AfD resulted in delete but the page has since been re-created. Speedy deletion was declined with the reason given that the original AfD was marginal -- there was a mix of opinions that didn't result in an entirely clear consensus. I am neutral on keep/delete, but would like clarity regarding the notability of this page.
Paisarepa (
talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Second AfD. Paisarepa was correctly following policy to tag G4, but the original AfD was a bit sparse. In particular, the keep !vote from
Michig, where he backed his rationale with multiple sources, against a handful of delete !votes of variations of "just not notable" led me to feel the AfD needed to run for a further week to cement a consensus against that.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment on second AfD I can't tell since I can't access the history, but if this is a substantially similar article, than the
WP:G4 should not have been declined. Perhaps it's moot with the new AfD, but is it possible to temp undelete history for a currently existing article?
SportingFlyerT·C 19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you. DRV aside, the
WP:G4 should have applied for the new edition of the article - it's not the same, but it's substantially similar, and most importantly it doesn't appear to have anything added to it. If I were Wikipedia dictator, I would delete the current article on
WP:G4 grounds, void the current AfD, and endorse the original AfD as a correct close.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse old AfD I might have voted differently had I participated, but a delete was a reasonable reading of the discussion, especially since the !votes broke delete after the sources presented by Michig were identified.
SportingFlyerT·C 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse and close this discussion. I think we should have an article on this subject, but the close of the first AfD as delete wasn't unreasonable. So there's no case for DRV. The speedy deletion tag shouldn't have been removed as this is a clear case for G4 deletion, and this shouldn't be at DRV unless someone comes up with a cogent argument that the original AfD closure was incorrect. --
Michig (
talk) 06:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse, speedy delete, and salt- as the article was re-created by a sock of banned user
User:Qualitee123, this qualifies for G5 speedy deletion.
ReykYO! 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per CSD:G4, which does not have an exception for "marginal AFDs".
WP:TROUT whoever declined it.
Stifle (
talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
AfD resulted in delete but the page has since been re-created. Speedy deletion was declined with the reason given that the original AfD was marginal -- there was a mix of opinions that didn't result in an entirely clear consensus. I am neutral on keep/delete, but would like clarity regarding the notability of this page.
Paisarepa (
talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Second AfD. Paisarepa was correctly following policy to tag G4, but the original AfD was a bit sparse. In particular, the keep !vote from
Michig, where he backed his rationale with multiple sources, against a handful of delete !votes of variations of "just not notable" led me to feel the AfD needed to run for a further week to cement a consensus against that.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment on second AfD I can't tell since I can't access the history, but if this is a substantially similar article, than the
WP:G4 should not have been declined. Perhaps it's moot with the new AfD, but is it possible to temp undelete history for a currently existing article?
SportingFlyerT·C 19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you. DRV aside, the
WP:G4 should have applied for the new edition of the article - it's not the same, but it's substantially similar, and most importantly it doesn't appear to have anything added to it. If I were Wikipedia dictator, I would delete the current article on
WP:G4 grounds, void the current AfD, and endorse the original AfD as a correct close.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse old AfD I might have voted differently had I participated, but a delete was a reasonable reading of the discussion, especially since the !votes broke delete after the sources presented by Michig were identified.
SportingFlyerT·C 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse and close this discussion. I think we should have an article on this subject, but the close of the first AfD as delete wasn't unreasonable. So there's no case for DRV. The speedy deletion tag shouldn't have been removed as this is a clear case for G4 deletion, and this shouldn't be at DRV unless someone comes up with a cogent argument that the original AfD closure was incorrect. --
Michig (
talk) 06:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse, speedy delete, and salt- as the article was re-created by a sock of banned user
User:Qualitee123, this qualifies for G5 speedy deletion.
ReykYO! 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per CSD:G4, which does not have an exception for "marginal AFDs".
WP:TROUT whoever declined it.
Stifle (
talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply