Moxie Raia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I suspect this person is notable, by the circulation of their song "Buffalo Bill" and a mention of being signed to Capitol Records, and I found this, but sourcing in music articles is not my strong point. Is it worth shifting the close to "no consensus" and examining for sources? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wouldn't someone who is interested look for sources first? As it stands with it being apparently just the nom in the deletion discussion, it should really be effectively a PROD, but it'd still seem better to find someone who actually is interested enough to find some sources and will do a bit off work on whatever is recovered before undoing it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how we can possibly consider this to be have been anything other then a soft deletion. As such any admin should be free to undelete on request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - decent sources, no participation, a single week at AfD. I'd support either undeletion with no prejudice against it being immediately relisted at AfD, or relisting at AfD for wider participation. Former is probably easier. WilyD 10:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy restore Should have been labeled as a soft deletion. Hobit (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Either restore (treat as soft delete) or relist. How this was not routinely relisted for a second week is beyond me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore / relist. Deserves a second look due to low participation, but note that two albums on a major label are what it takes to pass WP:MUSIC, merely getting signed is virtually meaningless. It might seem counterintuitive, but some artists get signed and are essentially never heard from again for one reason or another. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jak Alnwick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

now plays in Premier League as per WP:Football [1] 92.18.197.167 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Def speedy undelete. Played in 2nd half of Newcastle vs Chelsea on 6 Dec, putting in a highly notable performance. Meets notability requirements. 176.64.213.98 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Voynich Alphabet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Equivalent pages on other language Wikipedias remain. See my comment on Talk:European_Voynich_Alphabet, or as with the German Wiki, include it (or a brief description) in the body of the Voynich Manuscript article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs) - 'a mention somewhere' in the Voynich Manuscript article would probably cover it. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what's stopping you do that? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources win prizes not wikipedia pages on other projects. If that hasn't changed since the last AFD we may not have very much to talk about here... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a consensus - given the number of articles on other-language WPs, there is a case for a mention on en-WP: a separate article, a section on the VM page (the German model) or 'X and Y developed the EVA - link here (and see also (other language WP page)' have each some merits, and the last would probably satisfy most. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipedias work to differing standards, have the same problems as here (it may be that if someone listed for deletion there they would be deleted) etc. So inclusion there is generally not a useful metric. The sources they use to support there articles are usually the significant part. This is DRV, not an editorial panel. We aren't going to come to some consensus about how this particular area should be handled from an editorial view point, merely as to if the deletion discussion previously held was valid or not. You should start a discussion about it on Talk:Voynich manuscript as to if a section there is appropriate or not. If that section then grows and so warrants a separate article, again that's a discussion to be had there. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was a !voter in the original AfD. It seems to me that this article was about EVA, the René Zandbergen and Gabriel Landini invention of 1998. I'm happy to change my !vote if sources can be found that discuss the EVA in detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse discussion clearly was for deletion and I see no policy/guideline based reason to overturn. Hobit (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse discussion was unanimous, and we don't undelete stuff based on whether another wiki has an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]