![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
All of the sources Bearcat had a problem with have been explained, revised or removed. There are plenty of very reliable new sources as explained in Bearcat (talk).John99Wick (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm also not going to either approve or reject this per se. But as the original deletion nominator, I felt the need to comment.
I have requested the closing administrator, User:SoWhy, to reconsider the close of the AFD with respect to the musical, because the AFD was about the (non)notability of the composer, not of the musical. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a difficult question. This draft is not significantly different from the deleted article. A strict interpretation would be that this draft should be declined since there has already been an AFD. However, my judgment is that the bundling of the musical article with the article on the composer was a train wreck caused by bundling things that should not have been bundled. This draft does appear to establish notability for the musical, meaning that I disagree with the original deletion as it respects the article on the musical. I will not decline this draft, because I think that it establishes general notability. However, I will not accept this draft, because I won't ignore the deletion. I recommend that the bundling of the musical in with the BLP be appealed to deletion review. Maybe another reviewer will simply ignore all rules and accept, but I recommend deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This draft does not appear to have changed much since deletion. The deleted version can be seen in the history because it was userfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The phrase "most infamous Chinese novel of all time" should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia (even if critics have sometimes so characterized it). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang, which also deleted Golden Lotus (musical). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2018
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
All of the sources Bearcat had a problem with have been explained, revised or removed. There are plenty of very reliable new sources as explained in Bearcat (talk).John99Wick (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm also not going to either approve or reject this per se. But as the original deletion nominator, I felt the need to comment.
I have requested the closing administrator, User:SoWhy, to reconsider the close of the AFD with respect to the musical, because the AFD was about the (non)notability of the composer, not of the musical. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a difficult question. This draft is not significantly different from the deleted article. A strict interpretation would be that this draft should be declined since there has already been an AFD. However, my judgment is that the bundling of the musical article with the article on the composer was a train wreck caused by bundling things that should not have been bundled. This draft does appear to establish notability for the musical, meaning that I disagree with the original deletion as it respects the article on the musical. I will not decline this draft, because I think that it establishes general notability. However, I will not accept this draft, because I won't ignore the deletion. I recommend that the bundling of the musical in with the BLP be appealed to deletion review. Maybe another reviewer will simply ignore all rules and accept, but I recommend deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This draft does not appear to have changed much since deletion. The deleted version can be seen in the history because it was userfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The phrase "most infamous Chinese novel of all time" should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia (even if critics have sometimes so characterized it). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang, which also deleted Golden Lotus (musical). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2018