Poast – Speedy overturn. Out of process A7/human error doesn't need seven days of bureaucracy during summer holidays. Any editor who feels an AfD is merited may file. StarMississippi 14:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Unclear what you're asking for. If this is about the A7 deletion, it was very plainly improper - besides having survived afd less than two weeks ago, it has a ref to arguably significant coverage. If it's about the afd itself, then yeah, it's pretty low quality, but the solution to that is to renominate, not bring it here. —Cryptic 06:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think i started a wrong discussion page maybe Wikipedia:Administrative action review is a better choice.Baratiiman (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Baratiiman here (DRV) is the correct forum to review a deletion, the AARV discussion has been closed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The A7 was very clearly incorrect and the deleting admin needs a trout at least. Firstly, nothing that has had an AfD and was not deleted can ever be subject to A7. Secondly the article has a claim of significance in the prose (although this could be clearer). Thirdly the article has at least three references that are unquestionably potentially significant (the USA today and both Daily Dot references). I see no issues with the AfD - arguably it could have been closed as delete instead of being relisted a third time, but the two keep comments after that relist preclude such an outcome. I agree the article is very poor, but the correct course of action given the AfD outcome is to attempt to improve it - if you are successful then excellent, the encyclopaedia is better for it; if you failed to find sufficient information in reliable sources to improve it then renominate it at AfD detailing your efforts. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Baratiiman may be trying to get at is that the admin who deleted Poast did so incorrectly, and they were unsure whether that should be handled as a deletion review or an administrative action review. A quick look at the user talk for that admin shows a lot of speedies that have been questioned there, often with no response from that admin to those questions. Valereee (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy undelete. Not a valid A7. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Anthony Bradbury whether I can simply reverse the A7. I agree that it was invalid. firefly ( t · c ) 10:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Bradbury (talk·contribs), averaging 30 edits per year, sometimes goes months between edits. WP:WHEEL allows for one revert. Or we can wait for consensus here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this discussion is happening, and seems likely to come to a consensus pretty quickly, I don't see a need to rush any action. Describing WP:WHEEL as "allowing" for one revert feels like saying WP:3RR "allows" for three reverts - technically true but really not something that should be encouraged or regarded as an allowance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - clearly not eligible for speedy deletion as an article that survived its last AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
