Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 26

I object to the months-not-days nature of Kyle's WP:CCC delay. EllenCT (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you? I suggest an objection should be formulated in terms of WP:THREE.  Not the WP:Reference bombing present in Draft:Kyle Kulinski.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would doubt my sincerity, but I don't see sourcing issues with the article, and I suspect most of the objections are rooted in politics instead of policy. I agree with Jimbo: "Allow recreation. This was a good close based on what was available at the time. But we now have a new RS which is a profile piece with statements clearly establishing notability, as well as people saying that there are previously overlooked reliable sources.  This is a sufficient policy-based rationale to allow for a new draft to be put forward for improvement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)" EllenCT (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not consider or address your sincerity. You do not like the notion that people have to wait months before making a formal case for re-creation.  That is clear and simple.  The counter point is that the process has been followed (barring an arguably slightly hasty renomination with AfD4), and a notionally consensus-based decision was made, and is now upheld, and that allowing proponents to endlessly continue arguing is disruptive.  I hold to that counter point, that AfD decisions should be given some respect.  Nominally, I suggest the waiting times given in WP:RENOM.
 * If you want to short circuit the months, my advice, well considered, is that you need to be very succinct in making the case. An excellent way to do this is to follow the advice of WP:THREE.  An on-the-surface reading of AfD4 says that the article was deleted for failing WP:N.  WP:THREE is directly focused on cases like this where the question of Wikipedia-notability is challenged.  Only two WP:GNG-meeting sources are needed, we will look at three, but if the best three fail then the challenge is failed.  The discussion has been had, people want to do other things now.
 * "most of the objections are rooted in politics"? I suggest writing a user essay on this.  You may be right, however, if the objective is hasty re-creation, people may listen to a succinct THREE submission, they will not listen to objections rooted in politics.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)