Gastón Reyno ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

• Disclosure that I created the page initially* Good afternoon all. I am requesting a second look at this AfD from last year. I do not believe there was thorough discussion on the sources available both on the article and online at the time of its deletion, not to mention since then. Both of the voters pointed to the deprecated NMMA/NSPORTS guidelines and neither did an in-depth analysis on the source. For this reason, I was surprised to see the discussion being closed after input from only these two voters. Looking at the first half dozen sources on the article, there were (in my opinion) GNG-passing sources such as 1, 2 and 3. This last source is from El País, the largest newspaper in Uruguay. You can see here the dozens of articles from El País alone covering the subject in-depth, everything from his fighting and commentating careers themselves to his social work and his highly-publicized romantic life. There was a film made about his life last year, and he's been hired by ESPN and BKFC as an analyst ( ESPN source). I'll stop my rambling now; thank you! JTtheOG ( talk) 21:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• I tagged the AFD with the DRV notice. Thanks for letting me know about this discussion on my talk page. I don't have much to say, I'll let other editors consider whether to endorse this AFD closure or overturn it. However, unless there is very problematic content (and this one didn't have that issue), I'm normally fine with restoring articles deleted in AFDs to Draft space to allow for fixing any problems and then submitting the article for AFC review. Like many other AFDs, this one would have benefitted from participation by more editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• The AFD close was fine given the extent of the discussion. 3 policy based deletes and no objections is clear. The first source is a vice blog and probably not an RS as a result but the newspaper profile in El Pais and the documentary clearly take this over the line. I wouldn’t insist on this going through draftspace. We can just bring it back and add in the new sources and any sourced content. Endorse but restore Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm always concerned when those wanting deletion say many or much of the coverage in the article is minor or routine, etc. But what about the ones that you don't think fall in that category? Nfitz ( talk) 05:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• I personally think this is one of those articles which shows the reverse problem of sports notability - he's not a notable fighter by any sense of a worldwide metric, but received coverage in his homeland. I'd endorse the old AfD and allow restoration without making any claim or endorsement as to whether it would survive another. SportingFlyer T· C 15:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and allow recreation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabe Rosales ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page (Gabe Rosales - Musician, Producer, Academic) helps promote my music business, my academic life, my nonprofit 501c3, and public policy work. Nothing on the page is harmful or inaccurate. I am not sure why it was deleted. Gabejrosales ( talk) 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Gabe J Rosales

It's not clear what you're asking for. Foo.png was speedily deleted as a test in 2006. The FfD date you link to, 2009-02-19, doesn't have an entry for either Foo or Gabe Rosales. What are you wanting us to look at again? Jclemens ( talk) 19:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks to Stifle for fixing that and mooting my initial comment. Jclemens ( talk) 07:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• REFUND - I think they are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabe Rosales, which was a soft delete with little participation. As such it would be automatically restored by going to WP:REFUND and making a request - though an Admin could do that now. That being said, the article MUST contain in-depth secondary sources that meet WP:GNG, or it will be simply be deleted again. The best I see in Proquest or Newspapers.com is an incidental mention (and some about a baseballer with the same name). It's worth considering that Wikipedia is not a directory. Nfitz ( talk) 20:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if we're talking about the AfD Nfitz found. As there were three participants, WP:REFUND does not apply, and the reason for restoration fails WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T· C 14:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  There was only one !vote, making it a PROD-esque soft delete. Refund per the policy on soft deletes and PRODs. QuicoleJR ( talk) 00:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  I counted three, including the nom. SportingFlyer T· C 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle ( talk) 07:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure. Is the appellant saying that he wants to use Wikipedia to promote his music business? This seems to be a self-defeating appeal, with the appellant saying that he wants to use Wikipedia for promotion. Shouldn't that be a red flag? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the AfD had three participants, none of whom supported retention. The appellant also has a clear COI and PROMO intent for recreation so why would we refund to even his userspace? JoelleJay ( talk) 23:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Someone can refund this if they want to, it was closed as soft delete, whether or not it should have, but they're equally free to decline if there are content issues or renominate immediately after restoration. I don't expect it to stay long if the purpose is to "promote my music business" so I'm not sure it would be a good use of time. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 02:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to hard delete. There were 2 !votes to delete, both of which seem solid enough, so I don't think soft deletion was the best option here. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• It's clear that wanting an article for promotional purposes is not a thing we can support. As such I would overturn to hard delete per ClydeFranklin. The alternative of undeleting as a soft-delete for low participation then going through a new deletion cycle to delete as promo/spam is process wonkery. Stifle ( talk) 08:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to hard delete is what I was thinking, too. I'm guessing the closer just didn't notice Carpimaps's de facto delete !vote, and with that counted, it's clear that we don't need to go through the ordeal of undeleting just to redelete a week from now. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to hard delete. Following the deletion nomination, the two additional votes were an explicit delete vote and a de facto delete vote by Caprimaps which stated couple of minor mentions here and there but no WP:SIGCOV. Definitely not a notable musician (emphasis mine). They are both policy-based and IMO make this eligible for hard deletion. I'd discourage recreation in this case as the appellant's argument is extremely weak (my music business, my academic life, my nonprofit 501c3, and public policy work and makes a case for self-promotion). VickKiang (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply