611:, and the closest I could see was Nosebagbear who does not make a comment explicitly in favour of either keep or delete. He says that notability is an issue, but if sources could be found then he would !vote keep. You could count that as a keep or delete. Keep if sources were found, but delete if not as notability is an issue. As it stood at the close of the AfD there were no independent reliable source discussing these ships as a group, so we could count Nosebagbear as a delete, however he did say he didn't want to go delete as he hadn't done the appropriate research himself, so I have left him out of my count. Some closers may have included him as a delete. However, without evidence of the appropriate sources I don't see how what he says could be construed as a keep.
735:
to argue for deletion other than the nominator, and several other participants did not support deletion. It doesn't help that the argument made by the nominator is very weak. I don't agree with the OP that the draftify comments should be treated as equivalent to deletion as they don't seem to support the central view that the topic is unencyclopedic, and soft deletion is out because the AfD had participants who didn't support deletion. If someone else had turned up and made a similar argument to SilkTork then I would be happy to close this as Delete, but that didn't happen. I suggest renominating in a month or so.
655:, you are mainly asking questions as you appear to be unclear on the process. Copy and paste the words you use to indicate that the list should be kept. It appears to me in that discussion that you are uncertain if the list of ships should be standalone or included in the company article, rather than you are arguing for the list to be kept - you say "I was, originally, going to add them to the main COSCO shipping page but was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page. I'm quite happy to move them there if that is deemed preferable."
705:, specifically "make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time". SilkTork is better advised to make a fresh renomination that try to rescue that mess. I may agree with deletion at AfD2, but counterarguments that should be expected to SilkTork's !vote are: The page is an appropriate WP:SPINOUT of
242:
is new information suggesting that the subject may be notable now, I think the best approach would be to request that the article be restored to a draft or userfied, so that the new information and references can be added. Most admins are happy to restore an article to non-mainspace (draft or user space) for that purpose. When the article has been significantly improved from the deleted version (so that it does not qualify for
388:. The points you've raised ("new information") by definition have nothing to do with the previous deletion, because they hadn't happened yet. When a subject that was previously deleted for lack of notability becomes notable, the previous consensus is no longer valid and you can simply recreate the article. If you want the previous version to build on, use
753:. Closing AfD is not about weight one set of bold words against another. That this discussion was relisted three times, saw significant participation from multiple editors, and yet only one of them was willing to hop off the fence and give a bold-face !vote for delete, is a sure sign that no consensus was reached. I would have closed it the same way. β
277:
None of the sources given are in
English - that makes verifying the sources difficult on the English language Knowledge, and doesn't give me confidence that the subject is notable enough for the English Knowledge. It may be more appropriate to see if an article could be built on the Japanese language
241:
IMO this is not really a matter for deletion review; deletion review is more appropriate for questioning whether the deletion was carried out properly according to the AfD discussion at the time. It's not really possible at this board to do a whole new evaluation of the subject's notability. If there
734:
for an AfD to be closed as Delete I would expect to have at least two people other than the nominator support deletion. Any less than that and the AfD will be closed as no consensus, soft delete or relisted if there isn't sufficient support for another option. Here SilkTork was the only participant
370:. "Significant new information has come to light" properly refers to information available at the time of the original discussion, which was not appropriately raised or weighted. It does not relate to a subject who may have become notable due to subsequent events. Just write a new article.
348:
342:
Agree with
Hullaballoo and Joe Roe below, that coming to DRV was premature. Don't come to DRV if the reason for undeletion is uncontroversial, such as new information, but instead ask at the user_talk page of the deleting admin, or at
278:
Knowledge first, and then seek to have an
English language article. Looking at the deleted article, there is not a lot of hard information there - it mainly consists of lists of productions for which the subject provided a voice-over.
669:
In context that was an answer to someone suggesting that lists of vessels in the main article was the way to do it. I wasn't unclear about it, as I said, I was "was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page".
263:
however states that a deletion review may be pursued "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", and that's what's being discussed here.
411:
so the OP can try to build a version which demonstrates notability. That decision is in scope for DRV if the deleting admin opposes restoring the article to draft (not sure if that's happened here).
187:
This DRV is intended as a test for consensus, as it's been several months since the AfD. As per the consensus on the original AfD discussion, Nakajima's article was deleted for not meeting
549:
776:. The removal of the prod, and the defence of that at the AfD, was enough to show where the editor stood and the closing admin was entitled to take that into account.
170:
392:
or ask an admin to restore it to your userspace (I would be happy to). If you want a second opinion on notability, try posting on a relevant WikiProject talk page. β
246:), it can be moved to mainspace. And if someone thinks the new version still does not meet WP:ENT and should be deleted, it would be taken to AfD a second time. --
824:
Read through the close and thought the closer did a great job of summing up the responses. I think the remedy here would be renomination in a few months' time.
461:
Unanimous (other than the nom) consensus that the AfD close was correct. If you still think this should be deleted, bring it back to AfD for another look;
48:
34:
801:
lists the COSCO fleet. This was published in 1983 and most of the current COSCO fleet is post this date, but it does show that such a list has been
772:. Arguing that Murgatroyd49 did not speak in favour of keep at the AfD because he did not write a bolded keep or even use the word is simply being
537:
43:
570:, numerically the discussion is Delete 2, Draft/Userfy 1, Keep 0. And there is a "reasonable, logical, policy-based argument" for delete - per
158:
697:. The AfD nomination was lackluster, with no enthusiasm at all for deletion, until after the third relist and then the enthusiasm was solely
702:
300:. With that said, it's not much better, though to be honest, the quality of Japanese Knowledge articles on voice actors is hit-or-hiss.
558:
344:
179:
39:
709:
and this not so subject to LISTN or even the GNG. The WP:NOT alleged violation is not articulated. As the list is a
Spinout of
375:
21:
316:. Undelete and move to draftspace. The AfD was consistent with draftifying. Draftify was an explicit option put by
227:, among others. Based on these circumstances, is the article now eligible to be recreated, or does he still not meet
191:
and for lacking coverage in reliable sources. Since then, he has been cast as
Yoshifumi Nitta, the main character of
371:
324:'s ""does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet. WP:TOOSOON ..." is consistent with draftify. The nominator here (the same
846:
487:
432:
108:
17:
328:) makes the case that things have changed, although it is not clear that anything new means passing NACTOR. --
830:
811:
782:
199:
that charted, albeit that peaked at #42. He has also been cast as the main character of the upcoming series
87:
297:
675:
630:
594:
507:
325:
317:
301:
265:
232:
128:
835:
816:
787:
764:
745:
726:
679:
664:
634:
620:
598:
583:
476:
421:
403:
379:
360:
337:
304:
287:
268:
255:
235:
97:
722:
356:
333:
200:
192:
825:
806:
777:
660:
616:
579:
571:
473:
389:
283:
251:
94:
372:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
759:
671:
652:
626:
608:
590:
567:
503:
453:
398:
231:? The closing admin Sandstein said he was not against this being taken to DRV, so here it is.
204:
208:
321:
124:
83:
70:
196:
466:
462:
212:
773:
718:
352:
329:
203:. There also appears to be at least some coverage specifically about him now, such as
698:
656:
612:
575:
470:
279:
260:
247:
228:
224:
188:
91:
79:
796:
754:
738:
414:
393:
243:
802:
351:. Come to DRV if your request for undeletion is refused, and you disagree. --
349:
Category:Knowledge administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles
714:
216:
220:
469:
is not policy, just an essay, but one which has wide acceptance. β --
710:
706:
465:
gives guidance on when it's appropriate to do that. Note that
574:. The main decision to make is to either delete or to userfy.
607:
Could you point it out. I went through the discussion on the
798:
544:
530:
522:
514:
165:
151:
143:
135:
8:
296:He already has a Japanese Knowledge page at
78:. Technically, this didn't need to come to
486:The following is an archived debate of the
107:The following is an archived debate of the
805:by RS independent of the company website.
446:
82:. It could have been restored faster via
63:
651:Could you point it out. As I said on the
88:restore this and move it to draft space
7:
849:of the page listed in the heading.
703:Knowledge:Renominating for deletion
435:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
345:Knowledge:Requests for undeletion
845:The above is an archive of the
589:Wrong there is at least 1 keep
431:The above is an archive of the
90:where it can be improved. β --
1:
86:. In any case, I'm going to
195:, and he has even released
872:
680:08:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
477:20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
347:, or ask anyone listed at
98:16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
836:22:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
817:00:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
788:23:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
765:13:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
746:16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
727:04:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
665:17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
635:17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
621:12:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
599:11:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
584:08:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
422:06:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
404:14:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
380:14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
361:01:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
338:04:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
305:04:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
288:18:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
269:16:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
256:15:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
236:09:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
852:Please do not modify it.
493:Please do not modify it.
438:Please do not modify it.
114:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
326:User:Narutolovehinata5
318:User:Narutolovehinata5
717:must be notified. --
566:As discussed on the
701:'s. The answer is
490:of the page above.
111:of the page above.
653:closer's user page
609:closer's user page
568:closer's user page
859:
858:
763:
504:COSCO fleet lists
454:COSCO fleet lists
445:
444:
402:
302:Narutolovehinata5
266:Narutolovehinata5
233:Narutolovehinata5
863:
854:
833:
795:, I notice that
757:
741:
561:
556:
547:
533:
525:
517:
495:
447:
440:
417:
396:
386:not a DRV matter
368:Not a DRV matter
322:User:K.e.coffman
182:
177:
168:
154:
146:
138:
125:Yoshiki Nakajima
116:
76:Restore as draft
71:Yoshiki Nakajima
64:
53:
33:
871:
870:
866:
865:
864:
862:
861:
860:
850:
847:deletion review
829:
739:
557:
555:
552:
543:
542:
536:
529:
528:
521:
520:
513:
512:
491:
488:deletion review
436:
433:deletion review
415:
178:
176:
173:
164:
163:
157:
150:
149:
142:
141:
134:
133:
112:
109:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
869:
867:
857:
856:
841:
840:
839:
838:
819:
790:
767:
748:
729:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
602:
601:
564:
563:
553:
540:
534:
526:
518:
510:
498:
497:
482:
481:
480:
479:
443:
442:
427:
426:
425:
424:
406:
382:
365:
364:
363:
310:
309:
308:
307:
291:
290:
274:
273:
272:
271:
261:WP:DRV#Purpose
185:
184:
174:
161:
155:
147:
139:
131:
119:
118:
103:
102:
101:
100:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
868:
855:
853:
848:
843:
842:
837:
834:
832:
827:
826:SportingFlyer
823:
820:
818:
815:
814:
810:
809:
804:
803:taken note of
800:
799:
794:
791:
789:
786:
785:
781:
780:
775:
771:
768:
766:
761:
756:
752:
749:
747:
744:
743:
742:
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
692:
681:
677:
673:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
560:
551:
546:
539:
532:
524:
516:
509:
505:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
494:
489:
484:
483:
478:
475:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:
451:
450:
449:
448:
441:
439:
434:
429:
428:
423:
420:
419:
418:
410:
407:
405:
400:
395:
391:
387:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
311:
306:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
289:
285:
281:
276:
275:
270:
267:
262:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
181:
172:
167:
160:
153:
145:
137:
130:
126:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
115:
110:
105:
104:
99:
96:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
851:
844:
828:
821:
812:
807:
797:
792:
783:
778:
769:
750:
737:
736:
731:
694:
672:Murgatroyd49
627:Murgatroyd49
591:Murgatroyd49
565:
492:
485:
458:
452:
437:
430:
413:
412:
408:
385:
367:
313:
186:
113:
106:
75:
69:
59:26 July 2018
58:
49:2018 July 27
35:2018 July 25
774:bureacratic
572:WP:CLOSEAFD
390:WP:UNDELETE
193:Hinamatsuri
793:By the way
715:Talk:COSCO
719:SmokeyJoe
353:SmokeyJoe
330:SmokeyJoe
84:WP:REFUND
44:2018 July
808:Spinning
779:Spinning
699:SilkTork
657:SilkTork
613:SilkTork
576:SilkTork
471:RoySmith
467:WP:RENOM
463:WP:RENOM
459:Endorse.
409:Draftify
384:Agreed,
314:Draftify
298:ja:δΈε³Άγ¨γ·γ
280:SilkTork
248:MelanieN
197:a single
92:RoySmith
20: |
822:Endorse
770:Endorse
751:Endorse
740:Hut 8.5
732:Endorse
695:Endorse
559:restore
523:history
416:Hut 8.5
201:Ingress
180:restore
144:history
474:(talk)
229:WP:ENT
223:, and
189:WP:ENT
95:(talk)
80:WP:DRV
813:Spark
784:Spark
711:COSCO
707:COSCO
545:watch
538:links
244:WP:G4
166:watch
159:links
52:: -->
16:<
831:talk
760:talk
723:talk
676:talk
661:talk
631:talk
617:talk
595:talk
580:talk
531:logs
515:edit
508:talk
399:talk
376:talk
357:talk
334:talk
284:talk
252:talk
225:this
221:this
217:this
213:this
209:this
205:this
152:logs
136:edit
129:talk
32:<
755:Joe
625:Me
550:XfD
548:) (
394:Joe
320:.
171:XfD
169:) (
22:Log
725:)
713:,
678:)
663:)
633:)
619:)
597:)
582:)
457:β
378:)
359:)
336:)
286:)
254:)
219:,
215:,
211:,
207:,
74:β
42::
762:)
758:(
721:(
674:(
659:(
629:(
615:(
593:(
578:(
562:)
554:|
541:|
535:|
527:|
519:|
511:|
506:(
401:)
397:(
374:(
355:(
332:(
282:(
250:(
183:)
175:|
162:|
156:|
148:|
140:|
132:|
127:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.