Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app)

:{{DRV links|United Airlines Flight 1175|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Airlines_Flight_1175|article=}}

New information is available. Per WP:AIRCRASH The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. Specifically, procedures for Thermal Acoustic Imaging (TAI) inspection of hollow-core fan blades by Pratt & Whitney were analyzed by NTSB and needed to be significantly changed. There are almost 200 pages of public domain documentation now available in NTSB Docket DCA18IA092: [https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA18IA092]. Despite these changes, two subsequent similar incidents on now grounded 777-200/PW4000-112 aircraft variants have recently happened and are under active investigation in the US and Japan. Also just revealed by WSJ exclusive reporting, Boeing decided that the 777-200 inlet fan cowl could not be modified and needs ongoing redesign to address issues identified in the investigation. Dhaluza (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I participated in the original AfD, which was even with my potential bias correctly decided - what we are looking at is whether new information justifies recreating the article, given a similar incident happened in Denver recently. I'm not sure it does. There's a burst of coverage saying a similar accident happened two years ago, but I'm not sure it needs a stand-alone article given a search of the new coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• The past AFD is moot, because there is new info. I think it was incorrectly decided because there was a major investigation, which would yield new data, some of which we now have. There now is more than enough public domain info in this one document alone: [https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40468232&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Powerplants%20Group%20Chairman%27s%20Factual%20Report-Master.PDF]. The question is not whether the subject needs a stand-alone article, the proper question is whether the reader does. Dhaluza (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• The original AfD was over a 2-to-1 in favour of delete, and we do frequently delete non-notable aviation incidents, especially ones where no loss of life or hull loss occurred. The only subsequent coverage of this event I can find not related to the Denver incident was that a local news station in Honolulu reported the NTSB report was released, which really doesn't take this out of WP:NOTNEWS. Having done a new search as if this were an active AfD, I don't think this would pass a new AfD. We'll see what others think. SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Again, the original AfD is moot--it doesn't matter if it was 10:1. And you are focusing on subjective judgement of the subject, rather than objective evaluation of the available data. Why do you ignore the copious data in the NTSB docket? Here is the final report summary, the original source for the local news you mention, which is another WP:RS doc that contains more than enough info on it's own: [https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/96738/pdf] Dhaluza (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Restore. The DRV nominator has provided convincing evidence that Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose is met in that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator notes, "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. Specifically, procedures for Thermal Acoustic Imaging (TAI) inspection of hollow-core fan blades by Pratt & Whitney were analyzed by NTSB and needed to be significantly changed."

  The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2019, 2020, and 2021 even years after it took place on 13 February 2018. Sources published from one month to three years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:

  1. {{cite news |date=2018-03-07 |title=NTSB's initial probe finds likely cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii |url=https://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/03/07/breaking-news/ntsb-broken-fan-blade-led-to-uniteds-flight-emergency-landing-in-honolulu/ |newspaper=Honolulu Star-Advertiser |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228003629/https://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/03/07/breaking-news/ntsb-broken-fan-blade-led-to-uniteds-flight-emergency-landing-in-honolulu/ |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}
  2. {{cite news |last=Morales |first=Manolo |date=2019-08-23 |title=United pilot recalls averting airline disaster |url=https://www.khon2.com/news/united-pilot-recalls-averting-airline-disaster/ |publisher=KHON-TV |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228005218/https://www.khon2.com/news/united-pilot-recalls-averting-airline-disaster/ |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}
  3. {{cite news |last=O'Connor |first=John |date=2020-06-06 |title=United, others sued for 2018 in-flight incident |url=https://www.postguam.com/news/local/united-others-sued-for-2018-in-flight-incident/article_22af05aa-a5f6-11ea-b4d8-cf9a7547c076.html |newspaper=Guam Daily Post |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228004155/https://www.postguam.com/news/local/united-others-sued-for-2018-in-flight-incident/article_22af05aa-a5f6-11ea-b4d8-cf9a7547c076.html |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}
  4. {{cite news |date=2020-06-30 |title=NTSB releases final report on cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii |url=https://www.khon2.com/local-news/ntsb-releases-report-on-likely-cause-of-engine-blowout-on-united-flight-to-hawaii/ |publisher=KHON-TV |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228005016/https://www.khon2.com/local-news/ntsb-releases-report-on-likely-cause-of-engine-blowout-on-united-flight-to-hawaii/ |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}
  5. {{cite news |last=Vasile |first=Zachary F. |date=2020-07-03 |title=NTSB: Pratt inspection missed cracked fan blade |url=https://www.journalinquirer.com/business/ntsb-pratt-inspection-missed-cracked-fan-blade/article_7a095b24-bd3f-11ea-9c2f-2b96cf2df0d8.html |newspaper=Journal Inquirer |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228003946/https://www.journalinquirer.com/business/ntsb-pratt-inspection-missed-cracked-fan-blade/article_7a095b24-bd3f-11ea-9c2f-2b96cf2df0d8.html |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}
  6. {{cite news |last=Andrew |first=Scottie |date=2021-02-22 |title=Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018 |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/22/us/united-airlines-2018-engine-failure-trnd/index.html |publisher=CNN |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228004751/https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/22/us/united-airlines-2018-engine-failure-trnd/index.html |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}
  7. {{cite news |last=Mayer |first=Erick Haw |date=2021-02-27 |title=En 2018 otro Boeing 777 de United Airlines sufrió una falla de motor |trans-title=In 2018 another United Airlines Boeing 777 suffered an engine failure |language=es |url=https://www.transponder1200.com/en-2018-otro-boeing-777-de-united-airlines-sufrio-una-falla-de-motor/ |website=Transponder 1200 |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228010301/https://www.transponder1200.com/en-2018-otro-boeing-777-de-united-airlines-sufrio-una-falla-de-motor/ |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}

     From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."

  Additional sources that provide less significant coverage:

  1. {{cite news |last1=Tangel |first1=Andrew |last2=Sider |first2=Alison |date=2021-02-25 |title=Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-moved-to-replace-777-engine-covers-before-recent-failures-11614249006 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://archive.today/2021.02.25-133657/https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-moved-to-replace-777-engine-covers-before-recent-failures-11614249006 |archivedate=2021-02-25 }}

     The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."

  2. {{cite news |last=Siemaszko |first=Corky |date=2021-02-22 |title=Plane engine that caught fire on United Airlines flight over Denver has troubled history |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plane-engine-caught-fire-united-airlines-flight-over-denver-has-n1258557 |publisher=NBC News |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228011634/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plane-engine-caught-fire-united-airlines-flight-over-denver-has-n1258557 |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}

     The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."

  3. {{cite news |last=Levin |first=Alan |date=2021-02-21 |title=Engine Failure Spurs Boeing 777 Groundings in U.S. and Japan |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-21/faa-orders-emergency-inspections-after-denver-jet-incident |agency=Bloomberg News |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://archive.today/2021.02.28-012553/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-21/faa-orders-emergency-inspections-after-denver-jet-incident |archivedate=2021-02-28 }}

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:*Thanks for the support, but I would like to point out that the article: "{{cite news |last1=Tangel |first1=Andrew |last2=Sider |first2=Alison |date=2021-02-25 |title=Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-moved-to-replace-777-engine-covers-before-recent-failures-11614249006 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |accessdate=2021-02-28 |archiveurl=https://archive.today/2021.02.25-133657/https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-moved-to-replace-777-engine-covers-before-recent-failures-11614249006 |archivedate=2021-02-25 }}", rather than providing "less significant coverage" actually is quite significant, and a key piece of new information. This reporting found documents that show that Boeing recognized it's 777-200 airframe needed a redesign and replacement of the cowling parts that failed in this incident. That's quite significant, especially in light of the two subsequent similar failures. These issues are apparently not limited to the specific aircraft in this incident, and may have much wider implications on the aviation industry.Dhaluza (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::*Thank you for pointing this out so I can clarify. I agree that the material in The Wall Street Journal is significant or important for providing a "key piece of new information". I was using a different definition of "significant" (the one at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline) where I was saying those three sources (The Wall Street Journal, NBC News, and Bloomberg News) don't spend as many words discussing United Airlines Flight 1175 as the preceding seven sources.

Cunard (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::*I disagree on this, and strongly. The sources fall into one of two categories: local news directly related to the incident (Honolulu, East Hartford), or piggyback coverage of the Denver event. This was not notable at the time of the event and it is not notable now. Not everything the NTSB produces a report for is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::::*The WSJ exclusive reporting does not fit into the two bins that you dismiss. It found that Boeing was working on a redesign of the PW4000 inlet duct, which has a significant effect on the aircraft industry in multiple areas, and that was not publicly known previously. Also the NTSB PD material is not a local news source, or piggyback coverage, so that doesn't fit either. The essence of WP:N is significant coverage in reliable sources. The two sources I just mentioned cover that, even if you completely discount all news coverage of the event itself as you do. NTSB is an exemplar of a reliable secondary source as they provide in-depth expert analysis from a variety of stakeholders. Yes, not all incidents get in-depth analysis, but where NTSB and the involved parties expend considerable resources on a report with significant findings intended to effect change on the industry, that is prima facia evidence of notability. Dhaluza (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::::*There is enough new coverage to prevent a deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Those are reasonable arguments about the sources that can be made at a new AfD. My view is that the event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources connected with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::*The WSJ report only has a couple sentences on the incident, there's barely any new coverage, the release of an NTSB report alone doesn't lend itself to notability, and incidents of this sort generally tend to not pass WP:NEVENT at AfD. If someone wants to recreate this, fine, but I don't see this passing a new AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::*No, the lasting effect of the incident, i.e. redesign of the inlet, is the central subject of the WSJ article's new exclusive reporting, which is direct evidence of WP:LASTING, on an aircraft used internationally WP:GEOSCOPE. The NTSB report is WP:INDEPTH. And the continuing coverage in different forums meets WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. So that's all of WP:NEVENT. I put the article up for DR to get the old version and history restored, rather than starting again. Dhaluza (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::::*I do not agree at all, and think the article should remain deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I can't say I'm exactly persuaded by the nominator's argument. Changes to procedures for Thermal Acoustic Imaging inspection of hollow-core fan blades aren't the kind of thing which gets much media coverage. Nor does the fact the NTSB wrote a report on it mean much, if it did then basically every aviation incident in the United States would have an article. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay with no official standing. Cunard's sources are better but they still seem to be mostly either covering it in the context of other 777 incidents or are just reporting the results of the NTSB report. I suspect we may be better off covering this in a more general article about issues with the 777. Creating a draft version might help to demonstrate notability. Hut 8.5 13:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse because there is no assertion that an incorrect conclusion was reached at the previous AfD. Allow recreation because there's nothing about an AfD that ever precludes restoration when the circumstances of the AfD change. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse, allow re-creation. If an experienced editor, like User:Dhaluza, thinks new information overcomes the old AfD reasons for deletion, then they should boldly re-create. If they want to be tentative, make a draft and ask the deleting admin, or put it through AfC. This DRV will not AfD-proof the re-created article, so there is no point bringing this question here. There is a point if someone has told you that you may not re-create it, or you did and it was G4-ed, which, if there were new sources, would be found to be an improper G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:* Thanks, but just to be clear, I am trying to get the the old article undeleted/restored so I can add the new info to it. I don't want to start from scratch, and the previous editors' work (and references) should not be lost. Also, although the basis of this DR is that there is new info, it should have been obvious at the time of the AfD that there would be new info with an active NTSB investigation ongoing, so the AfD was premature, at best. And with two subsequent repeat performances, with multiple RS using this previous case in secondary source analysis, it should now be no contest on WP:N on the policy as written (but not necessarily as it is commonly misapplied). P.S. I've also, been working with NTSB Media relations to get the preliminary and final reports re-posted after they were lost in a database changeover (I have found archive copies). These (and the coverage of them) are more than enough to form the basis of an article on their own. Dhaluza (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

:**In that case, ask an admin to email you the text, or put it into your Sandbox or draft, add the information you want, and then either shop it around (as recommended by SmokeyJoe above) or just move it back into articlespace. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

:** Dhaluza, I see. The problem is the poor text at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose. I suggest asking User:SportingFlyer about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FPurpose&type=revision&diff=989676557&oldid=989658311 his revert] back to the clearly inadequate. To get the old deleted article, use WP:REFUND, or, as it suggests there, ask the deleting admin or any other admin. If the admin doesn't want to undelete straight to mainspace, they should userfy or draftify, from where you take the responsibility. It is only sensible to have to come the this heavy forum if the undeletion request is refused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

:::*That's the second or third time you've accused/pinged me from impeding "progress" even though you failed to gain a consensus to make that change. If you want to make the change, start an RfC and gain consensus. I do not appreciate the ping. Considering this is an article I would send to AfD immediately if it were restored or recreated on notability grounds, I don't see there being any problem with the conversation we're currently having. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

::::* OK, let’s go back to WT:Deletion review#Modified DRV instructions. My repeated reading of that thread is that you are the only blocking party, and you stopped responding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::*Only five users participated in that discussion including you and me, and under my reading, I don't think {{u|S Marshall}}, {{u|Levivich}}, or the friendly IP editor agreed with your changes outright (though the IP was close.) That's not enough of a consensus to make what would be a fairly big change to DRV's purview. If you'd like to make a change, I'd suggest workshopping text or starting an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Restore. If it is still not considered adequate, another Afd would be possible. At this point there's enough that the burden shifts to those who would want it deleted. I am also willing to undelete the text to get thigns started in draft, but I think that isn't really necessary. DGG ( talk ) 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Ultimate Kricket Challenge|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Kricket Challenge|article=}}

Due process was not followed in this AFD closure. The AFD shows a consensus to delete, with only a few editors suggesting otherwise, of which at least 1 just used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Questionable non-admin closure of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• This user's currently at ANI for issues regarding AfD closures. I don't see why this discussion even needs to last a week - hopefully an admin will just revert the close. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:*(I also wouldn't mind a relist so I can participate in the AfD). SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Relist as the simpler way to deal with an improper closure. As a second choice:
• Overturn to Delete as the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Revert the NAC. The closure is under review for poor closing at ANI. This is quite unusual for someone with 75,000 edits. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Relist - this was, in no way, an AfD that a non-admin should be closing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - Patterns of poor judgment by experienced editors, whether with 10,000 edits or 300,000 edits, are the exception rather than rule. When non-admins get taken to ANI or DRV for poor closings, they are almost always for poor Keeps, because they don't have a Delete button. The fact that there are patterns of poor judgment is one of the reasons why we have WP:ANI and DRV. But you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would have presumed that you know that I know you knew that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|James Merry (actor)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Merry (actor)|article=}}

I created this page back in 2010 when he was a character in British soap opera Doctors. I have updated sporadically and now find it deleted. The deletion discussion suggested this actor appeared in YouTube shows, when in fact he is on the BBC every day in Waffle The Wonder Dog. He has also appeared in several other TV shows. Can I request this page is reinstated please?

Here are references for his career:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm2771194/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&hl=en-gb&ei=DzE6YL-EG-LC8gLcyqBI&q=james+merry+waffle+the+wonder+dog&oq=james+merry+waffle+the+wonder+dog&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQguEJMCMgUIIRCgAToECAAQDToCCAA6BggAEBYQHjoCCC5QuiBYr0Ng3UVoAHAAeACAAWOIAdYOkgECMjeYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesmerry17?lang=en

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_the_Wonder_Dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b09tn0ys/waffle-the-wonder-dog

https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/shows/waffle-the-wonder-dog Frankcable (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. None of the above are suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe Can you advise what is a suitable source please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• User:Frankcable, a suitable source is independent of the subject, reliably published, and comments directly and in depth on the subject. You need two or three of these. IMDB, Twitter, Wikipedia, and any user-contributed website is deemed unreliable for Wikipedia to use. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse, at least for now. I sympathise with the original poster here - that AfD wasn't well attended and looks like one of our run of the mill deletion discussions, and had they participated may have run closer to a no consensus especially given the poor rationale of one of the votes (the Youtube one.) However, given the sources above this isn't a slam dunk restore by any means - the community has determined IMDB isn't reliable for notability purposes, and none of the other sources are secondary sources, i.e. unrelated to the actor or the shows they appear in. Therefore I'll reluctantly endorse, but if other, better, secondary sources are found, I'd be happy to overturn and relist so they can be presented and discussed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer

I’m happy to provide more sources but I’m at a loss to know what is more reliable than IMDB and BBC sources? What is required? Please advise and thank you for intervening and reviewing the discussion. Frank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyerI think this is what you mean by secondary sources. I apologise, I’m not an experienced Wiki editor or anything like that, so I’m doing my best! This is the actors appearance as a guest on a British radio show and a BAFTA nomination for his children’s TV show.

https://www.bafta.org/children/awards/childrens-awards-nominations-2018#PRE-SCHOOL%20–%20LIVE%20ACTION

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/hawksbee-and-jacobs-daily-458993/episodes/waffle-the-wonder-dog-teenage-53820719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankcable (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:*No worries, that's why I spelled it out. Neither of those sources work either - the first one doesn't even reference him, it's just a list of nominated shows. The second one can't be used because it's not independent of the actor. You can't make yourself notable. I've just done a search to find an example but unfortunately I can't find a good example for him. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse as a valid closure. Relist would have also been valid, but the question is whether there was an error by the closer. There wasn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Allow Re-Creation as Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think this is poor advice. I think better advice is for User:Frankcable to find suitable sources to add material, including comment on this actor, to Waffle the Wonder Dog. For the actor, it sounds like WP:BIO1E. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Squad (app)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app)|article=}}

{{collapse top|Discussion with closing admin}}

Hi Sandstein. Would you modify your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) from "delete" to "redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad" with the history preserved under the redirect? This is needed to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia since I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Twitter&diff=1008003643&oldid=1005079073 had merged] the article's content to the list. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|Cunard}}, no, because otherwise anybody could prevent the deletion of content by merging it somewhere during an AfD. We routinely delete articles even though content from them might have been merged to other articles. Sandstein 11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app), I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Twitter&diff=1008003643&oldid=1005079073 had merged] the content in Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. Sandstein, the closing admin, deleted the article and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph10p?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=1009220749#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Squad_(app) has refused] to restore the article's history, which is needed per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

The closing admin wrote, "no, because otherwise anybody could prevent the deletion of content by merging it somewhere during an AfD. We routinely delete articles even though content from them might have been merged to other articles". The deletion does not comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I merged the content to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad since I believed it would improve that article by providing readers background information about Squad, a company acquired by Twitter. The Squad (app) article did not contain copyright violations or BLP violations so there was no need to delete the article's history.

I ask the community to restore the article's history under a redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. Cunard (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend declining this request.

:It is an abuse of the deletion review process, which DRV should not protect. Cunard made the merger while the AfD was ongoing and about to be closed as "delete". They sought to prevent that foreseeable consensus outcome, which they do not contest, by merging part of the article elsewhere and now invoking attribution policy. But that policy was not intended to allow individual editors to prevent the community from deleting content by consensus. Because all editors must abide by consensus, individual editors cannot stymie it by invoking unrelated policies.

:Moreover, because Cunard does not contest that there was consensus to delete this article, a solution other than undeletion should be found that complies with both the AfD consensus and attribution policy. That solution is to undo the merger, which I have now done, and possibly also to revision-delete that content. It was in any case an ill-considered merger, because it inserted a footnote with article content into what was otherwise a plain list. This is also an indication that it was done merely to prevent a "delete" closure of the AfD rather than with an intent to improve the target article. Sandstein 12:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• AfDs should be derailed when someone points out a BEFORE failure. It could be said that the other participants, except the last, simply didn’t consider the merge option because it wasn’t raised. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• The last participant was blocked by the AfD nominator with the reasoning "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising." Cunard (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Relist, specifically asking for discussion of the smerge option done by Cunard. The AfD nominator failed BEFORE, failed to note the possible merge option and explain why it was not suitable. This failure invalidates the consensus to delete. The obvious merge option has to be mentioned, and discussion allowed. Relist for a minimum seven days. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

: The stated and repeated reason for deletion was notability. Notability is not a reason for deletion if there is a viable merge target. There was inadequate discussion on the viability of the merge target, and so a relist is needed to allow for that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why's it needful to relist, though? That's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Clearly, the content should be deleted, because of the consensus to delete it; clearly, there should be a listing at the list of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter, because the app was acquired by Twitter. What's at issue is a technicality relating to the reuse of text in the light of WP:CWW. What we should do is restore Cunard's edit to the list of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter but remove the footnote he put in with that edit. (None of the other entries have footnotes.) The remaining text without the footnote doesn't meet the threshold of originality, so it doesn't create a CWW issue. By this means the consensus is implemented, the encyclopaedic information is preserved, and the process is correctly followed, without any further investment of editor time and attention on attribution technicalities, and I heartily recommend that this is what we do.—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• It is overreach for DRV participants to do this. DRV should not be micromanaging content decisions. Better to refer it back to AfD. AfD may well decide to redirect with history intact, and then editors can deal the details. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see it that way at all. I think what DRV should be doing is correcting deletion-related errors, and it has wide latitude to do so. On occasion it's overturned a decision to the diametrically opposite result. I think it's right that we should have that power. I mean, I know that a Court of Appeal often returns decisions to the lower court for them to think again, but Wikipedian content decisions aren't litigation.—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I guess our difference is that I don't see an obvious outcome. I think that either the history should be undeleted, or a relist allowed to establish a consensus against Cunard's merge, in which case Cunard's merge should be rev-del-ed, and Cunard chastised for a disruptive merge mid-AfD. The second is possible, but needs the relist to establish the facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Relist or userfy Preserving attribution is a legal duty which needs proper consideration and it didn't get it in this case. Redirects are cheap but Sandstein seems to have an obdurate attachment to hard deletion as they stated baldly that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=1003098071 I do not undelete articles], when I asked them politely to userfy in another case. Their personal bias makes them involved and so they should recuse from such cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion. This really isn't a deletion issue - there's a clear consensus the information should be deleted, and the merge attribution issue doesn't change that. WP:RUD appears relevant here - the merge is fine, as long as it's properly attributed. Furthermore, the information appears to have been merged into a list/table even though none of the other elements of the list contain any sort of prose, so there's a possible discussion to be had about content, but that's not for DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Sandstein wrote, "Moreover, because Cunard does not contest that there was consensus to delete this article". I do contest that there was consensus to delete the article. None of the AfD participants said in their AfD comments what they thought about a merge, so it is unknown if any of them had considered it. The only editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSquad_%28app%29&diff=1008199483&oldid=1008003907 commented] after I posted at the AfD was blocked by the AfD nominator with the reasoning "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising." After I suggested a merge target, there was no consensus to delete since no one explained why a merge did not improve Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion urges editors to consider a merge as an alternative to deletion.

  I merged Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad because I thought it would benefit readers. The list has very little information about each of the Twitter acquisitions. I envision a fully fleshed out list would have a column similar to the "Details of the acquisition" column in List of acquisitions by Disney that would briefly discuss each company's history and background. I completed the merge because I wanted to improve Wikipedia and considered the material I merged to be due weight. I did not conduct a merge "merely to prevent a 'delete' closure of the AfD rather than with an intent to improve the target article". This is a hurtful and very bad faith assertion by Sandstein that has no basis.

  I added the material in a footnote. In retrospect, it would have been better presented in the table as a new column titled "Background information about the company" or "Details of the acquisition". This is a content matter and is not grounds for deleting the material from the list, which Sandstein [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Twitter&diff=1009230214&oldid=1008252703 has done]. I would prefer not to implement {{user|S Marshall}}'s suggestion to remove the footnote I added since that would lead to less information for readers about what Squad is.

  I support a relist as recommended by {{user|SmokeyJoe}} and {{user|Andrew Davidson}} so the community can consider the merge. This will give editors the opportunity to explain why they think a merge does not improve Wikipedia.

  Cunard (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse there was clear consensus for deletion in the AfD and it couldn't have been closed any other way. While there is definitely scope for including the subject as an entry in the list of Twitter acquisitions, the merge was done by including a description of the list entry in a footnote, which just looks bizarre and is contrary to all practice for such lists. Trying to preempt deletion at AfD by carrying out an inappropriate merge isn't a good idea. Indeed merging something which is about to be deleted at AfD can be seen as an attempt to avoid consensus and present the participants with a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Hut 8.5 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Preempting deletion is justified because the nominator failed WP:BEFORE#C.4. There has to be consequence of nominators failing BEFORE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I've never seen that rule applied before in any circumstance, much less as a sanction. You're basically proposing that AfD nominators must first check to see if they can merge the page before deleting. That's not the way it works. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Sancton? Consequence is to the progress of the AfD, although yes, nominators nominating for deletion due to lack of notability should be reminded that non notability is only a reason for deletion if there is no merge target. That is exactly how it is supposed to work, and it is how it is written, WP:BEFORE (C.4) and WP:N. There is more than a hint in the lettering of “BEFORE”. Before nominating, check for merge targets, among other WP:ATD clear policy alternatives, and having done that, mention it in the nomination. Sorry, but Cunard did right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just because a merge target exists doesn't protect a page from outright deletion - users may agree that merging is not appropriate. Consensus was clearly delete. The options are revdel the merge or make the copy compliant with WP:RUD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I do not agree that there is a consensus to delete. Here are the five participants in the AfD:
  1. MER-C (delete): established editor
  2. Dial911 (delete): established editor
  3. Luciapop (delete): account created on 19 August 2020 and first edit on 21 January 2021
  4. Cunard (merge): established editor
  5. Mazurkevin (delete): account blocked by AfD nominator for covert advertising
  Two established editors said "delete". One editor who made their first edit a month ago and one editor who was blocked for covert advertising said "delete". One editor said "merge". All of the "delete" editors (except for the blocked account) commented before a merge was suggested.

  Cunard (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• The AfD was flawed, and the apparent consensus is thus not a consensus. One spoke to a merge, none spoke against the merge (except maybe the last !voter who is now blocked). The AfD failed WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD-M by not considering the obvious merge, except for Cunard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• New editors shouldn't have their contributions discounted just for for being new. Doing so is grossly unfair. If there is evidence of offsite canvassing, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry then the closer would be justified in doing that, but there isn't. Being blocked also doesn't automatically invalidate all your contributions up to that point. That account was blocked for "likely covert advertising". Since their contribution to this AfD wasn't covert advertising I don't see how that affects things. You do seem to be overlooking the fact that any sort of merge is impractical unless List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter is completely restructured, which is well outside the scope of the AfD, and various proposals to make BEFORE into an enforceable policy (e.g. this one) have failed. Hut 8.5 09:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Realizing there are a number of editors involved who I respect, this is stupid people. We do *still* have a copyright problem--as long as that text from the footnote is in the history, it's still a technical copyright issue. So our choices are:
• Ignore it. The language of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems seems to indicate that's okay unless the copyright holder complains. I've personally got issues with that...
• Fix it by doing an undelete and redirect.
• Fix it by doing a RevDel.
• Fix it by finding who all contributed to writing the text and including them in an edit summary of a null edit (which sometimes pisses some tools and people off, but I think is a reasonable way forward).

:Pick one folks. If no one is going to do anything else because it's too much work or too heavy of a process, I'd say undelete and redirect is the way to go. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Undelete the history and redirect. That would solve all problems here and hurt nothing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:::There is no requirement in policy that all copyright violations in a page's history must be revdeled. Hut 8.5 09:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::::Unless the copyright holder objects, that is my reading also. It is still a copyright violation however and I'd prefer we avoid those where it's easy to do so. Hobit (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: If I were to request at WP:REFUND that :Squad (app) be moved to my userspace or Draft:Squad (app), would that request be denied? On what basis would the request be denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at WP:REFUND for improvements or for use in other articles. From WP:REFUND (my bolding):

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

  Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". My intent would be to use the article's content in a new column titled "Background information" in List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.

  Cunard (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as correct reading of consensus. Merging, particularly late in the deletion process, as an attempt to do an end-run around a clear delete consensus is strongly deprecated; see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Hobit wrote, "Fix it by finding who all contributed to writing the text and including them in an edit summary of a null edit". SportingFlyer wrote, "WP:RUD appears relevant here - the merge is fine, as long as it's properly attributed."

  Would an admin post the list of contributors to Squad (app) so that I can both comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and restore information about Squad to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad in a new column in the table called "More information about the acquired or merged company"? I think adding that information about Squad to the list in a new column (rather than as a footnote, which I originally did) would improve Wikipedia.

  Cunard (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

::{{re|Cunard}} the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22. Hut 8.5 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

:::Thank you. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Twitter&diff=1009788340&oldid=1009230214 added] a new column titled "More information about the acquired or merged company" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Twitter&diff=1009788538&oldid=1009788340 merged] material from Squad (app) to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad with the edit summary, "merged content from Squad (app). From this comment, 'the article was entirely written by User:Mcorw22.'" Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment is redirecting then fully protecting the article, with history intact, sufficient for CWW attribution purposes? Would that achieve the goals reached by consensus at the AfD? Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:*I've just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Twitter&diff=1009788538&oldid=1009788340 done] the WP:RUD attribution method so that I could add the Squad content to the Twitter list now. But I agree that "redirecting then fully protecting the article, with history intact" would be sufficient for CWW attribution purposes. It would achieve the goal at the AfD of not having an article at the Squad (app) title.

I do not understand why some editors object to restoring the article's history under a redirect at Squad (app). Instead of requesting undeletion of Squad (app) at DRV, I could have asked at WP:REFUND that it be moved to Draft:Squad (app). After completing a merge, I could have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title. At AfD, I usually support retaining an article's history (if it does not contain BLP or copyright violations) when Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion applies since the history frequently has useful information and sources that can be used elsewhere.

Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:*That would be an end-around to the result of the AfD, which really is something that should be avoided as it would create a deletion loophole. As I've noted, there are really two questions here: was the AfD correctly decided? And, if so, what to do with the merged information? As I've noted, I don't mind moving the information, but there was a clear consensus not to keep the page, meaning I think WP:RUD is the proper solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:** I don't think that's correct. Very few times (Attack, promotion, copyvio) are articles to be excised along with all their content; in most cases, redirecting suffices, especially for issues like notability, and protecting a redirect is an appropriate remedy in case of disruption that 1) allows the salvageable content to be merged and attributed appropriately, while 2) making sure we needn't repeatedly re-redirect an article that had been judged and found wanting. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

:***Well, articles are "excised" whenever a delete consensus exists at AfD, and we've in the past gone to arbitration about situations where similar things have occurred to prevent deletion. We've got a situation here where we have two viable options, but there's one that's "more correct" because it doesn't encourage an end-around to an AfD delete consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

::It isn't necessary to protect, it isn't protected now. Peter James (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Relist or userfy I agree with Andrew's point here. Preserving attribution is a legal duty which needs proper consideration and it didn't get it in this case. Cuoxo (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• :Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• endorse Attribution can be met by copying the list of major contributors to the article into the edit history. Runarounds of consensus like this are a dick move. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• :Or restore as a redirect (or move somewhere it can stay if a redirect isn't useful). If there is content that shouldn't be available, revision deletion can be used. That way if the source has ever been attributed with a permanent link it will still work, and contributors' names will be automatically updated (for example if they change username for privacy). Peter James (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Friday Night Funkin'|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday Night Funkin'|article=}}

This article has been deleted twice as a result of an AfD from December, but the topic has gathered attention surprisingly rapidly since then and I believe that it may now meet WP:GNG.

Sources:

• [https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/8/22220670/friday-night-funkin-browser-game-tiktok-songs]
• [https://www.100milefreepress.net/entertainment/south-cariboo-game-designer-reaps-success/]
• [https://gamerant.com/friday-night-funkin-guest-appearances-cameos-newgrounds-flash/]
• [https://techraptor.net/gaming/features/friday-night-funkin-flash-games]
• [https://gamerant.com/parappa-the-rapper-friday-night-funkin/]
• [https://indie-hive.com/friday-night-funkin/]

Multiple in-depth articles/reviews in multiple gaming news outlets would appear to satisfy GNG. Given the popularity of the game on social media, I imagine the dead article title is probably getting hits, so it should be restored if notability allows. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:allow recreation It does seem to me there has been sufficient new coverage since the afd that the page could be recreated (that’s not to guarantee it’s notable, but that the situation has changed to render the Afds consensus, for lack of a better word, obsolete). The article itself was completely unsourced and fancrufty, so I see no value in restoring it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Undelete straight to mainspace. It was in development, and deletions reasons cited “TOOSOON”. It should have been draftified, not deleted. It now seems to be released, and there is a flurry of sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Allow recreation, though if the article gets sent back to AfD, I'd note this discussion does not preclude it from being deleted again. I'm also against moving it directly back to mainspace due to the potential copyright issue noted in the final delete comment - if an admin reviews this and determines it's not an issue, then I'm content with a direct restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Allow Re-Creation in Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion (I deleted it in AfD) but it appears to have already been recreated on 28 February 2021 by User:Geekgecko. Missvain (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, that saves some work then, assuming that it stands. In that case the relevant question (assuming this DRV overturns the previous delete decision) is whether the former article(s) that were deleted contained content that should be restored/merged. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Huh, I had no knowledge there was such a big debate over this; I've seen it get a lot of attention on social media over the past few months, recently noticed a lot of news sources covering it even though it still had no Wikipedia page, and made the page from scratch. If previous since-deleted iterations of the page exist with info that isn't currently on there, you could add the info in them to the one I made.Geekgecko (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse and move forward 1) The deletion discussion was arguably correct at the time, and 2) nothing about it prevents the new article from existing, thriving, and growing to FA status if new information. An AfD is 'delete this as it exists now' not a 'delete and ask-DRV-mother-may-I before creating an article on this topic henceforth'. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Previous recreation had been deleted referencing the AfD which is why I took the matter here to get an official word. BlackholeWA (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Ah. So you're actually wanting to contest not the original AfD, but {{U|Ritchie333}}'s G4 speedy deletion of the recreated content. I know, that can sound like an arcane difference, but it affects how we address this topic. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not necessarily that deletion, but if the former AfD was functioning as consensus to not have an article on that topic, I wanted to formally challenge that consensus given the new sources. I think this falls under DRV purpose point 3, to challenge "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". BlackholeWA (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Hmm. I agree, the verbiage is confusing, especially in light of DRV purpose not point #9, which states it is inapplicable in case of very old deletions with new info. I'm still pretty sure a G4 of a recreated article that has significant new information is not appropriate under that criteria, regardless of how old the AfD is or is not, so yeah--we could clarify it. My position, that substantial new RS information moots an old AfD and so if someone doesn't like the new one they can take it to AfD again, is unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

:{{Hatnote|See also: Draft:Izuru Kamukura (talk)}}

I created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Izuru_Kamukura&diff=1009285054&oldid=1009280707 this article] but in less than a week, the entire video game project deleted it despite my attempts to write as much as real world information as possible to pass notability guidelines. Instead, they deleted it, claiming it doesn't count because some months ago another user rushed a page of the character without any real world information. In the project people kept insisted it had a bad prose rather than notability issues and as soon as I requested a copyedit from the guild and rewrote most of the ficitional content, it got deleted. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse closure of Redirect, and Protect the Redirect due to the edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Timeline: unanimous delete and redirect at an AfD in January 2021, I've added the link to that discussion above. Tintor2 attempted to recreate a standalone article, which was reverted back to a redirect due to the clear result at the last AfD. Tintor2 then did what looks like a copy-paste merge at List of Danganronpa characters [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Danganronpa_characters&type=revision&diff=1009303715&oldid=1009191560 here]. I can't look at the deleted version (no mop), which was created by a banned user. There's now a couple reverts as to whether this remains a redirect or a standalone page.

:The AfD noted that a number of sources in the old version of the article made it seem like the character had more notability than they really do, and I'd agree based on a quick spot check of the new version of the article. However, considering the rewrite, it probably makes sense to send back to AfD, assuming this isn't G4-eligible, which seems to be an easy assumption to make, but I'm not bolding my proposal since I'm not certain this is the right result. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

::Quick comment, it's not G4. The sock who created the last version has edited the current version though, and was CU'd today. Tintor has no involvement or relationship to the sockmaster, to be perfectly clear, beyond operating in the same topic space. Just noting since G4 and G5 are possible concerns for this topic. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:Okay so from what I get, a sockpuppet once tried making Hajime's article back in January and got redirected. However, the only Danganronpa article I contributed in that month was Makoto Naegi since I took a break in the second half of the month due to vacations. When I returned the only characters present were Makoto which I had to rewrite when it came to to the in-universe information since the material from the character list was too confusing. The sockpuppet created the articles for Monokuma and Toko Fukawa based on what I remember. The only two articles I later created involved Nagito Komaeda, List of Danganronpa media and finally Hajime Hinata which the other user moved to Izuru Kamukura due to the complicated identity of such character. The rest has already been told. I tried rewriting Hajime/Izuru's appearances section due to how weird was his character section and then ask for guild's help but after it was deleted again, I had to remove the request.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::*Thanks, based on that we need to take a closer look at those other articles, I think at least Toko Fukawa would be eligible for WP:G5. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse redirect - Creative reworking doesn't substitute for meeting the WP:GNG. Best case scenario, WP:TNT, because it was very poorly written at last read. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:I tried rewriting all the in-universe information from appearances and trim it. Not sure if it's easier to read.Tintor2 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn the AfD results, oppose protection of the redirect and allow recreation of the article. Tintor2 appears to be a longtime editor with good standing with the project, so they should be given the benefit of the doubt if they express a view that this topic meets WP:GNG. A closer examination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izuru Kamukura revealed that except for the sockpuppet creator, all of the participating editors advocated that it should be redirected without specifically saying it should be deleted as well, so there is no actual consensus for deletion on top of the redirect and the closer made an error of judgment. As per WP:ATD, asking for an article to be redirected is a valid alternative or compromise to deletion. There is no policy or consensus that ever precludes restoration if the contents are substantially different from the version being reviewed at AfD, and a recent example illustrates this point: if anyone is opposed to Tintor2's view of the topic's notability, they can always nominate their version for AfD. Haleth (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:*Im not sure exactly sure I'm following your reasoning on why the redirect part of the close/consensus though. I also don't think a single "no consensus" close a month or so back is as strong of a precedent as you think it is... Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD, Restore, and Send to AfD I don't think the draft of the article passes GNG having looked at the sources, but it's also not really a topic area I know anything about. Since this isn't a G4, I'd support moving this back to mainspace and having another AfD, under the assumption this is a different article than the one that was deleted per {{noping|Ferret}}'s helpful response above (not casting doubt, just can't prove it myself.) The original AfD seems valid and there's no reason to overturn it, so we're dealing with a recreated article here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

::Wait, so it's impossible to recreate the article only because somebody rushed it in January? Everything from this article was taken from the characters list and completely rewritten due to confusing inuniverse information so I can't understand what's the actual reason since it has nothing to do with the other article.Tintor2 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

:::No. I don't think the draft would be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Has nothing to do with the old AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect (without the deletion). No idea how we got deletion out of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn to redirect (without the deletion), move Draft back to Hajime Hinata and restore redirect Because of pages moves by sockpuppet, the attributions here are a train wreck now. Restore the original Izuru Kamukura (19ish edits?) and redirect per AFD. Move what is currently Draft:Izuru Kamukura back to Hajime Hinata, where it was before the sockpuppet moved it, then restore that to redirect too. I know the latter part of this isn't strictly DRV territory, just trying to put the pieces back where they belong. I'm happy to do the work. Where Tintor goes from there, I don't have immediate advice. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly support overturning and restoring article + WP:HISTMERGE for complete edit history. This shouldn't be at DRV at all and we're only having this discussion due to a series of misintepretations of Wikipedia policy which is unfortunate. First off, thing started with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIzuru_Kamukura&type=revision&diff=1002368293&oldid=1002307564 this AfD closure] which, frankly, is questionable, since while the consensus was clearly to redirect, no editor advocated deleting the article history then redirecting. This is an improper outcome when the topic clearly has the possibility of becoming a separate article in the future when additional sources are found. Afterward, Tintor2 came and recreated the article, from what I gather, completely from scratch - although I don't know for sure thanks to the strange "delete then redirect" decision of that AfD. In which case I will assume it was a complete rewrite - in which case [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Izuru_Kamukura&diff=1009285054&oldid=1009280707 this rationale] was inappropriate as the purpose of DRV is for the restoration of old content, not for the deletion of new content. (I might also add that the edit summary of that edit was quite battleground-y with the "do not revert this edit" and threat to salt the page when they don't have the ability to do so.) It is a long-standing principle of Wikipedia that it is not forbidden - indeed it is sometimes even encouraged - to recreate an article as long as its new iteration meets the relevant policies; its why we don't automatically salt pages after we delete them at AfD. I will also add that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AIzuru_Kamukura&type=revision&diff=1009422244&oldid=1009366060 this move] was inappropriate - the correct course of action when there is an active discussion is to drop the stick and leave things be until consensus is formed, not unilaterally move it to Draftspace.

:tl;dr restore the article and the complete edit history because the AfD closure, subsequent attempt to re-redirect a completely rewritten article, and unilateral move to Draftspace are all not consistent with policy. Any editor is free to renominate the article for AfD if they believe Tintor2's version doesn't meet the GNG or whatever. I personally believe it does. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Satellizer}} Don't necessarily disagree, except for the histmerge part. No histmerge should be needed. Tintor created his article at Hajime Hinata, as the character has two names and he thought that was the COMMON/primary. A sockpuppet (completely unrelated to Tintor to be clear) then moved the article over the Izuru Kamukura redirect. So I'd say: Move Draft:Izuru Kamukura back to Hajime Hinata, restore deleted revisions of Izuru Kamukura and redirect it to Hajime. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)