This page was deleted due to speedy deletion which I don’t believe I got a chance to contest. I would love to get pointers as to what exactly was wrong with the article (as I checked both A7 and G11 and don’t agree with both of them). I’d like to have this deletion reverted if possible so I can fix the issues you have with the article. If restoration is not possible, I would like to get the page I created restored as a draft so I won’t lose my work and would be able to improve it before posting it again. I tried contacting the deleted administrator and got no answer. Oryanmoshe (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, though JBW has edited a few times since you asked him, it's still only been about seven hours. I don't usually feel guilty if I put off answering similar requests on my own talk page so long as I respond within a day - you can't really assume that because he has enough time to do anything at all, that he has enough contiguous time and attention to give you a thorough answer.Anyway, on the merits, I agree with the A7 - unless someone can argue with a straight face that this constitutes significant coverage, since there wasn't a claim of importance in the article text - but the G11 is a stretch. I'm inclined to undelete and draftify. —Cryptic 22:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would add a correct claim of importance that satisfies the rules described in A7 exactly (I thought that the claim of importance was implicit and understandable, but I will add an explicit one as well to follow the rules)
If possible, undeletion would be great as it would allow my to quickly fix the A7 issue without hassle.
If you do feel some things need to change in regards to G11 I would be more than happy to do the changes, but would need some pointers for specific issues you can pinpoint that sound as unambiguous advertising.
Thanks for the quick professional reply! Oryanmoshe (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This very definitely did not meet G11 - the article was a neutral attempt at an encyclopaedia article and was not at all promotional; Praxidicae needs to reread the criteria again if they think that was an acceptable tagging. A7 however is a different matter, "The products are developed hand in hand with [...] government organizations [...]" and "CHATS was showcased [at the] HITS K9 Conference" are the only two statements that I can interpret as assertions of significance, and that's being generous. While I might not have tagged for A7, I can fully understand why others would and I'm not going to argue doing so was wrong, certainly it wasn't wrong enough to overturn. I see absolutely no reason not to allow someone who wants to work on this to do so in draft space though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the page and moved it to Draft:Magnifica VR. I was planning to do that when I found time to write some detailed advice to the creator of the article, which would probably have been in a few hours from now, but in view of this review I have gone ahead with draftification. For what it's worth, I think it's close to the borderline for G11; I wouldn't have deleted it for that reason alone, and with hindsight it was probably a mistake not removing that from the deletion reasons for which the article was tagged when I deleted it. However, I stand by A7, and the searches which I did before deletion have convinced me that the topic does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as A7 only. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as A7, having read the draft. I would decline the draft if it were submitted for review, as not telling what third parties say about the company. In my opinion, G11 is overused when notability is what is questioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of an A7. Deleting admins should not “stand by” A7 deletions. Alternatively, Draftify (note, already done) and remind all of WP:DRAFTOBJECT; the author or anyone a non-COI editor may move it back for it to be tested at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. User:Oryanmoshe has a COI with the topic. They should not have written the article in mainspace. They may not mainspace the draft. They may edit the draft, and submit to AfC. If back in mainspace, they may only make suggestions on the talk page. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A7, draftification is great casualdejekyll 14:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moot now that the article has been draftified. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Fitzgerald Bramble – original closure endorsed, but article is uncontroverisally recreated as cirumstances have since changed Sjakkalle(Check!) 20:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The subject of the article is now a national legislator, passing WP:NPOL. See coverage in local newspaper Searchlight: [1], [2],[3]. Also in The Vincentian:[4]. Joofjoof (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion, but restore article given sources which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This did not need a DRV. Feel free to just recreate the article. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to know this. I had assumed only speedy deletes could be recreated. Joofjoof (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No admin would G4 a recreated article citing those sources. The old version was a four-sentence stub, barely distinguishable from a bot-created database entry, that hadn't had so much as a word in its prose changed since the day it was created as a draft on 8 September 2019. Restoring it won't do a thing to help write an article that explains his current notability, though I'll userfy it for you without waiting for this week-long formal DRV to close if you really want it. —Cryptic 15:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cryptic, you can go ahead and userfy it. Joofjoof (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation based on the new sources. Per User:Cryptic, there is little (if any) value to restoring the article history. FrankAnchor 16:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article in user space is the old deleted version. I think it is reasonable to assume that User:Joofjoof would add in sourced content related to political notability before moving it into main space. FrankAnchor 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note. As closer, I have no problem with the idea of recreating the article as long as it's a real article, not the thing already deleted. I see that Joofjoof has already recreated the article without awaiting the results of this deletion review, though. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion as deletion is not a ban from recreating the article, just don't merely copy the deleted content and do nothing to fix it. Since the article has now been resurrected, this DRV is now moot. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
