Yoshiki Nakajima ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This DRV is intended as a test for consensus, as it's been several months since the AfD. As per the consensus on the original AfD discussion, Nakajima's article was deleted for not meeting WP:ENT and for lacking coverage in reliable sources. Since then, he has been cast as Yoshifumi Nitta, the main character of Hinamatsuri, and he has even released a single that charted, albeit that peaked at #42. He has also been cast as the main character of the upcoming series Ingress. There also appears to be at least some coverage specifically about him now, such as this, this, this, this, this, and this, among others. Based on these circumstances, is the article now eligible to be recreated, or does he still not meet WP:ENT? The closing admin Sandstein said he was not against this being taken to DRV, so here it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 09:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

IMO this is not really a matter for deletion review; deletion review is more appropriate for questioning whether the deletion was carried out properly according to the AfD discussion at the time. It's not really possible at this board to do a whole new evaluation of the subject's notability. If there is new information suggesting that the subject may be notable now, I think the best approach would be to request that the article be restored to a draft or userfied, so that the new information and references can be added. Most admins are happy to restore an article to non-mainspace (draft or user space) for that purpose. When the article has been significantly improved from the deleted version (so that it does not qualify for WP:G4), it can be moved to mainspace. And if someone thinks the new version still does not meet WP:ENT and should be deleted, it would be taken to AfD a second time. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:DRV#Purpose however states that a deletion review may be pursued "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", and that's what's being discussed here. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 16:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• None of the sources given are in English - that makes verifying the sources difficult on the English language Wikipedia, and doesn't give me confidence that the subject is notable enough for the English Wikipedia. It may be more appropriate to see if an article could be built on the Japanese language Wikipedia first, and then seek to have an English language article. Looking at the deleted article, there is not a lot of hard information there - it mainly consists of lists of productions for which the subject provided a voice-over. SilkTork ( talk) 18:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

He already has a Japanese Wikipedia page at ja:中島ヨシキ. With that said, it's not much better, though to be honest, the quality of Japanese Wikipedia articles on voice actors is hit-or-hiss. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Draftify. Undelete and move to draftspace. The AfD was consistent with draftifying. Draftify was an explicit option put by User:Narutolovehinata5. User:K.e.coffman's ""does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet. WP:TOOSOON ..." is consistent with draftify. The nominator here (the same User:Narutolovehinata5) makes the case that things have changed, although it is not clear that anything new means passing NACTOR. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Hullaballoo and Joe Roe below, that coming to DRV was premature. Don't come to DRV if the reason for undeletion is uncontroversial, such as new information, but instead ask at the user_talk page of the deleting admin, or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, or ask anyone listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Come to DRV if your request for undeletion is refused, and you disagree. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Not a DRV matter. "Significant new information has come to light" properly refers to information available at the time of the original discussion, which was not appropriately raised or weighted. It does not relate to a subject who may have become notable due to subsequent events. Just write a new article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Agreed, not a DRV matter. The points you've raised ("new information") by definition have nothing to do with the previous deletion, because they hadn't happened yet. When a subject that was previously deleted for lack of notability becomes notable, the previous consensus is no longer valid and you can simply recreate the article. If you want the previous version to build on, use WP:UNDELETE or ask an admin to restore it to your userspace (I would be happy to). If you want a second opinion on notability, try posting on a relevant WikiProject talk page. –  Joe ( talk) 14:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Draftify so the OP can try to build a version which demonstrates notability. That decision is in scope for DRV if the deleting admin opposes restoring the article to draft (not sure if that's happened here). Hut 8.5 06:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

COSCO fleet lists ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As discussed on the closer's user page, numerically the discussion is Delete 2, Draft/Userfy 1, Keep 0. And there is a "reasonable, logical, policy-based argument" for delete - per WP:CLOSEAFD. The main decision to make is to either delete or to userfy. SilkTork ( talk) 08:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Wrong there is at least 1 keep Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 11:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Could you point it out. I went through the discussion on the closer's user page, and the closest I could see was Nosebagbear who does not make a comment explicitly in favour of either keep or delete. He says that notability is an issue, but if sources could be found then he would !vote keep. You could count that as a keep or delete. Keep if sources were found, but delete if not as notability is an issue. As it stood at the close of the AfD there were no independent reliable source discussing these ships as a group, so we could count Nosebagbear as a delete, however he did say he didn't want to go delete as he hadn't done the appropriate research himself, so I have left him out of my count. Some closers may have included him as a delete. However, without evidence of the appropriate sources I don't see how what he says could be construed as a keep. SilkTork ( talk) 12:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Me Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Could you point it out. As I said on the closer's user page, you are mainly asking questions as you appear to be unclear on the process. Copy and paste the words you use to indicate that the list should be kept. It appears to me in that discussion that you are uncertain if the list of ships should be standalone or included in the company article, rather than you are arguing for the list to be kept - you say "I was, originally, going to add them to the main COSCO shipping page but was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page. I'm quite happy to move them there if that is deemed preferable." SilkTork ( talk) 17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

In context that was an answer to someone suggesting that lists of vessels in the main article was the way to do it. I wasn't unclear about it, as I said, I was "was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page". Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 08:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The AfD nomination was lackluster, with no enthusiasm at all for deletion, until after the third relist and then the enthusiasm was solely SilkTork's. The answer is Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, specifically "make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time". SilkTork is better advised to make a fresh renomination that try to rescue that mess. I may agree with deletion at AfD2, but counterarguments that should be expected to SilkTork's !vote are: The page is an appropriate WP:SPINOUT of COSCO and this not so subject to LISTN or even the GNG. The WP:NOT alleged violation is not articulated. As the list is a Spinout of COSCO, Talk:COSCO must be notified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for an AfD to be closed as Delete I would expect to have at least two people other than the nominator support deletion. Any less than that and the AfD will be closed as no consensus, soft delete or relisted if there isn't sufficient support for another option. Here SilkTork was the only participant to argue for deletion other than the nominator, and several other participants did not support deletion. It doesn't help that the argument made by the nominator is very weak. I don't agree with the OP that the draftify comments should be treated as equivalent to deletion as they don't seem to support the central view that the topic is unencyclopedic, and soft deletion is out because the AfD had participants who didn't support deletion. If someone else had turned up and made a similar argument to SilkTork then I would be happy to close this as Delete, but that didn't happen. I suggest renominating in a month or so. Hut 8.5 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Closing AfD is not about weight one set of bold words against another. That this discussion was relisted three times, saw significant participation from multiple editors, and yet only one of them was willing to hop off the fence and give a bold-face !vote for delete, is a sure sign that no consensus was reached. I would have closed it the same way. –  Joe ( talk) 13:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Arguing that Murgatroyd49 did not speak in favour of keep at the AfD because he did not write a bolded keep or even use the word is simply being bureacratic. The removal of the prod, and the defence of that at the AfD, was enough to show where the editor stood and the closing admin was entitled to take that into account. Spinning Spark 23:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• By the way, I notice that Statistics on World's Containership Fleet and Its Operations lists the COSCO fleet. This was published in 1983 and most of the current COSCO fleet is post this date, but it does show that such a list has been taken note of by RS independent of the company website. Spinning Spark 00:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Read through the close and thought the closer did a great job of summing up the responses. I think the remedy here would be renomination in a few months' time. SportingFlyer talk 22:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply