STONEX India – Seeing as the original NAC has now started a second AfD for this while the DRV was still ongoing, I felt that prompt action was needed. I relisted the original AfD, and procedurally closed the second one. Hopefully this concludes the concerns mentioned here. Owen×☎14:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
It seems a bit too early to close this discussion, especially when three relatively new editors, who may not be fully familiar with the notability guidelines, have voted to keep the article with very vague rationales - "plenty reliable sources are present", "added two books that provide significant coverage." (which do not actually provide significant coverage), and "I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia." While I suspect UPE activity, that is a matter for another day. Requesting a re-list of this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - doesn't seem an appropriate close for a non-admin. Seems to me there are legitimate questions about the sources on the page and whether appropriate sources exist to meet the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, not so much as a bad non-admin close, as a mistaken close. An admin also should have relisted. I have no opinion on the merits of the article because I have not assessed the sources or viewed a source assessment table.With new sources added late in the first week of discussion, the closer should have relisted to allow for comment with the added sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This is not a WP:BADNAC, but comments supporting a keep position are not well articulated per nom. A relist would be a much stronger action at this point in the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It stinks By the numbers, the close is right. On a cursory inspection, the edit history of 2 of the 3 keep !voters is concerning to me and does not appear consistent with a normal editing trajectory. I endorse all appropriate investigation referrals. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, my apologies I understand and acknowledge that this was my mistake. I was trying to find some discussions 7 days old and close them; I ended up closing several yesterday. This review is a good experience for me. I agree that the “keep” arguments were not strong, and I’ve decided to open a fresh AfD. My sincere apologies for taking up your time. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per all above. I do not believe this to be a WP:BADNAC but a relist would be most appropriate due to a vote split (both in raw numbers and strength of argument). I recommend that the 2nd AFD created in good faith by BoraVoro be procedurally closed and the first AFD be reopened so points raised in the AFD can be directly responded to. FrankAnchor14:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga) shows that the article was deleted in 2009 due to lack of sources establishing notability. I have since found some sources for the article, such as reviews from Anime News Network (1, 2) and Da Vinci (1). I have also found an old interview from 2000 from the creator of the series here. I have done a full rewrite as a draft. The admin who deleted the article has not been active since May 2024 and the person who nominated the article for deletion is no longer active on Wikipedia since 2010. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need our permission. We can show you the old version if you want; it was mostly a plot overview, but the lead and infobox might be useful. —Cryptic03:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! So I can go ahead and recreate the article, correct? I just wanted to make sure. I actually rewrote the entire infobox, lead, and plot in my draft, but I will still check. Thank you! lullabying (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
