Vinh Xuan massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I came across an article detailing the discussion for deletion of this page, and I want to review the contents to ensure that the discussion of what appears to be a war crime hasn't been deliberately suppressed. As I'm not an administrator I cannot view the page after it has been deleted. Senor Freebie ( talk) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Corrected the header link; no opinion on this otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Especially given the discussion, I have absolutely no problem if the last version of the article is userified to Senor Freebie's userspace. SportingFlyer T· C 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• This is the sort of thing WP:REFUND can handle, but since we're here, do you need the full history or is just the last revision sufficient? (Most of the changes between the article's creation and deletion were minor maintenance work; the only removal I saw was of a bunch of links in the See Also section.) — Cryptic 17:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Michael Ley ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

MRA has requested that I review my close of that AFD, citing new information (their contestation is here; not reproducing it in full as it's quite long. They also wrote a new text in User:MRA/Michael Ley (restored)). As I am not particularly well-versed in the notability of web developers and academics, I'd like to ask the community to review whether the article should be restored, left as redirect, or something else. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse A perfectly reasonable close. As far as restoring the article goes, WP:GNG clearly isn't met, and while I struggle with WP:NACADEMIC at times I don't think that's met either, especially since the reasoning seems to be he's notable as a web developer even though he has a job as an academic. Seems like a notability isn't inherited issue. No prejudice on recreating if better sources are found, but a good close and no reason to overturn in light of the new information. SportingFlyer T· C 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• The obvious question here is why we don't just cover him in the DBLP article. The claims of notability are that (a) he created DBLP, (b) he has received awards for his work on DBLP, and (c) he's the editor in chief of DBLP (although I don't agree with the claim that DBLP is an academic journal). There's no indication that he has notability independent of DBLP and there's no indication that he passes the GNG. The only real difference between the AfDed version and the draft is the addition of the ACM Distinguished Service Award, which isn't nothing but I don't think it's enough to justify notability in its own right. I suggest just adding a sentence to the DBLP article mentioning this award. Hut 8.5 07:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• The discussion was a bit thin but the closure was reasonable and I endorse it. As a non-delete closure, it is subject to further change via the article talk page or WP:BB. Stifle ( talk) 09:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I do not seem him as passing WP:PROF, and it looks like a very strong WP:BIO1E with respect to DBLP. Cover him there. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The question is whether the closer made a reasonable close, and they did. I would probably have !voted Delete, but I didn't take part, but that is also how I would have closed it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC) reply