Nicolás Atanes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have heard about Nicolás because he was nominated for the Navarra Television Awards, and I heard him on Cadena SER. He has appeared in RNE, in the Telediario, writes in Diario 16, has met with great politicians (Mariya Gabriel, for example), and has been proposing educational changes in math for a long time. Without present biases, and with reputable sources, and surely more things that have gone unnoticed, I believe that Nicolás's Wikipedia article should be restored, and remain on Wikipedia. 83.53.76.219 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Question - In view of the ECP-protected status of the title, would it be better for any appeal on this title to be made by an extended-confirmed editor, or at least an autoconfirmed editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, properly deleted at AfD. The sources offered do not obviously meet WP:BIO, many are not new since the AfD, they are all non-English, and DRV is not the right place to evaluate them. Is there an article at the native language Wikipedia? If it keeps getting deleted there, I don’t think it is ok to recreate here, especially without disclosing its history there. If anything, request WP:REFUND to draftspace and try to present a stub based on WP:THREE good sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse only possible close. While I can fault the AfD on some technicalities - there were guesses in the nom that were never substantiated, and a comment referring to sources mentioned in a previous AfD was never picked up on - the fact is nobody argued the subject reached our notability bar and several argued it clearly didn't. If 83.53.76.219 really believes a good enough article can be put together and is willing to invest the effort, I recommend asking for draftification and going through WP:AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No suggestion that the deletion policy has not been followed properly. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The OP is a site-banned serial sockpuppeteer. This discussion should be closed per WP:DENY. (I've never closed one of these discussions before, so will leave that to someone who won't break anything.) Girth Summit _(blether) 15:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Will Be OK (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an animated short film that was released theatrically in 2006 and was shortlisted for an Academy Award. It won the Grand Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In 2012, Everything Will Be OK was edited into a longer feature film, along with its two sequels, under the new title "It's Such a Beautiful Day". The Wikipedia page for "Everything Will Be OK" has been nominated for deletion, to be merged instead with the page for the feature film version, "It's Such a Beautiful Day". I disagree with this deletion and merge. The short film has enough merit and notability to justify its own entry. It was released on its own DVD in 2007 and currently has over a million views as a standalone on YouTube. It's similar to a song like "Eleanor Rigby" having its own Wikipedia entry. This song could logically be merged with the page for the "Revolver" album but it's notable enough to merit its own entry. Ang-pdx (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised that the discussion was closed with so little participation: indeed, I relisted an AfD from this same "batch" just the other day. I would be inclined to relist this one as well, on the theory that it's analogous to a "soft delete" that can be revisited if contested. (On another topic, I'm not too thrilled about the idea of proposing merges at AfD in the first place: WP:CSK #1 arguably allows such discussions to be speedily closed as keep.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my comment above probably indicates, I would be just as glad for this closure to be overturned to speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Relist as not enough input for a backdoor deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist would be the proper thing to do here, as the arguments above, if substantiated (and nothing in the AfD discussion suggests they wouldn't be) are excellent arguments for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This was a misuse of AfD. AfD is not Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. AfD is not a suitable forum for disputed merging, or proposed merges where no one actually wants to do it. Interested editors should use Talk:Everything Will Be OK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Insufficient consensus for a merge, and AFD should not have been raised in the first instance if deletion was not a potential outcome. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I disagree with SmokeyJoe's claim (to paraphrase, excuse me if I misunderstand) that it is never appropriate to go to AfD if you think merge is the best outcome: it's true that AfD discussions, in view of their time limit, can be problematic, but they can bring a broader perspective on the encyclopedic merit of the material than just the relevant talk page would. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s inappropriate to go AfD if deletion, even pseudo-deletion (Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection), is not seriously on the table. The AfD should have been closed Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion #1. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends what you mean by "on the table". It's fine to go to AfD and propose a merge if you think someone might come forward with a reasonable delete or redirect case, or if the article was previously AfDed/PRODded. I'm pushing back on your remark because I don't want these kind of generalisations to get crystallised into DRV wisdom. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the nominator makes no rationale for a delete, it should be speedy closed. The D in AfD is for Deletion. AfD is not the right forum for a more complicated merge discussion, the one week of of !votes is too simplistic. The fight forum is the article talk page. A disputed merge being reverted might be well discussed at AfD, but in this case the talk pages of the article and proposed target have not been used. You are proposing scope creep for AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While what you say about complex merges outgrowing AfD limits is quite true, there's no scope creep involved in what I say: I'm simply describing what actually happens on AfD. SK1 will not be invoked if the nom mentions potential grounds for deletion even if their nom actually goes on to favour merge or draftify. And the discussion can outgrow the confines of AfD even when the nom is leaving delete on the table: for a recent example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity plus one. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD nom mentions not a hint of a deletion reason, and gives the obvious merge target. The obvious merge target means that the AfD WP:BEFORE check fails. It should not come to AfD, and if it does it should be closed per SK#1. If someone else gives a deletion reason, then they would be wrong, because there is none. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am at fault for the length of this digression: I agree in the specifics of this case, that an SK1 close of this AfD would have been appropriate at any stage, and I did not make clear that I was worried about a hypothetical case where the nom didn't seek deletion but SK1 was inapplicable. Apologies for not having been clear. I think we do not disagree on the scope of SK1. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All good. You were saying slightly awkward things, and now it makes sense that you were thinking of hypothetical. I agree that a "merge or delete" nomination is good for AfD, if there is a rationale for why it should be deleted if it is not agreed to be merged. Indeed, it is fairly common to see a discussion split on "merge" or "delete".

  For this article, it was an awkward merge proposed, with no suggestion to delete if not merged. I think that User:HadesTTW should attempt to do a WP:BOLD merge, and most certainly should use the article pages before thinking of AfD, or even Wikipedia:Proposed_article mergers.

  -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]