Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 26

:{{DRV links|The Bone Clocks|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bone Clocks|article=}}

This was deleted last month but this month it [http://www.thebookseller.com/news/mitchell-nicholls-and-smith-man-booker-longlist.html has just been included] in the 2014 Man Booker Prize list. The new rules make it an award given to any nationality. 86.45.76.161 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

:* Not sure it adds much right now, since the book still isn't available, and it's only on the longlist as the moment (presumably submitted by the publisher for listing, which would not be a sign of independent interest), as it's due for release in September, I'm not sure the harm in waiting for more coverage which you'd expect to materialise pretty soon. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Restore article. In addition to the book's addition to the 2014 Man Booker Prize list found by 86.45.76.161, I found that The Bone Clocks has received a review from the Publishers Weekly:

  {{cite news |date=2014-06-02 |title=Fiction Book Review: The Bone Clocks by David Mitchell. Random, $30 (640p) ISBN 978-0-8129-9473-5 |url=http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4000-6567-7 |newspaper=Publishers Weekly |accessdate=2014-08-03 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6RXpnwdqd |archivedate=2014-08-03 }}

  The concern in the AfD nomination ("Only reference is publisher's page, no independent reviews or announcements") no longer applies. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Fomato|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fomato|article=Fomato}}

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Tomato. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

:::Since there's a good faith challenge, perhaps it should be discussed at RfD. Personally, I don't think we should add a redirect for all of the multitude of mis-spellings by those who have only very sketchy English. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn. F is next to T on the keyboard so not implausible at all. Per DGG, should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Relist at RFD. This was actually taken to RFD but that was procedurally closed. I agree that RFD is the best forum to appeal WP:CSD R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse: recently created (as I gather from [http://stats.grok.se/en/201407/Fomato stats]) and implausible: more plausible Gomato and Romato don't exist, so why should this one? I strongly oppose sending this to RfD unless for some reason WP:CSD#R3 was not applicable here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment that some possibly similar redirects don't exist is no reason why this one should or shouldn't. Adjacency i=on the keyboard is not a useful argument--it would make 6 redirects for every word, 6**n if we considered every letter of a n-letter word. And even if we used the argument, it would normally apply only to left and right , not diagonal--left and right are much more likely--at least the way I tend to make my typos. But the place to discuss this is RfD, not here. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• No, RfD is for redirects. There is no redirect at Fomato. This is a straight-forward deletion review question – whether speedy criterion was applied properly or not. It is not the business of RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

::right, my meaning is, it isn't clear enough for speedy since its been challenged in good faith, it should therefore be restored and discussed at RfD. (where I expect to argue for deletion).

:::That is just not needed. This is already a discussion about this deletion, and it may be endorsed here. FWIW, it was challanged in the lack of valid argument against deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Honestly, like {{u|DGG}} says, it all comes down to plausibility. Being seached only [http://stats.grok.se/en/201407/Fomato 53 times] in July 2014 (most of those on one day) makes this seem an extremely unlikely typo. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Ovin|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ovin|article=Ovin}}

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Oven. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It is also an expected misspelling considdering the spelling and the schwa sound. So it's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn. A plausible misspelling, as the nominator explains. Should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Relist at RFD. This was actually taken to RFD but that was procedurally closed. I agree that RFD is the best forum to appeal R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn: as I gather from [http://stats.grok.se/en/201403/Ovin stats], this redirect was not very recent, thus WP:CSD#R3 does not apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. It looks like it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ovin&action=history made again anyways]. If an admin could fix it to reflect the original creation date, it would be preferred. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 08:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn, as it is a reasonably plausible misspelling of the word, and redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC).