File:Dalai Lama with Abdulqadir Nooruddin, CDMW, 2019.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Since the article ( Abdulqadir Nooruddin) the image was intended for was deleted, I instead then moved it for use in the 14th Dalai Lama article, and added appropriate justification on the media page. The consent to delete on the XfD page was hence invalidated. The image is historic as it of a Muslim conference sponsored entirely by the 14th Dalai Lama. The image was released by tibet.net and is free for re-use (albeit without modification). Murtaza.aliakbar ( talk) 12:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I still don't see how the image passes WP:NFCC#8, which was the rationale for deleting it at FFD. Fair use images are only supposed to be used when they enhance the article in a way which can't be done without the fair use image. The image is certainly not necessary to note that the Dalai Lama was at this conference, the text of the article does that as well ("In 2019, the Dalai Lama fully-sponsored the first-ever 'Celebrating Diversity in the Muslim World' conference in New Delhi"). The image consisted of the Dalai Lama sitting alongside some other people underneath a banner for the conference, I don't see how it improves the reader's understanding of the topic more than that text does. Hut 8.5 16:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

At the time, I thought, regional Muslim leaders (from prominent Indian madhhabs) on-stage with the Dalai Lama, made it relevant to the interfaith dialogue section in the article. And because, it was also the first-ever such conference, I thought the image also met WP:HISTORIC. Murtaza.aliakbar ( talk) 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The standard is a lot higher than merely being relevant to the article, or usable in the article. It has to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" ( WP:NFCC#8). The fact it's the first ever such conference doesn't make it OK either. What do we get from having this image which we wouldn't get without it? Hut 8.5 18:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Gotcha. That's the only image where the Dalai Lama is seen with several prominent Muslim leaders from his country of residence (India), and I thought it was a historic image for that reason, though I understand merely being "historic" isn't strictly enough... but it is not void of any context (that is, meets Non-free use rationale guideline for historical photographs which goes Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. by virtue of being significant because of its historical uniqueness.)

WP:NFCC#8 makes for a stricter criteria than what the guideline makes it seem Murtaza.aliakbar ( talk) 18:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The image and any significance it may have weren't discussed in the article though. The article did mention the event the image is depicting but that's not the same thing. Hut 8.5 13:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Restore. Wherever there are resources such as this one, that we can lawfully and ethically use to improve our encyclopaedia, it's policy that we can and should be using them, irrespective of any rules or guidelines that might purport to say otherwise.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse lacks substantial critical commentary in the article it was used in, textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. Also, courtesy ping for @ Whpq - FASTILY 09:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the original nominator. This looks like an attempt to shoehorn the image into an article regardless of utility. Its usage in the original article did not meet WP:NFCC#8, and after the article aas deleted, it was shifted to the Dalai Lama article where its justification is even weaker. -- Whpq ( talk) 12:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close of the FFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe that there has been substantial new information that has occurred since the time of the close that would have impacted the discussion. At the time of the redirect, many editors noted that they did not see sustained coverage of the controversy. The editors who explicitly noted this concern included Cattlematrix (nominator), Jackattack1597, and Mrschimpf. I believe that additional coverage that has occurred after the time of the closure substantially cuts against this point.

As of this moment, there has been follow-up coverage from sources both within the United States and Israel. The Jerusalem Post has provided coverage that described a partnership between the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the borough to promote Holocaust education. WABC has provided additional coverage along this line, as has WCBS ( source), The Bergen Record ( via MSN), 1010 WINS ( via MSN), and News 12 New Jersey ( source). As I understand it, this would reasonably constitute continuing coverage of the events, and would point towards consequences that have garnered international attention. I believe that these sources, together with the sources listed on the page at the time of the deletion discussion's close establish notability in line with WP:COVERAGE and WP:GNG, as they show in-depth coverage of the event from a diversity of sources over a longer period of time than a short news cycle.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that I be allowed to recreate the standalone article. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 00:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation as nominator. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 00:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

   Note: additional sources not in the nomination include an NJ.com article, and a WPIX video report. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retain redirect At this point, the school system partnering with the SWC is effectively a postscript that will likely bring this all to a close going into 2021-22. I'm still not convinced this needs to be broken out alone into its own article. Nate • ( chatter) 02:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retain redirect – I fail to see how this information (presented less than a week after the closure) would have changed the minds of the AfD participants. WP:EVENTCRIT is the standard. It generally requires some sort of "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect", and follow-up press stories from just a month after the fact would not seem to qualify. Further discussion might be appropriate if there's still lingering analysis, say, a year from now, but relitigating this controversial AfD just days after its closure seems both unnecessary (it's already being covered in the Tenafly Public Schools article, where you or anyone else can improve it) and unwise. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retain redirect this first started becoming a news story at the beginning of June. The fact that it's still generating a few articles about a small development a month later does not mean it has lasting significance. Is this event likely to be seen as significant a year from now? Or ten years from now? If it's still generating coverage after that amount of time then it almost certainly would be, but coverage from a month later doesn't mean the event gets past WP:EVENTCRIT / WP:NOTNEWS. Obviously there is a substantial element of judgement here, but the AfD participants didn't think this was likely to have lasting significance and essentially nothing has changed. Hut 8.5 08:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Wrong forum. Not in scope for DRV, unless we are asked to Endorse the AfD. No deletion has occurred. If you want to make a case to reverse the consensus decision to merge and redirect, the place to do that is the talk page of the redirect target. DRV does not micromanage content. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Close this. DRV isn't for taking a mulligan on the AfD.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply