- Freenom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This is to remove the redirect to .tk and allow restoring/rewriting the article. The rationale is twofold. Firstly, Freenom is a domain registry operator for five different ccTLDs (country-code top level internet domains): .tk, .ml, .ga, .cf and .gq. Making the article redirect to a random one of them – as it is the case now – is factually incorrect and thus misleading to the readers. This can be seen from the number of attempts to remove the redirect over the last 3 years.
Two, even if Freenom do not receive much media coverage as an enterprise, they are part of critical internet infrastructure for those five countries as the operator of their national internet domains. They are infinitely more important than, say, local pageant winner from 1996.
Overall, I see absolutely no reason to keep redirecting this Dutch company to an article on Tokelau's internet domain and propose to restore the article. — kashmīrī TALK 10:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation - the AfD is not worth overturning, but nor is it a strong enough consensus (of 1.5 people) on which to base 6-7 reverts to stop the creation of a new article since 2018. Essentially, more people have tried to create an article since 2018 than participated in the AFD. And many more have tried than there were people supporting a redirect. The nominator ended up supporting keep or merge and the one person who supported deletion was a suspected sock-puppet. I'm not sure it will necessarily survive an AFD on the above argument but I'm sufficiently convinced an editor in good standing should have the opportunity to try. St★lwart111 11:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation essentially per the above. Does no one ever read WP:CCC anymore? Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with the above, restoring the article is not a good idea. This is what it looked like. Of the six citations two are to press releases by the subject, two are to obviously unreliable sources (a user-edited wiki and a tabloid newspaper), and the other two don't mention the ostensible subject of the article at all. It's also not correct to say that there have been "6-7 reverts to stop the creation of a new article since 2018". There has been one attempt to create an article since 2018, it was completely unsourced. The other changes were attempts to remove the redirect by blanking it or to the proposed deletion process, which were correctly reverted. There shouldn't be anything to stop someone from writing a better sourced article which demonstrates the notability of the subject, but that hasn't happened so far. If someone wants the redirect to be removed in the meantime then WP:RFD is the right venue. Hut 8.5 09:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, and I don't think anyone is suggesting any of those previous versions (substantive or not) should be restored. Any new version of the article would need better sources, better writing, etc. But it would need to be new. And if those things aren't resolved, we can expect it to head back to AFD. St★lwart111 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The OP said they would like the article to be restored. It doesn't look like anybody has tried to write an improved version and they don't need DRV's permission to do so. Hut 8.5 11:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, yeah, was focused on the "/rewriting". Clarification, then, that it should probably be developed in draft-space first. St★lwart111 11:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Re-Creation - The appellant came here rather than to RFD, and there is no need to send them to RFD, which might reasonably tell them that they should come here. The redirect is not helpful at this time, and a draft can be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
