- Kyle Kumaran (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Notable Indian racer. Please check references available. Seems very notable and winning more and more championships every year
- 1. https://www.firstpost.com/sports/kyle-kumaran-steals-show-with-two-wins-vineeth-takes-championship-lead-in-jk-tyre-novice-cup-category-11826711.html,
- 2. https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/2021-fmsci-national-karting-championship-kyle-kumaran-wins-senior-title-peregrine-racing-claim-overall-honours-1882192-2021-11-29,
- 3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/kumaran-triumphs/articleshow/87992828.cms
Starling2022
(talk) 06:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- relist The discussion was poor and the sources seem decent and not discussed. I've no idea if those sources were in the deleted article, but the topic at first blush appears to meet WP:N. We should have a guideline-based discussion. I don't know the area well, and I know Indian sources can sometimes be questionable, but these seem reasonable and good. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be a case of "good closure, bad discussion". There's only so much a closer can do with three unanimous delete !votes, but an AfD that doesn't even examine the cited sources (much less any others) is pretty clearly deficient. Usually in this situation we'd just restore or allow recreation, but given how recent the discussion is, I guess there's no harm in a relist for the sources to actually be looked at. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- •Relist- per @Hobit, @Extraordinary Writ & @Starling2022 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist noting that the close was correct based on the information available in the AFD. There were two delete votes plus the nom, which is barely more than a soft delete. A good faith effort to restore the article should be considered. Since this was recently closed, a relist makes the most sense. Frank Anchor 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist due to additional information not discussed at AfD, while noting like others that the close based on the discussion was good. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. No need for another round of AfD which will obviously result in keeping. No fault of the closer.—Alalch E. 17:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. I don't really see the point in relisting either, but no prejudice against renominating for anyone who does. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse was there any effort to engage with the closer? (I cannot see any, but happy to be corrected). I agree with Frank Anchor, the discussion itself was essentially only minimal endorsements of the nomination, so a soft delete would have been a reasonable. Nevertheless, absent of any engagement with the closer, I feel a need to respect the decision which was within reasonable discretion. No prejudice against recreation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. No closure error, but new evidence has been presented and the three delete votes were all pretty weak IMO. Clyde [trout needed] 22:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse insofar as the close was correct based on what was in the AfD, and the closer did not err. However factoring in the new information, undelete. I'd say no relist is needed automatically as part of the DRV, but it can just be nominated by any editor at their own discretion moving forward. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|