Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 9

Aadi Lakshmi – While the original deletion conclusion is endorsed, people are mostly fine with draftification or recreation and someone has already restored the content to draftspace. Note that some editors have qualified their OK with restoration and expect proper sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closed on the basis of no sources. Several reviews here, here, here and here. Several sources on production here, here, here, here, here and here. Given that there are many sources and the fact that this film is listed as one of Srikanth's best films here, the article should be restored. DareshMohan (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping you from writing another article about it, and you don't need to come here or get anyone's permission to do that. If you want the original version to serve as a starting point then I'm sure it can be restored to draft space, but it had very little content apart from an infobox and a cast list and it was completely unsourced (apart from IMDB, which doesn't count). Hut 8.5 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Again, User:DareshMohan says that an AFD was closed on the basis of no sources, and they mean no reliable sources providing significant coverage. Again, they are welcome to create an article or submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant reliable sources. What is the process for retrieving the draft? Was Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion the place to get the draft? Confused because Wikipedia:REFUND redirects there. DareshMohan (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want it moved to draft space then Requests for undeletion will do that. Hut 8.5 07:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original deletion as correct based on sourcing known at time. Recommend undeletion and userification or draftification for the appellant to fix it up so it demonstrates appropriate policies and guidelines, then moving it back to mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment refunded to Draft:Aadi Lakshmi. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as original closer. Based on the good faith efforts by the users in the last discussion to find sources, I don't believe my assessment of consensus was wrong. However, I'm fully on board with the restoration and draftification undertaken above (thanks Graeme Bartlett!) if new/previously unknown sources can be used to show notability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. New sources listed here are not a slam dunk, and need a close look. Encourage REFUND to draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.