Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 14

Geliyoo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The result of the discussion was "speedy keep" yet the sources and the article itself was never paid attention to. The discussion should have carried out till due time. Looking at the history of the article, somehow at times saved by only removing tags/promoting, instead of looking at the issues that the article faces. These links are broken and promotional: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Wordpress link: 10. Black-listed links: 11 12. Press release: 13. Not only are the references not reliable and the page poorly written, but the votes for "keep"; no reasonable logic was provided. Would request someone to actually pay attention. The article should be deleted. A few Turkish links, do not make the article notable, the article does not fall under WP:NOTE; I think it falls under WP:G11. Nudgepath (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you just renominate it. It was nominated by a now-blocked sockpuppet who didn't exactly articulate a valid reason for deleting it. If you nominate it with a coherent rationale for deletion then it will get a proper discussion. Hut 8.5 19:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above, feel free to renominate it without prejudice as sockpuppets have no standing to start or engage in deletion discussions. Having said that, addressing the 'Keep' rationales from that AfD proactively may strengthen your case. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no problem with that close and no problem with a speedy renomination, and am happy that consensus for a renom is being discussed at DRV to prevent any downstream issues. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I actually have taken a look at the sources in the article and made search on Google (kinda ironic) and ignored the ones connected to Geliyoo (Forum.geliyoo, geliyoobilisim etc.) and promotional pieces. What I'm left with is this: criticism from Yeni Şafak, report by Milliyet, report from Sputnik about the search engine using data from Google, report from Cumhuriyet, report from Hürriyet, report from Sabah. Not all of them are related to its opening: Geliyoo has been involved in some controversy and there are also sources about that. I still think there are enough sources to warrant notability. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nana April Jun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The artist is released by one of the most influential publishers of the sound art genre (Touch). The artist albums has been reviewed in over 50 different magazines worldwide, as well as been performed on noteworthy genre specific festivals around the world. Here are a large collection of reviews on the publishers web site: https://touch33.net/catalogue/tone-37-nana-april-jun-the-ontology-of-noise.html 83.250.38.88 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This article was deleted almost a year ago. If you can overcome the reasons for deletion, such as by presenting citations of reliable sources that prove the artist is notable, then you can look to recreate the article.
  To set that ball rolling, please provide the best three sources which cover this musician. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This appears to be one of those point 3 requests, where there is new information, in that time has passed and the artist may now be notable. The can't-be-wrong course is to submit a draft for review via AFC. You can alternatively create the article in article space. The disadvantage to creating it in article space is that a reviewer might tag it for G4, and the G4 should be declined by the admin (who can compare the deleted article and the article), which is an annoyance that can be avoided by submitting a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion, but I do not mind if the content gets restored to draft space for more reviews to be added. I do not think notability has been so clearly demonstrated to restore it directly to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and allow recreation sources described on the publisher's website seem well over the WP:N bar. But we'd need cites to the actual sources in the article. Deletion at the time seems correct. I see no reason to requite a stop through draft space. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and allow recreation (or, can we clear up DRVPURPOSE, please?) per what Hobit said. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close and the opinions of the Delete !voters, having seen the deleted article. The proponent will need to submit something better if they want a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted. The sources in the deleted article appear useless. Encourage the IP to edit existing pages and get some experience first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]