Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 15
Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. ππ²π«ππͺππ«π«πππ ππ₯π’ ππ¬π¬π¬π¬π¬π«π¦π’π°π± (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a correctly closed seven-year-old discussion, what exactly are you asking us to do here? SportingFlyer TΒ·C 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- ...Reinstate the article? Er. I was told by @Thryduulf: over at RfD that this was the proper method of getting a previously-deleted-by-AfD article reinstated. Did I screw up here? ππ²π«ππͺππ«π«πππ ππ₯π’ ππ¬π¬π¬π¬π¬π«π¦π’π°π± (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked closely enough at the AfD to realise it was that old and assumed it was recent. I have no further opinion on the merits or otherwise of overturning the decision. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The closing correctly reflected consensus. And while three participants isn't much, we generally consider it to satisfy WP:QUORUM. But even if we treat this DRV as AfD round two, the provided sources do not confer enough notability to support a standalone article. That said, I do not object to any editor creating a "Luxury real estate" section in the redirect target, essentially treating the seven-year-old AfD result as a Merge rather than a redir. OwenΓ β 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Closing admin) Eh, it's a consensus, but like the weakest consensus possible. Only a weak self-endorse on my part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)