Mad Ghost Productions – Deletion endorsed. Sandstein 10:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mad Ghost Productions (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The article was deleted, mostly because it needed more work and more details added. Since its deletion, the production studio has continued to work on movies, television, and comics. This article should be reinstated, because it is a notable production studio. If it's reinstated to a draft page, I can continue to work on it. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Probably unfortunate DisneyMetalhead did not engage with talk with Nosebagbear upon Nosebagbear's first reversion; or perhaps on the article's talk page, or perhaps even before raising the DRV. Assuming the DRV is not struck for failing to discuss with Nosebagbear (closer) before coming here. The problem with the initial article remaining in namespace was notability, and the reasoning for the article to return and remain is namespace is a demonstration of notability. @DisneyMetalhead .. please read WP:THREE and prepare your best three (and only three!) sources demonstrating notability of the subject. Present them here, or as otherwise directed. It you wish to develop the article it should be possible to copy and paste from Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions to a page in your own userspace (dont copy the categories though!) where you can continue development and when you have it ready for mainspace it can be shown to Nosebagbear for comment first and then taken to DRV if necessary and then copy/pasted back over by yourself (This is the neatest way and pretty well avoids copy attribution problems that might occur in draft space). That's my suggestion anyway. (On a procedural note I dont see a link to Xfd discussion on the talk page of the redirect).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I'm happy to have this discussion out here now we've got this far, though if recreation was on the basis of new notability I'd happily have looked at it again. This isn't an incorrect decision-overturn DRV, but for what it's worth this was a NAC decision by me. Djm gives the correct approach. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Allow Re-Creation in Draft as per Djm. There doesn't seem to be an issue with the close, but a request to be permitted to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Exactly, users: @Djm-leighpark:, @Nosebagbear:, and @Robert McClenon: - I simply would like the article reinstated to a draft article, to where I can continue to work on it. It was originally deleted (from the discussion that was brought to me), for lack of sources. I would have preferred it be moved to draft, than to be deleted; but I'm asking if we can begin that process now. Thanks friends!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @DisneyMetalhead Please don't say exactly when you don't get my point. It is perfectly possible for you to followed the link to Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions; go into the editor and do a copy paste (Do not save and ideally miss the categories; and save it to a page in your userspace and work on it there. This doesnt require action from anu administrator if you have the requisite skills. The reason for keeping it in your userspace as opposed to draft is that nobody else will likely make any significant change to the article while you develop it which means you can copy/paste it back when consensus is agreed and the attribution is good. Doing this via draft is trickier as potentially would require a histmerge to move back. The page could be moved to draft but this risks the whole thing being deleted in 6 months if you give up on it. But all you have to do is simply establish notability, best with your three best WP:RS sources here per WP:THREE and it should be possible to re=instate the article as it stands. No amount of article editing will help the re-introduction to mainspaces, it is the establishment of notability which is independent of article content which is the crucial point. I am of course assuming you have no conflict of interest with the article subject, but even if you did establishment of notability is key. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Directory information about a recently made one man company. It was a premature WP:SPINOUT. Do not encourage DraftSpace, all coverage belongs in the biography until there is consensus to spin it out. It should never have gone to AfD as there is a single obvious merge and redirect target. There is no prospect for delete, so this doesn’t rise to the scope of DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oppose deprotection of the redirect until there is a consensus at Talk:Geoff Johns in support of a spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] We don’t want to encourage the practice of coming to DRV for permission to start a draft (spinout or otherwise). In this case, a spinout, get consensus to draft, or just do the spinout in mainspace, on the article talk page. Content expansion discussions go on article talk pages. Before getting serious about the spinout, the spinout topic should be a solid section. Once there is a talk page consensus for the spinout, put in a request at WP:RFUP. That time is not now. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's a discussion from around a year and a half ago and came to a redirect result. No DRV is required to make it back into an article if there is now satisfactory sources etc. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] DMH may be asking here due to the full protection on it - when I was trying to implement the original result I ultimately had to ask @Courcelles: to check I'd closed correctly and protect to prevent it from being reopened despite the AfD. Courcelles is inactive, but either this DRV could agree to reduce the protection, or an RFPP request can be made, whatever is ultimately easier. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment Djm-leighpark is spot on - make a draft that shows notability and the article can be restored. It's easier if you do this from scratch, IMO. (This is a good example of why we should embrace AfC as part of the DRV process, but I digress.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @SportingFlyer: Your comment suggests a mild irritation with the DRV proces with respect to draftification and requiring AfC. Can you expand on this a bit? I personally agree with you here, and think we should allow re-creation to draft or userspace more often and, in the closing rationale, mandate that any move back to the main namespace go through AfC. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] As someone who does a fair bit of work with AfC, I see it more as a peer review than "just" a place where new users can get help with articles. If there's an article that's been salted, I don't really see any reason why we can't submit a draft to peer review and then move it to mainspace once it's ready. It's just not that onerous of an ask. The opposition seems to be that experienced editors know what they're doing, but an experienced editor should be able to ping another experienced editor and get something peer reviewed very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] SportingFlyer Yeah, I think of AfC that way, too. My only concern with AfC is, potentially, the turnaround time to having a submitted draft reviewed. As an experienced editor, I'd consider writing articles and having them go through AfC, but not if it was going to take three months to have it reviewed. Moreover, I suspect that AfC-submitted drafts have a much higher "keep" rate at AfD. "Peer review" is a good way of thinking of it, except it's peer review that isn't broken. Our current peer review process is inactive to bordering on defunct; I've requested peer review for an article three months ago, and it continues to sit. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per the above; nothing wrong with the close, per se, but the closer noted only a "rough consensus" which suggests we've not ruled out notability. Thus, allow-ing recreation as a draft, either on request at WP:REFUND or at close of this DRV, is a reasonable approach. If the editor moves the article to main namespace without going through AfC, I'd support salting the main namespace with the protection level required (i.e., confirmed, extendedconfirmed, or administrator) to prevent that. Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] It sounds like a combination of answers/direction. Can a new draft page be made, or do I need to work on it in my sandbox? Thanks for all the help!! --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] DisneyMetalhead Not at all, the closer would move this article to draft namespace, without leaving a redirect, and you would access it at Draft:Mad Ghost Productions. It's not indexed by Google, so won't show up in web search results. As such, it doesn't have to meet our general notability guidelines, though it will to be moved back to the main namespace. When you're ready to have it reviewed, you just click submit like in your sandbox. Don't too this too often, though, without major revisions that show you're attempting to follow the feedback, or it could end up at MfD. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @DisneyMetalhead, yes ... there are a variety of options you are being presented with here. The choice is yours. Some are attempting to force down the AfC route. While may be recommended is not to be forced, and ultimately AfD/DRV is the decider not AfC, and should remain so. Ultimately AfD and DRV are not to be taken lightly and I am minded edit warring; unnecessarily bringing this to DRV without checking/meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE and failing to present 3 notable references here or to cut/paste off a version to your userspace or sandbox gives me low assessment of your probability of achieving any success. Given you likely won't have clue what I am talking about you are best advised to use the WP:TEAHOUSE or other help channels, whihc are often good though occasionally otherwise.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse: also remain salted; add appropriate Template:R shell categories R with history, R printworthy, R with possibilities; and add Old XfD multi to talk. The close of the AfD was properly conducted and the closer helpfully commented about being somewhat near to proving notability. No content merge has taken place so there is no need to worry about a split and the entities are different albeit related. I'm concerned about the suggestions to more re-directs with history to the draftspace where loss and abandonment might occur. Moving to an article WP:Workpage for development would be better but nonstandard and has many its own issues. From a DRV viewpoint however the the key outcome is a straightforward endorse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Djm-leighpark: I don't understand what your directions are, especially when you are using abbreviations I've never seen before... this is the first time I've submitted a review of a deleted article. I will attempt to follow the instructions provided by @Dmehus: however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @DisneyMetalhead: I do not give you directions I give you options, of which there are several, though some restrict you to one. The underlying basic key for and procedure to get this article back into mainspace is to have three WP:RS sources identified which confirm WP:Notability per the excellent essay WP:THREE without which your purposes are doomed whilst having those makes the path relatively easy. Apologies for the abbreviations, if you put WP: in front of most of them and then to a search in the the search search wikipedia box it should work. The WP:DRV closer should understand most of my !vote (endorse) statement that I did omit the justification for the salting (protection against update) which essentially was because there had been conflict against the WP:AFD closer force in a newer version without respecting the WP:AFD result by one who may not have temperament or WP:COMPETENCY to do so and might become frustrated by the WP:AFC process.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – as stated above, a straightforward endorse of the close, but it doesn't even seem that the close is really being challenged here; rather (as also stated above) it's more of a request to recreate in draftspace. Levivich 01:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Djm-leighpark: Thank you for the more indepth and detailed explanation. I will attempt to follow these ideas later this weekend when I have a moment. In the meantime, #goChiefs!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mad Ghost Productions – Deletion endorsed. Sandstein 10:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was deleted, mostly because it needed more work and more details added. Since its deletion, the production studio has continued to work on movies, television, and comics. This article should be reinstated, because it is a notable production studio. If it's reinstated to a draft page, I can continue to work on it. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably unfortunate DisneyMetalhead did not engage with talk with Nosebagbear upon Nosebagbear's first reversion; or perhaps on the article's talk page, or perhaps even before raising the DRV. Assuming the DRV is not struck for failing to discuss with Nosebagbear (closer) before coming here. The problem with the initial article remaining in namespace was notability, and the reasoning for the article to return and remain is namespace is a demonstration of notability. @DisneyMetalhead .. please read WP:THREE and prepare your best three (and only three!) sources demonstrating notability of the subject. Present them here, or as otherwise directed. It you wish to develop the article it should be possible to copy and paste from Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions to a page in your own userspace (dont copy the categories though!) where you can continue development and when you have it ready for mainspace it can be shown to Nosebagbear for comment first and then taken to DRV if necessary and then copy/pasted back over by yourself (This is the neatest way and pretty well avoids copy attribution problems that might occur in draft space). That's my suggestion anyway. (On a procedural note I dont see a link to Xfd discussion on the talk page of the redirect).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to have this discussion out here now we've got this far, though if recreation was on the basis of new notability I'd happily have looked at it again. This isn't an incorrect decision-overturn DRV, but for what it's worth this was a NAC decision by me. Djm gives the correct approach. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation in Draft as per Djm. There doesn't seem to be an issue with the close, but a request to be permitted to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly, users: @Djm-leighpark:, @Nosebagbear:, and @Robert McClenon: - I simply would like the article reinstated to a draft article, to where I can continue to work on it. It was originally deleted (from the discussion that was brought to me), for lack of sources. I would have preferred it be moved to draft, than to be deleted; but I'm asking if we can begin that process now. Thanks friends!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyMetalhead Please don't say exactly when you don't get my point. It is perfectly possible for you to followed the link to Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions; go into the editor and do a copy paste (Do not save and ideally miss the categories; and save it to a page in your userspace and work on it there. This doesnt require action from anu administrator if you have the requisite skills. The reason for keeping it in your userspace as opposed to draft is that nobody else will likely make any significant change to the article while you develop it which means you can copy/paste it back when consensus is agreed and the attribution is good. Doing this via draft is trickier as potentially would require a histmerge to move back. The page could be moved to draft but this risks the whole thing being deleted in 6 months if you give up on it. But all you have to do is simply establish notability, best with your three best WP:RS sources here per WP:THREE and it should be possible to re=instate the article as it stands. No amount of article editing will help the re-introduction to mainspaces, it is the establishment of notability which is independent of article content which is the crucial point. I am of course assuming you have no conflict of interest with the article subject, but even if you did establishment of notability is key. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Directory information about a recently made one man company. It was a premature WP:SPINOUT. Do not encourage DraftSpace, all coverage belongs in the biography until there is consensus to spin it out. It should never have gone to AfD as there is a single obvious merge and redirect target. There is no prospect for delete, so this doesn’t rise to the scope of DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deprotection of the redirect until there is a consensus at Talk:Geoff Johns in support of a spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We don’t want to encourage the practice of coming to DRV for permission to start a draft (spinout or otherwise). In this case, a spinout, get consensus to draft, or just do the spinout in mainspace, on the article talk page. Content expansion discussions go on article talk pages. Before getting serious about the spinout, the spinout topic should be a solid section. Once there is a talk page consensus for the spinout, put in a request at WP:RFUP. That time is not now. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion from around a year and a half ago and came to a redirect result. No DRV is required to make it back into an article if there is now satisfactory sources etc. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMH may be asking here due to the full protection on it - when I was trying to implement the original result I ultimately had to ask @Courcelles: to check I'd closed correctly and protect to prevent it from being reopened despite the AfD. Courcelles is inactive, but either this DRV could agree to reduce the protection, or an RFPP request can be made, whatever is ultimately easier. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Djm-leighpark is spot on - make a draft that shows notability and the article can be restored. It's easier if you do this from scratch, IMO. (This is a good example of why we should embrace AfC as part of the DRV process, but I digress.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Your comment suggests a mild irritation with the DRV proces with respect to draftification and requiring AfC. Can you expand on this a bit? I personally agree with you here, and think we should allow re-creation to draft or userspace more often and, in the closing rationale, mandate that any move back to the main namespace go through AfC. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who does a fair bit of work with AfC, I see it more as a peer review than "just" a place where new users can get help with articles. If there's an article that's been salted, I don't really see any reason why we can't submit a draft to peer review and then move it to mainspace once it's ready. It's just not that onerous of an ask. The opposition seems to be that experienced editors know what they're doing, but an experienced editor should be able to ping another experienced editor and get something peer reviewed very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer Yeah, I think of AfC that way, too. My only concern with AfC is, potentially, the turnaround time to having a submitted draft reviewed. As an experienced editor, I'd consider writing articles and having them go through AfC, but not if it was going to take three months to have it reviewed. Moreover, I suspect that AfC-submitted drafts have a much higher "keep" rate at AfD. "Peer review" is a good way of thinking of it, except it's peer review that isn't broken. Our current peer review process is inactive to bordering on defunct; I've requested peer review for an article three months ago, and it continues to sit. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per the above; nothing wrong with the close, per se, but the closer noted only a "rough consensus" which suggests we've not ruled out notability. Thus, allow-ing recreation as a draft, either on request at WP:REFUND or at close of this DRV, is a reasonable approach. If the editor moves the article to main namespace without going through AfC, I'd support salting the main namespace with the protection level required (i.e., confirmed, extendedconfirmed, or administrator) to prevent that. Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a combination of answers/direction. Can a new draft page be made, or do I need to work on it in my sandbox? Thanks for all the help!! --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMetalhead Not at all, the closer would move this article to draft namespace, without leaving a redirect, and you would access it at Draft:Mad Ghost Productions. It's not indexed by Google, so won't show up in web search results. As such, it doesn't have to meet our general notability guidelines, though it will to be moved back to the main namespace. When you're ready to have it reviewed, you just click submit like in your sandbox. Don't too this too often, though, without major revisions that show you're attempting to follow the feedback, or it could end up at MfD. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyMetalhead, yes ... there are a variety of options you are being presented with here. The choice is yours. Some are attempting to force down the AfC route. While may be recommended is not to be forced, and ultimately AfD/DRV is the decider not AfC, and should remain so. Ultimately AfD and DRV are not to be taken lightly and I am minded edit warring; unnecessarily bringing this to DRV without checking/meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE and failing to present 3 notable references here or to cut/paste off a version to your userspace or sandbox gives me low assessment of your probability of achieving any success. Given you likely won't have clue what I am talking about you are best advised to use the WP:TEAHOUSE or other help channels, whihc are often good though occasionally otherwise.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: also remain salted; add appropriate Template:R shell categories R with history, R printworthy, R with possibilities; and add Old XfD multi to talk. The close of the AfD was properly conducted and the closer helpfully commented about being somewhat near to proving notability. No content merge has taken place so there is no need to worry about a split and the entities are different albeit related. I'm concerned about the suggestions to more re-directs with history to the draftspace where loss and abandonment might occur. Moving to an article WP:Workpage for development would be better but nonstandard and has many its own issues. From a DRV viewpoint however the the key outcome is a straightforward endorse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: I don't understand what your directions are, especially when you are using abbreviations I've never seen before... this is the first time I've submitted a review of a deleted article. I will attempt to follow the instructions provided by @Dmehus: however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyMetalhead: I do not give you directions I give you options, of which there are several, though some restrict you to one. The underlying basic key for and procedure to get this article back into mainspace is to have three WP:RS sources identified which confirm WP:Notability per the excellent essay WP:THREE without which your purposes are doomed whilst having those makes the path relatively easy. Apologies for the abbreviations, if you put WP: in front of most of them and then to a search in the the search search wikipedia box it should work. The WP:DRV closer should understand most of my !vote (endorse) statement that I did omit the justification for the salting (protection against update) which essentially was because there had been conflict against the WP:AFD closer force in a newer version without respecting the WP:AFD result by one who may not have temperament or WP:COMPETENCY to do so and might become frustrated by the WP:AFC process.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – as stated above, a straightforward endorse of the close, but it doesn't even seem that the close is really being challenged here; rather (as also stated above) it's more of a request to recreate in draftspace. Levivich 01:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: Thank you for the more indepth and detailed explanation. I will attempt to follow these ideas later this weekend when I have a moment. In the meantime, #goChiefs!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Geoffrey Boot – Endorse, but allow re-creation. Endorse because everybody agrees the original close was correct. But, that was three years ago and if circumstances have changed, there's nothing to keep anybody from writing a new article. I'm going to re-delete the temp-undeleted version for now. Anybody can just go ahead and create a new article at the same title. If you want to start from the existing text, ping me or ask at WP:REFUND and we'll get you the old one to start from. Note: please, please, please, if using the old text is what you want to do, don't just copy-paste from the temp-undelted history, because that will break the attribution history; ask for the old one to be userfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Geoffrey Boot (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Boot is a member of the House of Keys, which is a legislature, and passes WP:NPOL 1, but the closing admin, no longer an admin, closed as delete without comment. ミラ P 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) ミラ P 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment Have you made any attempt to ask the closer about it? I've restored the article for review, honestly I don't think there was much of a delete consensus at that AfD, and if there's sources available I'd see no issue with recreating it. There wasn't much in the article in the version that was deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Mazca: User:Euryalus? I thought it would matter only if they had admin rights by now. ミラ P 17:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Miraclepine: Yeah, sure they don't currently have admin rights to restore it, but it's still often the quickest and politest way if you think they made a mistake or that the situation has changed - even if they technically can't, another admin would likely be happy to speedy restore it if everyone agreed. ~ mazca ^talk 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] These are the two sources that show he is an MHK: [1] [2] ミラ P 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)Comment who cares that the closer is no longer an administrator? They were not desysopped for improper closing of AfDs, they voluntarily handed in their tools and would be eligible to get them back at this time. This AfD was 3 years ago. Why not just write a new article and see if it sticks per WP:CCC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Without the admin tools Euryalus can't see the deleted article anymore and, after three years, it's a good bet they won't remember what it was like. So contacting them, though polite, might not end up very productive. Reyk _YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation- I can't really fault the close since the discussion (and probably the article) focused on his status as a sportsperson. But if there's a case to be made for political notability I don't see any harm in allowing recreation. Reyk _YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Well neither the deleted page nor the AfD mentioned a political career, so I can hardly fault the AfD participants for not discussing it, but the argument that he meets WP:POLITICIAN is definitely enough to justify revisiting it. I'd support allowing recreation and restoring the deleted version if someone thinks it would be helpful. Hut 8.5 22:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Hut 8.5: I'd recommend restoring the deleted version so I can improve it. ミラ P 00:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Restore in that case. Hut 8.5 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Allow Re-Creation based on political notability. The article as deleted does not mention his membership in the legislature, which is a reason why the close should not be overturned as such. The close wasn't in error; the article was inadequate to sustain notability, and can be upgraded. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Rough consensus at AfD was fair. Re-creation is allowed if the reasons for deletion can now be overcome. Encourage use of AfC if the topic proponent is unsure. DRV is not for pre-judging notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Is the House of Keys an international, national, or sub-national legislative body? The Isle of Man is a bit weird. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I think you can make a reasonable argument that it's a first level sub-national one, since it's not an independent country but it is mostly self-governing. Hut 8.5 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment - agree with Robert McClenon and a few others: the article as deleted three years ago was not notable but there's no reason a new one can't be made if anyone has WP:RS to support a fresh notability claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment do we really grant automatic notability to members of a sub-national parliament representing 83,000 people? SportingFlyer T·C 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Easy answer: No. "Automatic notability" is never granted by anyone to anything. AfD judges notability, and the decision at AfD is the role of AfD. WP:N and the WP:SNG guidelines are mere predictors of what will happen at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Understood. My point is, if someone meets WP:NPOL as a member of a legislature, though, they almost certainly will be kept even if the sourcing in the article is subpar, regardless of WP:GNG, which isn't always a bad thing - but I'm questioning why this specific legislative body would qualify. It's more of a district council than anything. SportingFlyer T·C 03:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @SmokeyJoe and SportingFlyer: The Isle of Man is a crown dependency somewhat independent of the UK - no MPs, no EU citizenship - and is practically just like the Cook Islands. ミラ P 04:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – I don't understand why this 2016 AfD is at DRV. If a deleted article can be recreated within policy, it doesn't need to go to DRV. Anyone can just recreate the article with new sourcing, etc., and the recreated article can be re-nom'd at AfD of someone thinks the topic shouldn't have a stand-alone. I'm not seeing what DRV is needed for here. Levivich 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Geoffrey Boot – Endorse, but allow re-creation. Endorse because everybody agrees the original close was correct. But, that was three years ago and if circumstances have changed, there's nothing to keep anybody from writing a new article. I'm going to re-delete the temp-undeleted version for now. Anybody can just go ahead and create a new article at the same title. If you want to start from the existing text, ping me or ask at WP:REFUND and we'll get you the old one to start from. Note: please, please, please, if using the old text is what you want to do, don't just copy-paste from the temp-undelted history, because that will break the attribution history; ask for the old one to be userfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Boot is a member of the House of Keys, which is a legislature, and passes WP:NPOL 1, but the closing admin, no longer an admin, closed as delete without comment. ミラ P 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) ミラ P 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you made any attempt to ask the closer about it? I've restored the article for review, honestly I don't think there was much of a delete consensus at that AfD, and if there's sources available I'd see no issue with recreating it. There wasn't much in the article in the version that was deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazca: User:Euryalus? I thought it would matter only if they had admin rights by now. ミラ P 17:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Yeah, sure they don't currently have admin rights to restore it, but it's still often the quickest and politest way if you think they made a mistake or that the situation has changed - even if they technically can't, another admin would likely be happy to speedy restore it if everyone agreed. ~ mazca ^talk 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are the two sources that show he is an MHK: [1] [2] ミラ P 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment who cares that the closer is no longer an administrator? They were not desysopped for improper closing of AfDs, they voluntarily handed in their tools and would be eligible to get them back at this time. This AfD was 3 years ago. Why not just write a new article and see if it sticks per WP:CCC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Without the admin tools Euryalus can't see the deleted article anymore and, after three years, it's a good bet they won't remember what it was like. So contacting them, though polite, might not end up very productive. Reyk _YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation- I can't really fault the close since the discussion (and probably the article) focused on his status as a sportsperson. But if there's a case to be made for political notability I don't see any harm in allowing recreation. Reyk _YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well neither the deleted page nor the AfD mentioned a political career, so I can hardly fault the AfD participants for not discussing it, but the argument that he meets WP:POLITICIAN is definitely enough to justify revisiting it. I'd support allowing recreation and restoring the deleted version if someone thinks it would be helpful. Hut 8.5 22:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hut 8.5: I'd recommend restoring the deleted version so I can improve it. ミラP 00:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Restore in that case. Hut 8.5 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation based on political notability. The article as deleted does not mention his membership in the legislature, which is a reason why the close should not be overturned as such. The close wasn't in error; the article was inadequate to sustain notability, and can be upgraded. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Rough consensus at AfD was fair. Re-creation is allowed if the reasons for deletion can now be overcome. Encourage use of AfC if the topic proponent is unsure. DRV is not for pre-judging notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the House of Keys an international, national, or sub-national legislative body? The Isle of Man is a bit weird. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can make a reasonable argument that it's a first level sub-national one, since it's not an independent country but it is mostly self-governing. Hut 8.5 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree with Robert McClenon and a few others: the article as deleted three years ago was not notable but there's no reason a new one can't be made if anyone has WP:RS to support a fresh notability claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do we really grant automatic notability to members of a sub-national parliament representing 83,000 people? SportingFlyer T·C 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy answer: No. "Automatic notability" is never granted by anyone to anything. AfD judges notability, and the decision at AfD is the role of AfD. WP:N and the WP:SNG guidelines are mere predictors of what will happen at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. My point is, if someone meets WP:NPOL as a member of a legislature, though, they almost certainly will be kept even if the sourcing in the article is subpar, regardless of WP:GNG, which isn't always a bad thing - but I'm questioning why this specific legislative body would qualify. It's more of a district council than anything. SportingFlyer T·C 03:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SmokeyJoe and SportingFlyer: The Isle of Man is a crown dependency somewhat independent of the UK - no MPs, no EU citizenship - and is practically just like the Cook Islands. ミラ P 04:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – I don't understand why this 2016 AfD is at DRV. If a deleted article can be recreated within policy, it doesn't need to go to DRV. Anyone can just recreate the article with new sourcing, etc., and the recreated article can be re-nom'd at AfD of someone thinks the topic shouldn't have a stand-alone. I'm not seeing what DRV is needed for here. Levivich 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.