Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 16

Diaspora (video game) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was kept following an earlier prod because it satisified significant coverage, notability, etc, the previous prod was not discussed in the most recent prod, I have evidence of significant coverage, somebody in the prod also linked to eurogamer which is significant coverage but for some reason it was disregarded Mikesc86 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Article passed prod in 2007. In 2011 administrator Marasmusine was previously involved and kept the page following this evidence, a review in PC Gamer (see my talk page) https://image.bayimg.com/eadbkaaba.jpg. This Wikipedia article should be restored on the basis it satisfied WP:SIGCOV from PC Gamer and Eurogamer which are both WP:RS. Mikesc86 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Guidelines state "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" but as this article previously passed a PROD, this was an abuse of process. If objection to a previous PROD kept an article, objection to a new PROD should be expected on the game grounds. Guidelines also state "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD" - so again, processes were not followed. This newest PROD is invalid. Mikesc86 (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - significant evidence provided, Wikipedia processes asbued/not followed correctly regarding previous PROD Mikesc86 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking !vote as you are the nominator. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was deleted at AfD, not PROD. Consensus can and does change as reflected by the 2022 discussion. Please note your nomination is considered a request to overturn the closure, so please don't repeat your vote. You're welcome to create a new draft if there is improved sourcing. Star Mississippi 12:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you endorse when I've provided notable sources that have previously been acknowledged by a Wikipedia admin who kept the article? Mikesc86 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "if there is improved sourcing" but the sourcing remains the same, the AfD discussion just didn't take it in to account and it previously satisfied a Wikipedia admin Mikesc86 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the 2011 assessment does not necessarily apply to a 2022 discussion. WP:CCC] Star Mississippi 01:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - procedure was followed correctly based on AFD nom. An incorrect PROD was made in good faith, then was procedurally removed and the article was sent to AFD. Relisting would also have been a viable option considering the low attendance and agreement among the delete voters that there was at least one GNG-passing source. However, I see little value in relisting this discussion a year later. No objection to restoring article (and history) to draftspace. Frank Anchor 13:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The main reason for its deletion seems to have been WP:SIGCOV. The discussion did not take not of previous attempts to delete this article. If you look at my talk page you'll see I engaged with a Wikipedia admin and provided a significant source (PC Gamer magazine), and somebody in the AfD discussion provided Eurogamer which is a significant source of coverage. My argument isn't just that correct procedures weren't followed, it's that the article satisfied WP:SIGCOV and the sources are WP:RS, which means it shouldn't have been deleted on those grounds. Mikesc86 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is not the place to relitigate the AFD discussion. There was unanimous consensus among the involved participants that there was not sufficient coverage. As I already stated, I have no objection to restoring the article to draft space so a new article, with sufficient sourcing, can be produced. Frank Anchor 13:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As nobody has linked to the AfD discussion, here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaspora (video game). Based on that discussion it's a good close (and yes, the previous PRODs are indeed mentioned there). WaggersTALK 15:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the "XfD" in the list of links immediately after the header. —Cryptic 16:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Liz made the correct decision based on comments at the AfD and sources provided. I'm ok with restoring to draft space if new sources are available that weren't't mentioned in the AfD.

@Mikesc86, it would have been helpful had you participated in the AfD. It looks like you took a long wikibreak and missed it. That's OK - you're not required to check in every day or even every year. I took an even longer wikibreak. I recommend that you enable "email this user" in your Wikipedia settings. That way, if someone leaves a message on your talk page, you'll hear about it.

Thanks for editing and welcome back.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as procedure was followed appropriately. Concur with A. B. on restoring to draft. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. Relist would also have been correct, but delete was correct. DRV is not AFD round 2 (or 3). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation of Draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, uncontroversial close. No objection to restoring to draft. —siroχo 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) but restore to draftspace. (Note I am involved as I voted in this AfD a year ago). The close was uncontroversial and a valid conclusion. However, with two sources that likely contribute towards GNG, there is a plausible case for notability. As such, this should be restored to draftspace with the new sourcing incorporated, which can then be moved to mainspace subject to a new AfD if needed. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review assesses whether deletion process has been properly followed. It is not for cases where you simply disagree with the consensus arrived at. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse an uncontroversial close with the correct determination. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]