Steven Scheu ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe that the article passes GNG. These sources were not presented during the deletion discussion, nor do I believe that they were in the article at the time. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 23:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but allow recreation. The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way given the material the closer had to work with. But, the sources presented here look plausible, so there's no reason somebody shouldn't be allowed to write a new article based on those sources (or, restore the old one as a starting point). Maybe in draft, maybe in mainspace. If people don't like the new sources, they can take it back to AfD for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but allow recreation Per everything RoySmith just said. Jclemens ( talk) 02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, restore to draft per RoySmith. Restore the deleted article to draft so that the OP has something to work with. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• No endorse  Petitioner does not seek an overturn and there is no statement from the closing admin.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but allow draft as this is indeed an overturn contesting, since they opened it here; a statement from anything else is not relevant. There was clear consensus at AfD that it was viewed no differently and thus nothing else to evaluate again. A Draft can be made if there's enough and it can be reviewed. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. An AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article — if you're able to show stronger evidence of notability and better sourcing than were present in the first iteration, then you are allowed to recreate an article, and the original AFD does not have to be overturned at DRV before you're allowed to do that. If you can do better, then go right ahead and do it. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• If it passes GNG, its notable. I figured we could just undelete the article to save the page history. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 19:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Fróði Fríðason Jensen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion close did not follow Wikipedia:ROUGH CONSENSUS, and as someone that has been an admin on another edition of wikipedia for 6 years, I am far from being impressed. Deletion discussion is not a popularity vote, but an vote based on arguments. Nominator made false claims on that Faroe Islands is only an local area and an false claim of english sources not being allowed on english wikipedia. I did dispute these false claims in the deletion discussion. Also the nominator made an false claim of the awards in the article not being of an high enough rank. Other participants either mentioned speculation, like Largoplazo or repeated the same false claims. Snaevar ( talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• I kind of wish you had contacted me first, as the instructions say to do (Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly.) As I mentioned in my closing statement, I gave no weight to the argument about English-language sources. But, you could make a reasonable argument that people didn't have much time to consider the other points you made. So, rather than have us spend a week arguing about this here, I'm going to just back out my close and relist it for another week. But, please, in the future, read the directions and contact the closing admin first with any concerns :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply