Either previously-involved editors should not be allowed to !vote, or they should all be notified, but allowing previously-involved editors to !vote without requiring that all previously-involved editors are notified of the discussion leaves the gate open to the supporters of one side of the discussion to be involved and !vote whilst the supporters of the other side may be unaware that the discussion is ongoing. You see this particularly where a well-organised group of editors fails to get their way at AfD and then brings a deletion review in which they all engage. FOARP (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I suspect that automatically pinging all AfD participants would lead to DRV becoming a second AfD where all the AfD participants turn up and say the same things again. Hut 8.5 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• The point of DRV isn't to restate and rehash the original deletion discussion, with substantially the same participants and same arguments. DRV also isn't decided by a straight vote (or !vote) count.

WP:DRVPURPOSE is pretty clear that DRV is intended primarily to deal with serious procedural errors and oversights—something that doesn't generally require the renewed participation or inspection of all the original AfD's participants to assess. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ideally the original participants shouldn't be involved in a DRV at all. The process is most effective when it's a discussion amongst uninvolved editors with experience of closing discussions and deleting pages. We can't enforce that, but mandatory pings should certainly be avoided as having the opposite effect. – Joe (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In which case: forbid previously-involved editors from !voting. This is the best way of avoiding DRV becoming AFD 2. If that can't be enforced then at least prevent canvassing (e.g., notifying editors on specific projects etc.). If you see almost all the editors who voted on one side of a delete/keep split contributing here, but not the other side of that split, then that should signify that something is wrong. FOARP (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to be suggesting that if the article was deleted at AfD, the creator of the article couldn't comment (or vote). It's wholly unfair if he can't ex[plain why he thinks the article should be kept, and any closer would discount his !vote a little, just as they would at the AfD.

But in practice, wha ideally happens in a reasonable DelRev, is that there is some compromise. This requires the people who care and understand the isusue to particpate again--the matters raised will usually be different than at the AfD. A second round of discussion is often very useful. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)