Kris Kross Amsterdam ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is an appeal to restore the deleted article "Kris Kross Amsterdam" because the page was deleted as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, despite I made this page notable. XPanettaa ( talk) 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore article to main space. There is a new assertion that the group has a gold-certified release in the UK that was not present at the time of the AfD. Recommend restoring the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn WP:G4. I'm tempundeleted this for review. Diffing the version that was deleted at AfD and the version that was more recently deleted via G4, the text is similar, but there's a dozen references in the new version, while there weren't any in the old version. That's not G4 material. Will it pass AfD? Maybe not, but that's where the strength of the sources should be decided. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Not to mention that the original AfD had ony a single participant other than the nom. It really should have been closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore & relist, looks like a subject where the situation has genuinely changed since the AFD, as the group has had an actual hit since that time, Sex. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• speedy overturn I think this is uncontroversial enough that there is no reason not to do this now. Hobit ( talk) 14:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Per all the above. Why is this taking so long for an admin to do the obvious thing? Jclemens ( talk) 03:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Jclemens: It is taking so long because admins, like everybody else around here, are volunteers, and work at whatever speed they want. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This is not a complicated decision, and the outcome contested fails on two different fronts (SOFTDELETE and G4 never applied in the first place). No one has objected to the restoration, and it's been a week. Failure to reverse obviously incorrect speedy deletion decisions, such as in this case, is a failing of DRV that prompts editors to object to any additional expansion of the speedy process. Volunteerism is not an adequate excuse for failure to do the right thing. Jclemens ( talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Exactly which "obvious thing" is it that you expect an admin to do? The article's already been undeleted, and it's not protected (as evidenced by XPanettaa immediately ignoring this discussion and reverting the temp-undelete template). About the only thing left to do is close the DRV, and there's nothing stopping you from doing that instead of complaining that no one else has. — Cryptic 23:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Alberto Ctllo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Prologue This article represents a musical artist in the deleted page references to journalistic and some sources as the nomination for an award of independent music notes were made, to highlight its notability, but I do not see any arguments that are not only links support for that one is aware of what are the possible faults of Article.

Verification Artist Alberto Ctllo.
• 1)Selecion as an outstanding musician By Patricia Peñaloza (Spanish): http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/06/03/opinion/a10o1esp
• 2)Nominated for the category: Best Mexican artist (Spanish) - http://www.premiosdelamusicaindependiente.com/candidatura/alberto-ctllo
• 3)Albums created by the artist: https://www.amazon.com/Alberto-Ctllo-EP/dp/B01DNCHUVS
• 4)Authority control: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/578ad75b-8078-4e88-9763-fa05d0fe050d

All musicians are remarkable for their work, never listen to a music artist was just for appearing in Televison or notes of prestigious newspapers

previous debate (Reference Use): http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alberto_Ctllo/wiki_ph_id_0 }} OscarC12 ( talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion At the Aft you said " I do not seek promotion, I want their fans and the general public more aware of that musical artist" But that is exactly what we mean by promotion. For that matter, it's exactly what anyone would normally mean by promotion. Further, you said there, that you are the artist himself. We very strongly discourage autobiographies, because no person is really able to properly judge their own importance. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Restore article to main space, you've never made a mistake, DGG? by mistake if cite as the first person, but that does not mean that the promotion is looking for a article to learn more is that there are deserts fans who seek to know more as the real name of mapping the pseudonym and direct influences mentioned by the artist, this that mention does not belong as a promotion, my English is basic, but still needs to be restored when I meet several points WP: Music / Bio already mentioned. and I expound not be the artist and have no contact with him. OscarC12 ( talk) 02:40pm, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The OP says that "All musicians are remarkable for their work", but Wikipedia is selective. The contributors to the AfD did not consider that the article demonstrated notability to the standard of WP:MUSICBIO, and the article creator did not, either there or here, present any convincing arguments to the contrary. JohnCD ( talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Cancel appeal Biography and music were sent to AllMusic & Rovi, it is no longer necessary to have an artist article mentions, thank you very much and sorry for making you waste your time, a cordial greeting.}} OscarC12 ( talk) 03:04 p.m., 2 September 2016 (UTC)