Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2018/April

Why no review when consensus violates policy? Or when other precedents disagree?
I think consistency and following actual policies and guidelines are more important than local consensus. Why can't there be review when local consensus is simply out of touch with the rest of Wikipedia? Perhaps when an AfD passed due to some SNOW consensus me-too-ing? The AfD that brought this up is Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Store retail locations but I think it is a more general question. How does that violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY when the many lists under Lists of restaurants apparently do not? Is there no place to go to address this incongruous decision? Most of the !votes didn't do anything other than repeat the prior NOTDIRECTORY without going into details of how this particular listing violates that. I don't see anything in particular about WP:NOT that applies to this article but not the restaurant lists. If you feel an AfD was technically incorrect why is there nothing to be done about it? Is the only alternative to nominate the Lists of restaurants (which will be whiteknighted by the many contributors and people interested in keeping such lists). This reduces AfD to a simple voting process if the closer is not responsible for verifying that the decision actually matches how policy is implemented. I think this exposes a problem in the AfD process but I am pretty new here and don't understand all the reasoning that may go into not questioning "consensus" even if it is wrong or inconsistent. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * List of Microsoft Store locations is pure directory, just like List of Applebee's locations would be. List of pizza chains of the United States, on the other hand, serves as a jumping-off point for finding (or reminding yourself about) restaurants in the US. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about List of restaurants owned or operated by Gordon Ramsay? And even if there is a distinction in this particular case, what of the more general problem of an incongruous local consensus for which there is no appeal? Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For that one, I'd argue that the restaurants he has started are encyclopedic, and that there are significant differences between the various entries that support treatment at greater length (Michelin stars, for example).-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of them do not have articles. Isn't that a common standard for inclusion in a list? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made that argument in the past, and probably will in the future, yes. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer 's original point, in my opinion the proper place to bring this up would be to open a discussion or RfC on the Village Pump, with appropriate cross-notifications on WT:WikiProject Lists and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. The general principle here is that if you think the local consensus conflicts with the previously established community consensus, then appeal to the community. It could be that consensus has changed, and the local consensus will actually be supported. Or it could be that, in fact, the local consensus should have been overridden, in which case the RfC could decide to reinstate the article.--Aervanath (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Another answer is get the community to adopt/amend a guideline, because of OTHERSTUFF, unless there is a specified guideline the closer can clearly hang onto, they will more than likely be loath to go against the AfD participants -- even then, we won't get "perfect" consistency because of edge cases, but at least you have an explicit principle, which to apply (the difficulty of writing such guidelines is not much fun, but there you have it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of Deleted Page Chakresh Kumar
I request to review the article Chakresh Kumar. It was deleted because of lack of notability and was considered orphan article. Please let me republish the page with new changes and improvements as per our guideline on biographies and general notability guideline. Also, please provide guidance and instructions to make article better. Sanjeev22mannan (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Your first article is a useful resource. I recommend creating a draft article at Draft:Chakresh Kumar, this will allow you to work on it without worrying that it will be deleted quickly.Aervanath (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for information. I will draft the article, but how would I republish it. My main concern is that it has been deleted before so I need approval from community to republish it. Hi , please give your opinion on it.Sanjeev22mannan (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't need any kind of approval as long as your new version addresses the reason why the previous version was deleted. If you're unsure about that I recommend you get other peoples' opinion on your draft though.  Hut 8.5  20:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , thanks for information. I created the Draft:Chakresh Kumar, please review it and let me know about the improvements to be made in it.Sanjeev22mannan (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your version appears to be almost identical to the version which was previously deleted in a deletion discussion. That isn't going to get you very far.  Hut 8.5  21:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need permission as said above, but if you don't have significantly better sources than the previously deleted  version, this version would be likely to be deleted again, or just not be promoted from draft to main article space at all. If better sources do not exist, than no article will be possible. It was deleted for lack of notability. A future version that clearly establishes notability would be fine -- one that does not is rather pointless. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)