Léa Khelifi – Endorse but allow recreation. What I get out of this is that the AfD close was a reasonable summary of the discussion, but the individual reviewers didn't do a good job of analyzing the sources. So, endorse the close per-se, but anybody is free to create a new article. If you want to start from the deleted text, ping me and I'll be happy to restore it to your userspace. -- RoySmith(talk)23:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I believe a relist was necessary as none of the delete !votes addressed the article's compliance with WP:GNG, but for one early !vote that seems to be based purely on the sources included at the time rather than a search of extant online sources - some of which were added after that point. Jogurney (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closing admin,xthere was a clear 4 to 1 view that this subject fails GNG. A couple of sources were presented in defence of GNG. The AfD went on for days after this with no further support,only further delete votes. Consensus was clearly to delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alllow recreation though I'm not bold enough to endorse or otherwise the AFD close. So far as I can see the references added were worthy of consideration.[1][2][3][4] It doesn't look to me they were considered. The only delete !vote after the improvement was inherently non-guideline-based. Some admins apply WP:G4 by comparison with the article at the end of the AFD but where there has been substantial improvement that has gone unremarked this seems inappropriate. Tactically, it is better not to improve an article during an AFD but to wait for deletion and then recreate with the new material. However in this case there are plenty more references available so the article can be recreated anyway. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that references 1, 2, 3 & 5 of fr:Léa Khelifi meet the WP:GNG. Three of these were in the deleted en article. I suspect that the AfD participants did not fully consider the sources, probably due to them being in French. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having problems with Google translate (my home computer is dying slowly), but those sources look okay, and two editors with a fairly high bar for such things think sourcing is probably okay. And frankly the discussion was focused on only NFOOTY, not GNG (even JPL's comments, which did discuss the GNG, were basically to ignore the GNG). I'm fine with either relist or overturning to NC. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure overturn to keep is the right decision here, based on the AfD there wasnt that consensus. It's also not the job of the closing admin to research sources themselves and make some sort of overriding decision. However I am more than happy for any editor to recreate based on new sources that satisfy GNG. This to my mind is simply standard practice. There certainly seems to be sources that would at least justify a draft. Fenix down (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw the deletion review (assuming that is something that can be done), if it is okay to recreate the article based on the sources I raised in the AfD. In a perfect world, there would have been more discussion, but I understand that admins cannot keep relisting these debates endlessly. Jogurney (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation There is nothing wrong with the close based on the discussion. It is not the role of the closer to independently review sources or claims made by discussants, only to evaluate the strengths of the arguments. A relist might have helped clarify things, but not necessarily. --Enos733 (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
