-
Pathan (film) (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
The article was deleted at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination). There was unanimous support for deletion among the six AfD participants who offered an opinion on a course of action. One of the "delete" participants made a
WP:REFUND to draftspace request with
the statement, "I do not intend to move the draft to mainspace yet (I !voted to delete on the AfD) but I believe the pre-redirect version of the draft can worked on to meet the NFILM / GNG guidelines in the future. Please note that the film is still under production and new information / sources keep coming, so it may notable as the time passes."
The closing administrator
responded, "Following up since I just saw the ping of my username. Normally I would be happy to consider restoring a page like this as a draft, but this one has already been deleted twice at AfD, so I concur that a DRV discussion is the appropriate thing in this case."
I found this discussion from
this post, and I consider the "delete" close to be an accurate assessment of the consensus. I consider the request for restoration to draftspace to be reasonable and will improve the encyclopedia. I ask the community to restore the deleted article draft to
Draft:Pathan (film).
Cunard (
talk)
06:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I am requesting restoration of
Draft:Pathan (film) (if it is the correct draft after all the page moves) instead of
Pathan (film) per Ab207's comment below.
Cunard (
talk)
06:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment from the deleting admin: As indicated in the quote provided above, I do not oppose restoring this as a draft, but because this was deleted twice by consensus at AfD, I prefer that restoration be reviewed by the community rather than just by myself. --
RL0919 (
talk)
06:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment from the participant: Hello, all. Clarifying my position, I requested a refund of the promising draft that was boldy redirected to the subsequently deleted article, not the content of the deleted article itself. I !voted delete at the AfD on the assumption that an earlier draft can be worked on until it meets NFILM / GNG guidelines. Though I haven't edited the draft myself, I felt it's unfortunate that hours of work went in vain due to a technical deletion (G8). In all likelihood, a
Shah Rukh Khan-starrer would eventually get its own article but someone has to it all start over. --
Ab207 (
talk)
06:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
-
- Restore I'm not sure why this is here, to be honest:
- The fact something has been deleted at AfD twice doesn't mean restoring it to draft space is controversial, and nobody has objected to it being restored to draft space.
- The reason given for deletion is based in large part around the fact the film hasn't been released, which isn't a good reason to permanently deny recreation requests. If it is ever released then the AfD result will clearly no longer stand.
- The decline message a REFUND is the one which is given to requests to restore AfDed articles to mainspace, it isn't applicable to requests to restore them to draft space or to restore drafts. In this case the draft was deleted under G8 because someone redirected it to the mainspace page and then the mainspace page was deleted. G8 deletions are not controversial and can be undone at REFUND.
- The copy at
Draft:Pathan (film) looks nothing like the version most recently deleted at AfD - it was far longer and had far more references (45).
-
Hut 8.5
13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- In principle, it's not unreasonable to ask for caution in restoring an afd-deleted article as a draft, but in practice that caution's usually applied at the move-draft-to-mainspace step. If there's reason to think it might not be reviewed in the context of prior afds, stick a {{
AFC comment|Reviewers should be aware of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination) before accepting this.}} or similar on it, though that's not usually necessary unless the draft has a different name than the former article. If there's real reason to think it might be abusively re-mainspaced, you can salt the mainspace title. I don't think either of those really applies in this case, nor that there's reason to deny the initial draftification. —
Cryptic
13:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Support restoration to draft for incubation by established user, but also understand why this wasn't unilateral restoration, so also support the process. There was no issue with anyone's actions so technically nothing to review.
Star
Mississippi
17:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Support Per Hut 8.5's reasoning.
Jclemens (
talk)
20:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Support Restoration to draft or Overturn CSD of Draft, as nominator of AFD. I nominated the article, which had already been deleted once, for deletion as an unreleased film that is in
development limbo. I did not request that the draft be deleted. The article did not belong in article space, and is not now in article space. Planned films should be in draft space. Draft space has various uses, including for planned films.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
06:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete all versions to draft. A future film that doesn’t meat WP:NFF is the most obvious case for something that belongs in draftspace. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
21:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Allow refund to draft The problem with the AfD was mostly
WP:CRYSTAL - the film was not yet notable. I have no issues with a refund to draft space for something which may become notable in the short term, but is not yet notable. I'm not sure which version is the most up to date per Hut, but my assumption is that should be the one restored.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
20:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
reply
|