Alive in Joburg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Deleted for not being notable, but upcoming feature film District 9 makes it so, IMHO. 213.21.98.80 ( talk) 11:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Theodore Kowal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I lodged an article deletion review because the article's deletion seemed questionable. The article was restored by Aervanath to one of my user pages. I moved it from my user page back to Theodore Kowal and it was deleted again within about an hour. It seems strange to have been deleted again, and so soon, after it was restored. Next time, could the article be restored directly to Theodore Kowal with a note that it has been recently restored and to hold off deletion. NB: I did not create the article but thought the content seemed interesting enough to retain. Frei Hans ( talk) 11:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• How do you propose to edit the article so that the concerns raised at the AfD, at which the consensus was clear, are addressed? The text, after all, was userfied for you in order that you might work on it, not in order that you should return it to mainspace straightaway, in direct contravention of the result of the AfD (I gather from your summary that the article you created was identical to that that was deleted and placed in your userspace; if I'm wrong, you should, of course, disregard this comment with my apologies). 76.229.232.170 ( talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. It doesn't work that way. It is (or should be, in any case) understood that when an article is restored to userspace as a courtesy, it is so that it can be improved or taken for use on another site, not so that it can be recreated against consensus. Stifle ( talk) 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, for the same reasons as Stifle. I note that zero content edits happened between when Aervanath userfied the page for you and when you moved it back into mainspace. Just because the page spent some amount of time as a subpage doesn't mean that the same content is no longer subject to the same rules. lifebaka ++ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Deleted per above - the concerns raised in the AFD have not been addressed, and as such the page is still inappropriate for the mainspace. If you can address those concerns by citing sources which indicate that the subject meets WP:BIO, then it would be appropriate to restore the page. Until then, though, the result of the AFD is still in effect.-- Unscented ( talk) 15:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - restoring would be a simple runaround of AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

DRV_1, closed Userfy, Aervanath

• Userfy again. Explain to Frei that it was deleted for a reason, and that reason won't just go away. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Kowal, WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:BLP. It's possible that content from the deleted article could be re-used in another article. It's possible, though unlikely, that substantial new, sourced, information may be discovered. Explain to Frei that he may not move the article back to article space without addressing the substantial concerns raised at AfD. Note that we don't believe that the subject will ever be suitable for a standalone article, and that userfication is temporary. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I don't think we should userfy the article until Frei has indicated he understands and respects the reasons for the AfD, and indicates he wants to try to fix the article. He can indicate that here in the DRV, or he can talk to an admin about it, but simply userfying it without that undertaking, well... — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I agree with that. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, perfectly valid G4. Permit re-userfication, assuming the article contains material that could feasibly be used to improve the encyclopedia. decltype ( talk) 12:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I disagree with the article CodeineFree not being deleted. It is blatant advertising only, with unencylopedic content, not a single citation, and written nearly solely by the person who runs the site. I say we delete... Can the powers that be, please review this? thanks :) Dvmedis ( talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• It looks to me like you're here because someone removed the prod?

  Unless there's something I'm missing, I'd take it to AfD, if I were you.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• In fact, on reading the article's talk page, I'm convinced Deletion Review is the wrong place for this. If you'd like help with the technical aspects of bringing it to AfD (which steps to follow in what order), please ask me on my talk page and I'll help you or do it for you.

  I believe this can be closed as wrong venue.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 03:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply