I due evasi di Sing Sing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I find the subject of the page to be notable (1st installment of 3 by the same important director, notable soundtrack, for instance) (Note The Afd discussion showed one merge and one delete comments only, FWIW) MY OH MY 21:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Disregarding your thoughts on the notability of the article (we are not here to re-argue that) do you have an opinion about how the discussion was closed? You imply you do, but I'd welcome clarity on that. CT55555(talk) 01:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I can’t say clearly I do: the page should have been kept considering the notability of the film, in my humble opinion, that’s all, and I did not mean to imply anything on the way the discussion had been closed, I was just observing that participants to the discussion had been 4 with only 2 expressing explicitly what they thought should be done with the page and not exactly of the same opinion. So, where would be the place for re-arguing that the subject of the page is notable then, if not here? Thank you. — MY OH MY! 08:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: Usually at WP:DRV we only discuss whether the close was procedurally correct. I offer no opinion on that point. The most effective way to re-argue notability would be for you to create an article in user space or draft space with references showing notability and to submit it to WP:AFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! @Phil Bridger — MY OH MY! 11:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse because the discussion above does not include complaint about the close. Weak because I am not sure I support the close due to lack of participation and I see so many getting more time and more input and I don't know why that wasn't done (but also don't know enough to say if that was in error or not). CT55555(talk) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - is it normal to have a nom and two comments on the same day followed by closure of the discussion with no relists within a week (if I'm counting the days correctly)? It seems pretty extreme to me to delete with two !votes and no relists. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: I think the general principle the majority of closers apply is three participants minimum to not relist, but this is intentionally not firm. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Little-trafficked discussion but shouldn't have been controversial. The article was two-sentence introduction and a very long plot summary and cited no reliable sources nor explained why it was important. If the sources exist, it shouldn't be difficult to create a new draft. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD was closed correctly, it's reasonable to close as Delete if three people support deletion and nobody objects. It wasn't a well-attended discussion and the bar to revisiting it should be low, but I don't see any evidence here which would make a difference if the issue was reopened, such as sources to show the subject passes the WP:GNG. Creating a draft version which does show that the subject is notable would be a good next step, there wasn't much in the deleted version apart from a plot summary and cast list. Hut 8.5 18:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Éndorse would not be unreasonable to argue this skirts the borders of a soft delete, however, no reason to change the close since outcome is the same. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - The appellant doesn't identify an error by the closer, but with only two responses, only one being a plain Delete, a relisting for another week would have been a good idea, and consisting with practice that AFDs with minimal participation are usually relisted for at least one week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No failure to follow the deletion process has been identified. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gajesh Naik (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AFD never reached consensus. I had many queries and questions which were unanswered by some editors. Also would love to see the AFD relisted if necessary. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 11:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete due to clear and strong consensus. CT55555(talk) 14:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. That could not have been closed any other way - the nominator here was the only person advocating for a different outcome and their arguments were explicitly rejected by other contributors. Rejoy2003, I strongly advise reading WP:BLUDGEON and dropping the stick. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct reading of overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a clear reading of consensus to delete. Appellant evidently has a good-faith misreading of our procedures and of what constitutes consensus. The appellant may in good faith think that he has a right to have all of his questions about notability of the subject answered to his satisfaction, but the other editors are satisfied that the questions were answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, obviously. Consensus was very clear. Nobody except the creator favoured "keep" and every argument against deletion was refuted in line with policies and guidelines. Extensive coverage in one publication (especially one of dubious reliability) is not enough to satisfy notability requirements. Breadth is as important as depth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no possible outcome other than delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse. If this isn't consensus I don't know what is. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]