Aimee Challenor – Draftify. Saving some time by treating this as if it had gone to WP:REFUND, and clearly where this DRV is heading anyway. Endorse, I guess, but that's not really what was being asked anyway. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
(After a lot of confusion, I think this is the right place to request restoration of the page per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. If WP:REFUND is the right place, forgive me because the distinction between the criteria for each is bloody difficult to work out.) I don't contest the previous deletion result, but I do think Challenor now warrants an article. Since the last deletion discussion, a wealth of new sources about her have been published, some related to her father being convicted of rape ([1]). I can't see the sources in the original article, but those created since September 2017 include this full length Times article, brief coverage in HuffPost, a Guardian profile, a misgendering incident involving the BBC ([2]/[3]), an open letter started by her (Mirror article) and news that she was standing for deputy leadership ([4]) and then pulled out due to her father's conviction ([5]). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If you think the situation has changed, create the article yourself and see if it survives AfD. DRV is not a way to get around seeing if an article would survive AfD if it were recreated (the new information that has come to light post-dates the AfD, which means that a new AfD would be needed to assess them, not this forum.) You could also just have asked Premeditated Chaos to userfy it for you. Most admins will do this on request unless it is one of the G-series CSD criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD, of course. Usually, you should only come to DRV if a WP:REFUND request is refused and you disagree. As an experienced editor, it should probably be userfied for you, for you to decide when to put it back into mainspace, if ever. I am concerned that your new sources are running news coverage. Such sources are often found to not be good enough, too close to the subject to be called independent, too close in time especially. https://kualo.greenparty.org.uk/statements/ is a primary source and not useful for discussing notability. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/06/aimee-challenor-theresa-may-lgbt-inequality-transgender-green-party is an interviewed featured story, containing posed photos and CV. However, the sources are new, and if anyone including you considers the question of notability based on these sources debateable, the question is best examined in a new AfD. Therefore, userfy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but userfy as said above. The advice on these matters is somewhat incoherent and our behaviour is too. Some deleting admins, when asked to undelete, always refer you to DRV. At WP:REFUND in situations like this articles are quite often restored (but sometimes only to draft or user space). But the REFUND statement is confusing to many people (including me) because it seems to say the opposite of this: "This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion ... among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process". To me this wrongly suggests that deletions after AFDs where there was controversy (as in this case) will not be overturned. Thincat (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, what I'm looking for is to be able to see the content of the deleted page. So undeleting, userfying, moving to draft space etc. would all be fine. I was also looking to see if there was consensus of notability, so we didn't end up with a third AfD on the same page, but looks like this isn't the place for that. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but userfy - given that even the Nom agrees that the original close was correct, as well as everyone's own check, that seems reasonable to take as given. Since we have gone this approach, and DELREVIEW can userfy, and that seems to solve the issue - let's do that. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
