Sills Cummis & Gross ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Based on this New Jersey Law Journal article, Sills Cummis and Gross is one of the top 5 law firms in New Jersey based on profit. Our competitors, both above and below our firm have Wikipedia articles with reference links that are similar to those provided on the Sills Cummis and Gross Talk Page. How can we have our page reinstated? Gdavis22 ( talk) 22:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse that was the correct close for that discussion. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements, it is a place where we cover organisations that have been deemed notable by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T· C 23:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure as redirect. Gdavis22, am I right in assuming you are Mr. Giavonni Davis, the law firm's Marketing & Business Development Manager? If so, you should start by reviewing our conflict of interest policy. Then, you may wish to familiarize yourself with our notability guideline. Being among the most profitable law firms in the state does not automatically confer notability on a firm. The inclusion of those other firms likely has nothing to do with their rank in the profitability lists, not to mention that "similar articles exist" is not a valid reason to keep an article. If you manage to find coverage about the firm that wasn't available to the participants of the AfD that closed earlier today and amounts to our standard of significant coverage, I encourage you to share your findings with an experienced editor who is not affiliated with the firm, and if granted, they will take the necessary steps to add the content to the section about the firm in the Arthur J. Sills page, and weigh the possibility of spinning it off to a separate article about the firm. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close of Redirect as reflecting consensus. Having read the redirected article, I would have !voted to Delete, because the article did not establish notability and was no more than a profile entry. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was overwhelming consensus to not keep the article, with redirect being a suitable WP:ATD in this case. Frank Anchor 15:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

X-42 Pop-Up Upper Stage ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

WP:A7 applies only to articles covering a specific set of subjects, of which experimental vehicle is not one. Request to the deleting administrator to undelete was archived without comment, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E ( talk) 15:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn as an incorrect application of CSD:A7, which clearly states, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software (emphasis mine). Owen× ☎ 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: It's hard to say what the topic actually is. It was described in the article as "a program" but in the category as "a vehicle". I'll be happy for anyone to restore it as long as the requester is able to add some meaningful detail. If they're not, I'm sure another admin will be able to come up with another criterion for deletion. Deb ( talk) 15:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Neither program nor experimental vehicle is covered by WP:A7. We actually have a brief sourced explanation at List of X-planes as an "Expendable liquid propellant upper-stage rocket". I do not know if it is notable, all the other projects on the list have articles, and other language Wikipedia's have additional sources than the one questionably reliable one that was present in the English article prior to deletion. However many of those sources are primary, others have limited coverage or uncertain reliability. Coming in to this cold I probably would have been inclined to redirect, even if only as an interim, as it is clearly a valid Template:R to list entry. Regardless it is not covered by any CSD, and so the deletion decision is not one to be made by me, you,or anyone else unilaterally, but is instead for the community to decide at AFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E ( talk) 16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure I'm seeing the difficulty here. The article clearly states it is about a US military development program for a rocket stage. It may still be a hoax, in which case it should be deleted under G3 (assuming it's a blatant one). But A7 is not a catch-all no-indication-of-importance criterion. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn and send to AFD if desired. A7 does not apply per nom and Owenx's rationale. And even if A7 did apply to products, there is enough content on a Google search to make a credible claim to significance, (but in my opinion, not enough to survive an AFD). The Google search includes reliable content from NASA, so I don't see this as being a hoax (therefore G3 would not apply either). Frank Anchor 20:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• A claim of significance to defeat A7 has to be in the article, or at least in a reference or external link in the article. That said, the Related Content section (in previous revisions) should have made it clear this wasn't an A7-eligible subject. — Cryptic 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD the discussion so far makes me believe that A7 does not apply or was ambiguous (possible event from the sounds of it), this should probably remain deleted, albeit within process. SportingFlyer T· C 23:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7 and send to AFD, or Temporarily Undelete so that we can see that the subject fell within the scope of A7. It appears that it did not fall within A7, and so should be restored to be sent to AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• overturn and send to AfD where it will almost certainly be deleted (for now). But yes, it's important to only speedy things that qualify. I'll send it to AfD if the closer doesn't feel they should. Just let me know. Hobit ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  User:Hobit originally I was going to let the PROD patrollers decide how to handle this. Now that is no longer an option obviously, but once this is over I was going to just redirect to List of X-planes once an anchor is in place, with AFD as an option if that doesn't stick, but I have had less time for Wikipedia recently so if you want to take the lead here I am fine with that. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E060:85E7:995E:97EE ( talk) 02:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Seems like a fine plan. Hobit ( talk) 14:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Okoo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Deleted as an WP:R3 but fails both prongs, "pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&logid=155091595) and as a channel offered by France Télévisions it cannot be considered implausible. From their one terse reply the deleting admin seemed to believe that the fact the page was briefly converted to an article by an inexperienced user reset the R3 clock. I believe that interpretation is incorrect as that would allow anyone to reset the clock by simply inserting nonsense onto a page, thereby removing the recently created requirement. The deleting admin declined to engage any further with my concerns over this deletion and archived the thread without comment, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E ( talk) 15:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've seen nothing to suggest that Okoo actually is a channel offered by France Télévisions, therefore I have no reason to think that it's a plausible redirect. Deb ( talk) 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Easily verified by a quick search which should have been done prior to pressing the deletion button, see [1]. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E ( talk) 15:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list last non-redir rev on AfD. The page is new, having been created on 13 November 2023, just over three months ago. But it is not an implausible typo. In fact, it is not a typo at all. "Okoo Francetv" is the official name of the channel, which can be easily verified by an abundance of sources. Whether it is notable or not is a question for the AfD to adjudicate, but it certainly doesn't qualify for R3. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. R3 does not apply, as Okoo is not an implausible typo, but rather an abreviation for "Okoo Francetv." Frank Anchor 20:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• R3 excludes redirects with article content in the history - even properly re-redirected, single-sentence article content, like here - so the question of resetting a clock can't arise. Don't bother sending to AFD per Frank Anchor. — Cryptic 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply