- 樂天 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
We often disambiguate topics with the same name in Chinese characters (i.e. {{Chinese title disambiguation}}) because there is not a one-to-one correspondence between romanized and Chinese-character names. No explanation was given as to why the contents failed this criterion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a bunch of precedents for keeping such pages listed at quarry:query/77233. (The first is a joke afd, and this is my amused sig. →Cryptic 05:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
- Actually, I'm going to go for a straight overturn here. This title, or the spelling variants also disambiguated here, would have been perfectly fine redirects to any of the disambiguated pages, so a disambig is the natural solution; and while WP:DABNAME says to prefer English spelling in the title, the romanizations aren't ambiguous. The guidelines cited by the afd participants were misrepresented, and - since this doesn't come up at all often - I wouldn't expect the afd closer to have realized that. This isn't a case of mere disagreement with an outcome - the outcome was clearly wrong, and inconsistent with both policy and prior practice. —Cryptic 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Deletion review is a venue for handling failures to follow deletion process. It's not for where you simply disagree with the AFD outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Endorse - The close is the right close for the AFD. Temp-undeleting it probably wouldn't do any good, at least for those of us who do not read Chinese. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost the entire dab is visible in the creation log comment; only the last entry and typical dabbish boilerplate are cut off. Last entry was "Rakuten (楽天), Japanese technology conglomerate". —Cryptic 02:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I'm not familiar with Chinese disambiguation pages but Cryptic's explanation seems plausible to me. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Cryptic. It appears the outcome was incorrect with no fault of the closer. Star Mississippi 15:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore close was right, but deletion reasons completely bogus. We should keep this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. I agree with Cryptic. If the characters were unambigouous, a redirect would be appropriate, so when they are ambiguous, keeping a disambiguation page is compliant with policy. While DRV should not be used due to mere disagreements, it can correct good-faith errors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|