I'm perplexed that no one bothered to tell me that it had been listed for deletion. I found out about it only after it was deleted. I was the major author on the article. I am perplexed why it was relisted twice. It passed muster under Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Camp Lambec - Lambec Lake by @Valereee:. I'd like to see it undeleted so I can work on it. --evrik(talk) 03:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Requests to undelete can go to Requests for Undeletion. This article was deleted seven years ago. Does the deletion really need to be appealed at this point, or can it just be recreated (at risk of a new AFD)? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDGG used Twinkle to nominate the article for deletion and this notified the first editor, not major editors. Note that nothing ever gets fully deleted and so the article may be found at Deletionpedia, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to restoring it to draft. There might be subsequent references. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted 7 years ago; I would suggest restoring to draft. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD was not improperly closed as “delete”. The fact that the article previously passed AfC is not relevant - the AfC process is intended as a guide and the reviewing editor does not establish a “keep” consensus, which can only be done at AfD. Editors wishing to be notified of changes to articles to which they have contributed should use the watchlist function. There is nothing to stop anyone creating a new article on this topic, and requesting a draft of the deleted article to assist them in this if they desire. However a simple undeletion is not appropriate, because if the sources in the deleted article were found to be insufficient six years ago they are highly unlikely to be found sufficient now.—--Pontificalibus 09:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but support draftifying per Pontificalibus - that was a pretty clear delete endorsement, and while we're lenient once some time passes, there's a good question as to whether this is notable enough for mainspace. As noted, you should accept articles at AfC if they might pass an AfD, not if they're clearly notable, so that's not an indicator of anything. SportingFlyerT·C 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but draftify. The AfD was properly closed, and consensus was that the article in its deleted state did not meet GNG, but it appears to have enough possibility for improvement that it would make a reasonable draft. I don't think we need to go through the extra bureaucracy of a separate request for undeletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
