Nuvve – Deletion endorsed. As usual, this doesn't preclude creation of a new article that overcomes the reasons for deletion. I've restored the old version and moved it to Draft:Nuvve, as requested. —Cryptic 09:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There is more than one review (four in total): here, here, here, and here. There are release sources: here, here, and here. All in all, sufficient sources to restore the article. DareshMohan (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything stopping you from recreating the article. If you want the deleted version restored to draft space to serve as a starting point then I'm sure that can be done, but there was hardly anything in it - just an infobox and a cast list. Hut 8.5 19:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there isn't, but the question is that other than the Rediff review, are any of the other sources considered reliable? DareshMohan (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try WP:RSN to get opinions on questions like that --81.100.164.154 (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is an appeal of the closure. Otherwise it isn't clear what is being requested. The title isn't salted and the author can always prepare and submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation and re-submission through AFC. I don't see a good reason to prohibit re-creation and re-submission through WP:AFC given that there's been a good faith effort to find new sources. I'm not 100% convinced of its notability, but that's something that can be demonstrated by an article creator rather than required to occur here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either way please save the deleted version as a draft to work on. DareshMohan (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The Site passes GNG. The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. These sources were considered in the discussion where consensus was that they were not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are alot more sources that were being missed in the previous review. I think we should consider it again. It includes many major newspapers, including Anderson Independent-Mail, Birmingham Post-Herald, Austin American-Statesman, Santa Maria Times, Eastern Wake News, Ventura County Star, The Miami Herald, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, The Miami News. (And all of them has covered it for multiple years and in multiple times). Further, I added a news clip of 2010 of News & Observer so no one can say it' for only 2-3 years. I don't have the full subscriptions to fetch the whole lists. Hope, you will be satisfied with it @Thryduulf
For me, it's enough to pass the GNG. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just rewrite the article as a draft from the ground up based on the supposedly GNG-compliant sources. I do not think a deletion review is needed to get permission to recreate a deleted article; WP:G4 (which states that any copies of AfD-deleted articles can be deleted ASAP without warning) doesn't apply to recreations that don't copy anything from the originally deleted article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the right summary of the AFD. Significant coverage was considered in the AFD. The title has not been salted and the appellant can submit a draft for review with the better sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
