The majority proposed deletion, but most of the reasons do not seem valid (WP:DEL#REASON): Never heard of, Russia is no longer emerging economically, overlap with other terms. The only reasons that seem valid are:
This is PwC's advertisments, slogans or labels / There is a distinct lack of sources about the E7: I commented that there are many academic sources (100+, with the term itself in title).
These academic sources are from predatory publishers: I checked a few of them and actually some are from high impact-factor journals (that are clearly not predatory publishers) about the topic available and provided an assessment table (see the original AfD). The only concern is about significant coverage but has not been responded yet.
I don't have a strong opinion towards keeping the article, but I believe as new information emerged, the discussion should better be relisted instead of being directly closed as delete --94rainTalk 02:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not one of the best discussions I've ever seen. I do think there was a clear delete consensus and the close wasn't improper, but looking beyond the consensus to the arguments - has this term been discussed in reliable sources? There are a few scholarly articles, but I can't really fault the discussion and would probably have voted delete myself. I do think we could potentially relist this though. SportingFlyerT·C 13:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD nominators's statement, the thread involving the nominator in this DRV and the AfD nominator and the !vote by Cortador combined with the lack of other opposition to arguments for deletion after a full discussion period plus the last comment which is essentially a pernom type comment with some not very relevant added text makes for a rough consensus that is validly grounded in deletion policy. The valid DELREASON-based argument is lack of notability. It would be best to endorse and for someone to recreate with better sourcing.—Alalch E. 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above two editors: I definitely agree there’s some consensus, but my source assessment table was added about one day before closure and there are no comments afterwards. Does that count as “significant new information”? I’d also appreciate any further evaluation of these sources. 94rainTalk 17:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a relist wouldn't have been improper but I also didn't necessarily see significant coverage in the academic articles to the extent I thought the outcome of the discussion was wrong. I likely would have !voted delete if I had been presented with those sources. SportingFlyerT·C 21:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree with the appellant that "never heard of it" is not a valid deletion criterion, and someone's fringe view about Russia's economic future doesn't even belong here. But there were two valid Delete !votes there - the nom, and the editor who did a thorough analysis of sources and reached the same conclusion. While some admins would have relisted to solicit more views, there was really no need for that in this case, and the AfD was closed correctly. Owen×☎ 18:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the two valid reasons above, as well as my disagreement accompanied with new information (source assessment table), which I believe deserves some further discussion. 94rainTalk 19:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing for the E7 article, rather than for the AfD process itself. Have you reviewed WP:DRVPURPOSE? The question before us here is not whether the E7 should exist, but whether the decision made by the closing admin correctly reflects consensus among the valid views of those participating in the AfD. If the closure was correctly based on that, but the situation has changed since then to justify recreating the article, the right venue to do that is WP:REFUND. Owen×☎ 20:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm more arguing about the process. I was seeking a relist instead of keep. The situation is that "4 editors !voted delete and 1 editor provided a few sources with some initial analysis near closure but no response". Is WP:REFUND the right place to continue the discussion? I appreciate your advice. 94rainTalk 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have new sources that weren't available (or were ignored) at the AfD, then WP:REFUND is the right place. I don't think this DRV is likely to end in anything but an Endorse decision. However, if all you can present are academic (=primary) sources, your request will likely be declined. You may want to review the policy at WP:PST. Owen×☎ 20:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was focusing on the reliability and SIGCOV aspects of GNG but rarely thought about the primary/secondary point. While I still believe a relist is the better way to go, I don't really think the article can be kept/restored at this time and will withdraw the request. --94rainTalk 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DRV nominator withdraw: While I believe a relist is the better way to go, I don't really think the article can actually be kept/restored at this time. I hereby withdraw my request. --94rainTalk 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
