Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 6

Radhika Muthukumar – Socks do not have standing. Any established editor is welcome to request review if needed. Star Mississippi 01:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

She has done 3 lead roles in Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? , Sasural Simar Ka 2 and Do Chutki Sindoor. She also played the lead role in the marathi film Rangeela Rayabaa. Currently, she is playing the lead role in Main Dil Tu Dhadkan. I have supported all these with reliable sources in Draft:Radhika Muthukumar. So please review the last afd and move Draft:Radhika Muthukumar to mainspace 117.230.159.51 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The only argument from two of the three Keep votes was that notability hasn't changed since the previous AfD three years ago. The current AfD had a clear consensus among P&G-based views to delete. The appellant has not presented any reason to overturn, and is simply repeating what they said at the AfD, hoping for a different outcome. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current draft is a likely G5, just like the previous recreations there. It's not appreciably different from them. —Cryptic 19:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Professional wrestling school – Restored. There was no issue with the deletion, but the reason no longer applies. Closer has indicated they're fine and we do not need seven days on this. Star Mississippi 01:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The rationale for deleting this page was that "All three currently target glossary of professional wrestling terms, specifically for a section on the word "school" which no longer exists." This is no longer the case as the glossary page has been updated to include this item. Circa 50 articles linked to "Professional wrestling school" and the decision to delete this page has therefore had a disruptive effect. I would propose recreating this redirect, along with the redirects Wrestling School and Wrestling school, pointing to Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms#school, as the arguments for deletion are no longer sound. McPhail (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirects due to the rationale for deletion no longer existing, as well as the low attendance in the RFD. I’m not advocating an “overturn” as the reason for deletion was presumably valid at the time, although restoring has the same end result as overturning. Frank Anchor 11:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, while there's no such thing as "no quorum" for an RFD - uncontested deletion nominations are deletes there - I'd have expected a better-attended discussion to have taken notice of the article that was at this title before it was redirected way back in 2006. We have an entire category about specific wrestling schools at Category:Professional wrestling schools, so it's somewhat unreasonable not to have an article about the concept as a whole, let alone not even a redirect. —Cryptic 14:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirects - This is a case of WP:DRVPURPOSE3, which is not an Overturn. The new information is the restoration of the redirect target. DRV purposes 1, 2, 4, and 5 are requests to overturn a close. A request to restore a redirect because the target has been restored is not conceptually different from a request to restore an article due to newly published sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with whatever the consensus is here. I was just closing the discussion in what I thought was an appropriate way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirects per nom. The target has been restored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ijaz Hussain Batalve – History merge has been done to nom's wishes. No further action needed here Star Mississippi 01:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There was only one keep vote, which was also countered. Most editors, including myself and the nominator of the AfD, Bastun, were in favor of draftifying it, yet the AFD was closed as NC. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Whether the Keep !vote was countered or not is a matter of opinion, and well within the closing admin's discretion. With only three other participants after three weeks, I'd say consensus isn't obvious. But instead of taking it to DRV, or even to AfD, why not tag it for HISTMERGE, and handle this editorially? Once the history merge is complete, the result will likely be uncontested. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history merge is complete, so I assume this can be closed now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rossiyane – This is outside the scope of Deletion Review, as the merge did not occur as a result of a deletion discussion; rather, Talk:Rossiyane#Requested move 5 January 2015 led to this. The best place to discuss reverting this merge would be at Talk:Russian citizenship law or a similar talk page. Daniel (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I saw the discussion on the talk page (Talk:Russians#Ethnic_group_?) and noticed again that deleting an article in 2015 causes problems. It is necessary to restore the article about the people of Russia. The lack of this article is the biggest shame in the history of Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will propose to merge into one article such articles as: British people and English people, European Americans and Americans, Belgians and Flemish people, Swiss people and Germans, Han people and Chinese people, Kosovars and Albanians and many others. The reasons for restoration are obvious to anyone who understands the difference between citizenships and ethnic groups. _ruASG⁺¹ 04:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The appellant appears to be requesting to unmerge a merge that was done boldly, without a deletion discussion. Is DRV the proper forum for this request, or should the discussion at Talk:Russians continue so that a rough consensus can be reached on whether to unmerge? Does any purpose of DRV apply to this request? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After looking at the 5 purposes of DRV, my opinion is that it does not fall into any of those categories. Would an RFC be a better vehicle to address this request? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.