Ultimate Kricket Challenge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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 usedWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Questionable non-admin closure of this AFD.Joseph2302 (talk)19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This user's currently atANI 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.SportingFlyerT·C19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Merry (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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-dogFrankcable (talk)11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

SmokeyJoe Can you advise what is a suitable source please?— Precedingunsigned comment added byFrankcable (talk •contribs)14:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.SportingFlyerT·C18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyerI’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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byFrankcable (talk •contribs)18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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— Precedingunsigned comment added byFrankcable (talk •contribs)19:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Squad (app) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DuringWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app), Ihad merged the content inSquad (app) toList of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad. Sandstein, the closing admin, deleted the article andhas refused to restore the article's history, which is needed perWikipedia: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 withWikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I merged the content toList 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. TheSquad (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 torestore the article's history under a redirect toList of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad.Cunard (talk)11:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommenddeclining 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. Sandstein12:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • AfDsshould 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)[reply]
    • The last participant wasblocked 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)[reply]
• 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 min8mum seven days. —SmokeyJoe (talk)14:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 ofWP: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/C14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 "I do not undelete articles, when I asked them politely to userfy in another case. Their personal bias makes theminvolved and so they should recuse from such cases.Andrew🐉(talk)15:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.SportingFlyerT·C18:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 whocommented after I posted at the AfD wasblocked 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 andWikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion urges editors to consider a merge as an alternative to deletion.

  I mergedSquad (app) toList 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 inList 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 bedue 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 Sandsteinhas done. I would prefer not to implementS Marshall (talk ·contribs)'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 bySmokeyJoe (talk ·contribs) andAndrew Davidson (talk ·contribs) 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)[reply]

• 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 aWP:FAITACCOMPLI.Hut 8.520:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Funkin' (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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 meetWP:GNG.

Sources:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

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)[reply]

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_Work11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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.SportingFlyerT·C18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izuru Kamukura (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I createdthis 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 passnotability 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)[reply]