifying the most recent version in article space prior to expansion that didn't have copyright violation issues and going with that. That is literally what the guideline says to do.

::::::Meh, if it is in the article history we have to take into account the expander might have used it. That's asking too much of the reviewer to evaluate what material has been reused and what hasn't and doing the math on that. It also isn't clear cut on the part of the person being reviewed (ie this prose counts, this doesn't when calculating 5x exapansion). I don't think that's fair to either participant, which is why the guideline has the statement "We don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article". It's much simpler and fairer to just go off of the most recent version of the article in article space prior to expansion which is what was done here. The 2023 version was briefly restored in 2026, and has been in the article history for three years. For me this is just a simple matter of identifying the most recent version in article space prior to expansion that didn't have copyright violation issues and going with that. That is literally what the guideline says to do.

::::::If the consensus here is to ignore that editor's contribution from 2023, I am happy to comply with that consensus. I do think this crosses over into the ignoring prior content though. We're basically saying this content that has existed in the article history for three years doesn't matter, and the fact that it was restored briefly in 2026 doesn't matter. This would be [[WP:IAR]] of [[WP:DYKCRIT]] in my opinion, and you are essentially asking the reviewer to research why an article was redirected and whether that redirection was implemented for a valid reason (ie were there really policy problems in that version of the article? how does the reviewer know that). If this is the type of thing we want to allow, I think we need to revisit [[WP:DYK5X]] and update the guideline. That guideline could use some clarity on [[WP:BLAR]] type scenarios. I'd be ok with updating the article to say something like "articles that have been redirected for X length of time should be considered new even if pulling from prior content", and "content rapidly BLARed for policy violations should not be counted" or something like that. If we are going to say older reused content isn't allowed in an expansion, but then turn around and allow this to happen we're fundamentally asking the reviewer to parse out what is new and what isn't and then having to do the math based on subjective evaluation. Now you are getting into the heart of the matter of why we mandated the last version of the article is the version, because that is exactly the type of surgical evaluation of expansion we've categorically said editors don't have time to do. I don't have time to check whether that last version has reused text, and evaluate what's new and what isn't, and for sure that type of review is going to become a contentious mess.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 17:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

::::::If the consensus here is to ignore that editor's contribution from 2023, I am happy to comply with that consensus. I do think this crosses over into the ignoring prior content though. We're basically saying this content that has existed in the article history for three years doesn't matter, and the fact that it was restored briefly in 2026 doesn't matter. This would be [[WP:IAR]] of [[WP:DYKCRIT]] in my opinion, and you are essentially asking the reviewer to research why an article was redirected and whether that redirection was implemented for a valid reason (ie were there really policy problems in that version of the article? how does the reviewer know that). If this is the type of thing we want to allow, I think we need to revisit [[WP:DYK5X]] and update the guideline. That guideline could use some clarity on [[WP:BLAR]] type scenarios. I'd be ok with updating the article to say something like "articles that have been redirected for X length of time should be considered new even if pulling from prior content", and "content rapidly BLARed for policy violations should not be counted" or something like that. If we are going to say older reused content isn't allowed in an expansion, but then turn around and allow this to happen we're fundamentally asking the reviewer to parse out what is new and what isn't and then having to do the math based on subjective evaluation. Now you are getting into the heart of the matter of why we mandated the last version of the article is the version, because that is exactly the type of surgical evaluation of expansion we've categorically said editors don't have time to do. I don't have time to check whether that current version has reused text from the 2023 article, and evaluate what's new and what isn't, and for sure that type of review is going to become a contentious mess. I also don't have time to investigate the circumstances of why that article was redirected in the first place. Redirections happen all the time through [[WP:BOLD]] editing, and sometimes they are done without a good reason. You are essentially asking the reviewer to evaluate the circumstances a redirect which is again not something we should put on reviewers.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 17:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)