Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 10

Alumni of Brunel University (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Accidentally created duplicate category page of 'Alumni of Brunel University London' B Enkay 45 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Good morning User:B Enkay 45 and I hope you're well. You're in the wrong place, I fear; Deletion Review is here to deal with appeals regarding deleted pages and deletion discussions. I've gone ahead and deleted Alumni of Brunel University as that seems to be what you wanted done; in future if you create a page accidentally simply add {{db-g7}} to the top of the page and someone will drop by to delete it. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes indeed, that was all I needed. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B Enkay 45 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Fraser (lawyer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Andrew Fraser is a notable person who had a major influence on the Australian law world. He defended some of Australia's most infamous people. It is important that information about him differs from his television show Killing Time as facts were dramatised and names were substituted. Georges (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I closed the discussion. In the discussion, all three participants expressed the opinion that Fraser was not independently notable and that the content would be better merged into the TV show. Are there any sources available which show independent notability and would warrant a different outcome? (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Buidhe: Andrew Fraser and his tv show are significantly different and warrant their own article. I have links to sources below that prove Fraser's significance...

, , ,

Also here is the proposed edit will be made to the page if it becomes un-merged. User:Geo3012/sandbox - Georges (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• If that's the best there is, I'm not impressed. Three of these sources are not independent of the subject and don't count towards GNG. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to repeat arguments that were (or should have) been made at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure as the proper conclusion of the closer. I might have !voted differently, but we do not re-litigate the AFD discussion. I would suggest that Relisting would be a good idea, but this is a valid result. If the closer is willing to relist, please relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close, although the discussion was very weak. Of the four sources listed above by Geo3012, onpy one is of value, three are not independent. However, if the draft is developed to clearly demonstrate notability, ther should be no bar to moving the draft to mainspace. At the moment it probably passes the GNG, but has a problem with WP:CRIME, just as the article did. If sources that are not primarily concerned with Fraser 's crime and conviction are sufficient to pass WP:BIO then this could be approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse sadly there was minimal participation. The closer did not get it wrong. Maybe draft? Wm335td (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Wm335td, please note that User:Geo3012/sandbox already exists as a draft version of this, as was mentioned earlier in the discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)