Summits on the Air (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have recreated the article with better references and sources. Also cut out the promotional sections of the deleted article. Draft article is in my sandbox. I've included references that address the original AfD concerns including WP:INDEPENDENT sources. I've been trying to get some life back into the WikiProject Amateur radio and this article is about a popular and important program for amateur radio operators. Full disclosure I've participated in this program but am not affiliated with it in any way, just a nerd that likes radio. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial impression is that most the sources in your draft, while not affiliated with this specific contest, are from amateur radio groups. Better sources would be ones that are from the more mainstream media. The article in The Telegraph is a good example. And I found ^[1] and ^[2]. My recommendation is to concentrate on finding these kinds of sources and only rely on the amateur radio sources to fill in specific details. I also see eo:Summits on the Air and fr:Summits on the Air. You should check those to see if they have any good sources you can use. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, the AfD (which I started) was 2 years ago. If you can write a better article with better sources, I don't think you need DRV to give you permission to go ahead. I'm not convinced that the sourcing you've got right now is really what we need, but that shouldn't be a concrete barrier to giving it a try. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @RoySmith thanks for the feedback. It's really hard to find sources for amateur radio content that isn't from an org that's tied to to the hobby but seeing that I didn't find the sources you provided I think I need to take a step back and reevaluate my search strategy. I was going to just be bold and replace the redirect with the article but I noticed that it went though AfD and I didn't want to step on any toes or anything. I'll give it another go after lunch and see what I can find. Thanks for the sources and feedback! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being unable to find sources that are not closely tied to the topic is usually an indication that the topic fails WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the AFD (but it does not appear to be an appeal). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Review of Draft, but DRV is not required for review of draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove redirect and replace with the content in the linked user space above. Significantly improved coverage from the deleted version. This can be challenged at AFD if someone wants to go that route. I’m not sure if this the right venue for such a request. Frank Anchor 00:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is just to note that I as the AfD closer have not been notified about this DRV, and that the sandbox linked in the nomination reads "I have 5 bananas and 2 apples", which is unlikely to be an improvement over the deleted article. Otherwise I offer no opinion. Sandstein 09:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant version of the sandbox is this one, presumably. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation – no opinion on whether the newly found sources are adequate, but there's enough of a change from the redirected version that the rewrite deserves to be considered afresh at AfD if challenged. (Agree with others that this probably could have just been done boldly.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]