I sent him a notification about this DRV. He hasn't edited since last year. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to discuss it before opening the DRV, but seeing as how he seems to be inactive, it's probably kind of moot. In any case, the AfD saw minimal participation. I probably would have relisted it, or perhaps closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE. The sources presented here look plausible, so restoring it seems reasonable. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close since I don't find any fault with the closing admin's reading to the discussion, and allow recreation because of the new sources. ReykYO! 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closewhich means no restoration of history as the deletion was completely valid. Anyone is free to recreate if it would be substantially different (i.e. not G4 eligible) and doesn't need the permission of a deletion review. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and userfy. It was valid, but now we have sources. I can't think of a reason why we can't provide a copy of the old article as a starting point (no idea if the article was a decent starting point mind you). @TonyBallioni: am I missing some reason to not give someone creating a new article the ability to use the old one as a starting point (if they wish, clearly we can't and shouldn't require that). Hobit (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, very good point. I've struck that section above. If an article has been deleted in the past and the discussion was long, I tend to prefer new creations because it was assumed at the point of the AfD that the content was not worth keeping, and I don't like second guessing AfDs. At the same time, userfication is a normal process, and this specific AfD didn't give us a reason not to userfy. Thanks for raising the point. I'll agree with your suggestion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userify for improvement with mainspace movement at the requesting editor's initiative, and other editors free to AfD it if they feel it still needs deleting once mainspace'd again. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to SOFTDELETE Without discussion with the closer, we won't know if this otherwise erroneous WP:NOQUORUM was somehow an undocumented WP:IAR. Whether the OP wants to use WP:REFUND or wants to start a new article is up to the OP. Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Consider my !vote to be "userfy on request". Certainly not my intent to _make_ them start with the old article. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
