Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 7

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

7 October 2018

  • Emerald Mine – Restore and improve. There's so little discussion here, I'm on my own a bit to come up with a solution. In particular, it's unclear if the new sources put forth by Koren are really novel, or if they're actually the same ones that were reviewed and dismissed at the previous AfD. What I'm going to do is undelete the old revisions under the current redirect. This will give Koren an opportunity to write a new article, possibly using the existing revisions as a starting point. Once that's done, and all the new sources added to it, if anybody feels the sources are still insufficient to establish WP:N, they can bring it back to AfD for another look. I recognize that this may not really be a consensus close, but I think it's a reasonable compromise and the best I can do with the limited discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emerald Mine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I found a lot of new sources since deletion and included them on the german Emerald Mine article Koren (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Endorse not the best participated AfD, but not an incorrect close, and the consensus on the talk page is that the new sources don't convey notability. SportingFlyer talk 03:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Their comments were made before even half of the sources were added, so I ask for a judgement of _all_ sources at the current state of the article. Emerald Mine has even got a Hit-award, and reached the yesterday-score for another. Don't count awards anymore as notable? "Notability is not temporary." And moreover, I thought the participants here would form an opinion based on the sources and not on the opinion of someone other. --Koren (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I would vote for a relist, but the sources were already discussed on the talk page by the participants, the new sources presented seem very similar in scope and content, and I don't see another AfD turning out any differently, sorry. SportingFlyer talk 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
A criticism was, that only the first part had sources, and the other parts not. I have added sources for the other parts, thus fixed this incompleteness and no reaction came.--Koren (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation/allow another AfD The AfD consensus seemed to be that there weren't enough sources on each particular game. More of the same seems like it would have potentially (likely?) overcome the AfD !voter's concerns. On top of that, WP:N now appears to be met (subject to consensus on a future AfD). Hobit (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, I recreated (one of the) suggested redirects from AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.