G11 speedy deletions overturned. The articles can be nominated at AfD by anyone inclined to do so. I am only restoring the articles mentioned in the review request because only they were the subject of substantial discussion here.
I am listing in this new DRV the pages not mentioned in the 18 March 2017 DRV nomination.
Speedy Overturn all Look, the default action for a contested speedy should be 'send to AfD', and Sandstein's closure is unfortunately, and I believe unduly, narrow. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, blatant spam, violation of Terms of Use, and frankly this determination to give the spammers what they paid for is mystifying to me. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to hear a full-fledged argument for why people think that. The other articles by-and-large looked fine and spam free. Is there actual spam in these articles? If so, can you point at it? Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it understandable that an admin could think this obvious enough to delete. But once they knew it was controversial, why force a deletion review instead of just taking it to afd? DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restore all. Once a CSD has been objected to in good faith (excluding copyright issues) then the page in question is not eligble for speedy deletion, regardless of the content of a page, who authored it and why. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restore all per above. I'm not seeing why this is spam, and if it is, it isn't clear enough for a CSD to be dealing with it. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
