It would seem difficult to judge a consensus of delete result from the AfD and in this circumstance an explanation would be expected. And I would note we have lost content in contravention of the WP:PRESERVE policy plus references and attributions all when a suitable merge target existed Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, mostly. You yourself argued there was no good merge target. And the 'content lost' was like 3 sentences, 1 referenced. As I said, I am ok with soft delete and redirect, however - the problem is that nobody else, including you, supported any of the proposed merge targets. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus ... yes mostly ... I somewhat sense a a bit of a turd in the mouth in this close. I suspect anyone applying for adminship might be given a 3rd degree over it. I think I always support good merges, but they can be hard. I don'd support merge's that reduce content to triviality to avoid undue weight. I do have problems resourcing merge target identified on the talk page 6 months ago to do at least a middling job. I like to think I have a good eye for content that helps build Wikipedia and preserving it, and I admit to being a bit obsessive about plagarism, copyvio's and maintaining attribution of work, however little. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not seeing anything serious to worry about. No merge target, consensus to delete. I suggest listing the references in case he wants to start again, at the target article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about the AfD of Letterwise that the nom. now can't find refs for mainly perhaps references have been destroyed with WordWise. Oh can some blighter take me to WP:ANI again before I give reason to! These processes are cack! Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The decision to Delete was a valid judgment by the closer, and that is all that needs to be considered. As to merge to Letterwise, the would-be target is itself being nominated for deletion, which further implies that the original delete may have been wise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum an explanation would be best practice to avoid possibilities of a !supervote and that is relevant. Openness on decision making has value. I guess everyone used T9 predictive text. We do so much on video games and footballers but so little on predictive text. Perhaps no-one used it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was consensus to delete the page and there was no clear consensus for any merge. The closing administrator was correct in their judgement. --MrClog (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but move to draft might have been a good option if anyone had suggested it. It's a pity draft isn't invoked more often from AfD but, although individual editors can do this without discussion, it'd be a brave admin to close by moving to draft without any hint from the AfD. Thincat (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUD. Draftspace is just a quarantine for holding and waylaying spammers and the inept, COI editors, and collateral damage to newcomers. Rescuing something already decided unwanted is a challenging task. If anyone really feels up to that, they should be an experienced Wikipedian, and are better to use their userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd never use draft (it's a dangerously hostile area). I was suggesting it as a approach for a potential merge of two articles being separately deleted. On reflection userfy for Djm-leighpark would have been a better suggestion. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat thanks for the suggestion but Piotrus's WP:BAITing has finally irrationalised me so I circumvented the AfD result by copying from the Russian Wikipedia to LetterWise. Its a kludge of a mash of a job but it sort of works. Perhaps someone ought to back it out though. Think I've missed the RIM sueing but whatever. I note Piotrus may be feeling a wee guilty he did prompt me for a merge in the first placed and currently has a Weak Keep on it. As its not a sporting event, video game or settlement I think I add a delete !vote to put it out of its misery though. I'd comment the last time I requested a userify it was put in draft . Enough said. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't think there is enough chance of an article to use DRAFT, but Draft is not quite as bad as it used to be: what may strike a submitter as hostile is more likely to reflect incompetent reviewing, and many of the worst have either been educated or removed. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Eric Cornel – Overturn most recent speedy deletion. Consensus is that the topic now seems to meet NHOCKEY and thus it was no longer eligible for G4 - and if there are still questions about the notability they should be settled with a standard deletion discussion (per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz). It's probably a good idea to find and add proper sources to the article, though (per Hobbes Goodyear) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eric Cornel was recently speedily deleted because the page had been previously deleted per a deletion discussion. At that time Cornel did not pass NHOCKEY. However, Eric Cornel now passes the WP:NHOCKEY guidelines with playing over 200 American Hockey League games.[1]Joeykai (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Speedy deletion criteria G4 "excludes pages [...] to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". The reason for deletion was that the article failed both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG (see here). Cornel has now played 200 American Hockey League games (see here) and therefore passes WP:NHOCKEY #2. The original reason for deletion therefore no longer applies and thus G4 does not apply. --MrClog (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation The SNGs presume that there is sourcing out there to have an acceptable encyclopedic article. Given that this player now meets that criteria we should allow recreation - the change in the number of games played is a significant change in this case and thus not an identical recreation of an article deleted by discussion as G4 requires. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation - As specified in both of the AFDs, which said that it was WP:TOOSOON and that he might be notable later. If that means overturning the G4, overturn the G4. What is important is to allow re-creation in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If nom wants to create a proper article, then please create a proper article with proper sourcing to demonstrate actual (not just barely-scraping-by "presumed") notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
overturn speedy Not that the admin can be faulted given the arcana of the SNG, but G4 doesn't apply at this point per the quote from MrClog. So the only right answer is to overturn. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Passes notability guidelines, WP:G4 was improper here. SportingFlyerT·C 00:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn most recent speedy. The last AFD was in 2015. The subject's professional career has advanced, and he has received nontrivial press coverage since that time. Assuming at least some of that was reflected in the most recently deleted version of the article, G4 would not have been appropriate, since new claims of notability postdating the AFD would have been asserted. No opinion as to whether those claims are sufficient, but they call for standard rather than speedy deletion processes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
