Olga Obukhova ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I would like to request the undeletion of this Page, which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Obukhova, with Explicit as closing admin, please.

The decision for the deletion of this Page was made without any Consensus provided by the deleting administrator to substantiate the allegation of "the page for the Russian author seems to be poorly sourced". This claim is untrue. There were multiple sources given for the author having written and published 20+ books. The page had existed for good 15 years, with this Russian author publishing more and more books and earning quotes, until someone decided to wipe it out. Without any resemblance of Consensus. This is not becoming of Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LvivForev ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This article was not speedy deleted as spam. This was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Obukhova, with Explicit as closing admin. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  Explicit didnt really look into the matter. There was no Consensus achieved. Violation of rules. LvivForev ( talk) 18:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  Inserted the changes you've indicated, thank you! LvivForev ( talk) 18:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Explicit properly judged consensus at the discussion by weighing the merits as well as the number of the delete !votes v. the single objection. No problems noted in the AfD process. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Can you please clarify whether you've edited with another account Lviv or how you just happened to hear about this discussion? Endorse closure. There was consensus to delete. Star Mississippi 18:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There was no error by the closer, and no other reason to overturn the deletion. DRV is not another round of AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Properly deleted at AfD for lack of sources. To consider re-creation, provide sources. In particular, follow the advice at WP:THREE. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, good reading of consensus. Nominator here has only a handful of edits, all in the deletion space, and is almost certainly a sock. Stifle ( talk) 10:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as correct reading of consensus. Three delete votes with solid policy-based arguments vs. a single keep "vote" (I'll call it that though the vote was not explicitly made) which presented sources that appeared to fall short of GNG requirements. Frank Anchor 20:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closer properly assessed the AfD. Bruxton ( talk) 16:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

ACF Investment Bank ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I would like to request the undeletion of this Page, which was deleted under section G11, please.

The basis for the speedy (and almost immediate subsequent) deletion of this Page was made without any shred of evidence being provided by the deleting administrator to substantiate the allegation of "the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person". This unsubstantiated claim is emphatically and categorically untrue.

I asked the deleting administrator to provide clear and objective evidence to support his/her assertions - and of course, none was received. Instead, all I received was 'pile-in' accusations from another administrator.

Both administrators could only speak in vague terms about what "seems" and "hallmarks" - with no evidence being offered whatsoever to back-up their decision.

In addition, as you can see from the timeline of events, there was no time to contest the deletion. I even asked the initiating administrator to help retrieve the deleted material on the Page. An appeal to which I have still not received any response.

I created the ACF Investment Bank Page following extensive research - providing Wiki-linking, in addition to offering comprehensive citations on the not-insignificant role ACF Investment Bank has played in the global TV and industry over many years.

In encyclopedic terms - given all the TV shows listed on the now deleted Page that ACF Investment Bank, I believed it would have provided linked information about the obvious and important role a company like ACF investment Bank plays within the TV industry.

I would therefore request the undeletion of this Page with the same alacrity in which it was erroneously deleted.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EastThermopolis ( talk • contribs)

• Overturn – the article could be easily made encyclopaedic and neutral by simply removing the extensive list of "previous deals". Stifle ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment FWIW I don't think you've had feedback from the deleting admin, the person posting the note on your talk page would have been the person initially tagging it for speedy deletion. The user who did respond presumably found it some other way Thenightaway ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I don't think they are an admin. Ideally you'd notify the deleting admin Jimfbleak ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this review per step 2 of the listing instructions -- 81.100.164.154 ( talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore (to draft space). Consider this a "yes and" !vote. Deleted article did read spammy, but Stifle is correct that this can be fixed. I think best course is to restore the text to draft space for attention. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Restore and tag without needing to move to draftspace. I'm inferring my position from my administrator colleagues, such that if Stifle says it's fixable, I assume that to be correct. It shouldn't be allowed to languish in mainspace indefinitely, and so no prejudice against immediate AfD and the associated deadline to fix the spammy bits. Jclemens ( talk) 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - In and , there is no deadline. The appellant is requesting a speedy restoration of the deleted material, and is only entitled to request a restoration of the deleted material. So I will ask whether there is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree. There's no reason for a deleted article to not be restored as speedily as it was deleted, once consensus has been achieved that the speedy deletion was indeed wrong--the consensus necessarily takes time, the undeletion does not. If you don't like the restored material, feel free to AfD it. COI will naturally produce inferior encyclopedic content under such scrutiny, so there's no need for us to become inquisitional about the possibility, which I presume is always in anyone's mind when a business enterprise article deletion is appealed. Jclemens ( talk) 05:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn and allow listing at AfD as a reasonable contest of the speedy deletion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  Speedy overturning and listing at XfD for most CSDs should be done, without criticism of the tagger or deleting admin, because if someone needs a discussion, XfD is the forum for it. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn without fault to the tagger or deleting admin. It does looks similar to the sort of promotional corporate junk we see from editors who have no interest besides writing about their company but if there's somebody willing to work on it, we should give them the chance. I can't see it surviving an AfD on notability grounds though, unless there are significant sources not included in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• EastThermopolis, you have yet to inform the administrator who deleted this article, Jimfbleak, about this deletion review. That's a part of filing a review which I hope you see to immediately. They have a right to explain their deletion and hear your complaint. In fact, you should have approached them first before filing this review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thank you, Liz. Done. EastThermopolis ( talk) 09:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment thanks EastThermopolis and Liz I've read the !votes above, and I have no objection to an overturn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply