- Freefall (webcomic) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The initial request for undeletion was submitted on October 3. The ensuing discussion can be seen here. Essentially, it was suggested I discuss this with the admin who initiated the original deletion of the article in question. I posted the request to his page, and this request can be seen here. There has been no response in over three weeks, which I am not criticizing; we all have our own reasons for not keeping up with Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I feel this is sufficient time to move forward and request that this process be forwarded to the next stage, bypassing Stifle's authorization and opening an actual discussion on undeleting the Wikipedia article Freefall (webcomic). I'm placing this back into contention for undeletion one more time, using this as my justification:
- "If you are not a fan of Freefall you ought to be. Alas, it really will involve some time because it is a serial story, and the current panels are shocking — that is, they have a total surprise that I do not think many readers saw coming...The story is well developed and very logically constructed. I’d like to see it win a Hugo. It’s really good." -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle, March 2, 2014, http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/forced-sale-of-crimea-learning-math-prince-igor-and-the-hearing-log-continues/
-- Modemac (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article was deleted due to not being sourced. I think the Pournelle article could be used as a source, Are there any other reliable third party sources? Do you really want the old article restored? Often it's better to start from scratch. If you really do want it restored, then you might get a better response by asking for it to be userfied, resolving the sourcing issue and then getting it moved to mainspace (though of course it could still be AFD'd again) --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this will help:
- TV Tropes, as an open wiki, is almost the opposite of a reliable source (at least in the way relevant here). I haven't looked at your second source in detail, but it seems dubious at a glance. —Cryptic 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to draft space. If Pournelle is the only good source, that would likely be insufficient to survive another AFD. No objection to restoring to Draft space for improvement, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to draft space. per Amatulić. And i am now reading my wa through the comic...thanks for introducing me to it! --doncram 21:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow re-creation, as a draft or otherwise. There appears to be sufficient evidence of notability now to supersede the prior deletion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow re-creation, as a draft or otherwise. I agree with above that there is at the very least adequate notability to overturn the prior deletion, and certainly to work either in main article space or user space and then if necessary could have another deletion discussion to assess that article's state at that point in time. — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse personal blogs are generally terrible sources, even when the blog is of someone notable, and it wouldn't be a good idea for an article to fully hinge on an unreliable source. A draft might be a good way forward, as others have suggested. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
