There are sources and feel that the AfD was closed too fast, it should have been extended at least once. I had added this review and a Bengali source on the article but did not vote because I thought the whole AfD process was long and required input from many users. More sources here, here and here. The AfD closer should reopen the AfD discussion for another week at least to get more input. There are sources just nobody else did a WP:BEFORE. Also, given that Bengali language sources are hard to find, it would be helpful for any Bengali users (i. e. @Titodutta:) to voice their opinion. Unlike what the AfD says there is actually a reliable review from The Times of India. The reason why this page is not getting recreated is because of the user created it? Can somebody at least list the sources present on the article before it was deleted (they were reliable press releases). Because before the article was deleted, then the article seemed to have a lot of at least press releases. DareshMohan (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation of Draft, Weak Endorse the outcome. Per WP:RSP, The Times of India is between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, though it is listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force as a WP:RS for film reviews. So whether it is a RS is debatable. Of the other references you found I find them unconvincing but opinions will of course differ. Nevertheless, IMO this is a routine announcement on the actor and non-SIGCOV coverage of the plot, this is a purely routine announcement on a minor poster release, and falls under minor news stories or annnouncement columns IMO under WP:GNG. Then there is the interview, probably non-SIGCOV, likely primary, and likely non-independent. Therefore, IMO the sources provided are weak, but have no opinion on endorsing the close or overturning it to relist right now. Additionally, Also, given that Bengali language sources are hard to find, it would be helpful for any Bengali users (i. e. @Titodutta:) to voice their opinion IMO just feels very unconvincing, however, Robert McClenon's suggestion of overturning this to soft delete so that a new article could be created or submitted to review via AfC is also a good suggestion in addition to relisting, which is also a decent option. Nevertheless, IMO the closure is also reasonable so I'm still at neutral for now. Moreover, WP:HEY by another user is probably not mandatory for participants to agree whether a page should be kept per WP:NEXIST, but it is desirable and would be more convincing. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 20:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've clarified my bolded vote as allowing recreation of draft to submit via AfC but endorsing the original outcome for clarity. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 21:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as an Ignore some rules alternative to allow the appellant another seven days to expand the article. But it isn't enough to say that there are sources. The article has to summarize what the reviews say in order to qualify for a Heymann close. The alternative would be to change the close to a Soft Delete and allow the appellant to create an article, subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited in the last revision of the article were [1][2][3][4][5][6]. —Cryptic 21:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see the review from The Times of India was already included at reference 6, whereas the rest are routine announcements, minor news stories, and routine releases. So to clarify, Robert McClenon (who was a participant in the original AfD) and DareshMohan, is it true that this is only the single review you were able to find in both of your WP:BEFORE searches? Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the correct reading of unanimous consensus to delete. I think the appellant’s best course of action is to request the article be restored in draft space or userspace at WP:REFUND to allow all the time needed to develop an article based on the sources presented here, obviously subject to its own AFD. FrankAnchor 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure, as correctly interpreting the recommendations. The article creator can try again in draft or userspace to address the concerns raised in the discussion. Joyous! | Talk 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDareshMohan, next time you open a Deletion review, it's customary to alert the AFD/MFD/RFD discusion closer or admin who deleted the CSD-tagged page and to also post a notice of this review discussion on the AFD (which was done for you). I think the information regarding this is all there in the instructions. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 23:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This AFD ran for seven days, and had multiple participants all of whom !voted for deletion on notability grounds. How could this possibly have been closed in any other way than "delete" !?. Closers can only weigh an opposing argument if someone actually shows up at the AFD to make it, and they are specifically not supposed to form their own opinions based on the state of the article and its references. All the same I think the new sources do have some value and it makes sense to work on it in userspace then recreate. Thparkth (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hurricane Danielle (2022) – No consensus to take any action, because the appellant has not responded to questions about which relief they are seeking here. Sandstein 08:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Overturn to merge Even the good faith keep users didnt address the policy concern, and the article remains a blatant WP:CFORK. Do not relist as it was already relisted.--47.23.6.178 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
It isn't clear what the appellant is asking.
It isn't clear what policy concern the unregistered editor is saying wasn't addressed. The good faith editors discussed general notability, and the ambiguous project guideline.
It isn't clear why the unregistered editor thinks that there is a content fork. If there is any inconsistency between the parent article and the child article, the parent article should be revised. The need to avoid inconsistencies always applies to tropical storm season articles and storm articles.
I was the AFC acceptor, and said to Keep in the AFD.
I repeat my concern that there appear to be two different interpretations to the project guideline.
Comments According to the Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errorsUsing an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden.. CheckUser has confirmed that SOCK accounts are participating in the AFD. HurricaneEdgar 06:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What exactly is the nominator requesting here? Stifle (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because the appellant hasn't answered the question, asked both by me and by Stifle, as to what they are asking. It is true that there were sockpuppet !votes, and that sockpuppetry is forbidden. It appears that the closer would have closed the AFD in the same way if the sockpuppet !votes had been stricken. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the appellant requesting? Does the appellant understand that they are being asked to clarify what they are asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being pinged and a specific talk page message left asking for the nominator to come back and explain what precisely it is they want done, they have chosen not to do so, but have still been editing other articles. As such, I suggest this discussion be speedy closed for failing to particularise the request. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there was no doubt sock-puppetry, but even removing those 3 votes, there certainly wasn't a delete consensus, and not even a merge consensus. After the final relist, there were only 3 more comments - all keeps. Looking at the content, there might be some debate as whether the storm was a tropical storm when it hit Europe - but the storm itself appears noteworthy, and article name debates are outside the scope of DRV. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
