Irmgard von Stephani ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It's being argued at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_German_supercentenarians&diff=699827145&oldid=699680549#People because no one put a notice at the German supercentenarians page that the discussion was going on. GreatGreen is the manager of the German page and is a major contributor who should have known about the discussion. The German page has her biography now so it should be restored and the text moved back. 107.72.99.57 ( talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- there was a well-argued nomination and two solid delete votes, with no opposition, so there is no way the discussion could have been closed any other way. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• If some people were unaware of the AfD and those people have information which could have resulted in a different closure had the information been presented at AfD, then this could be a reason for relisting the article at AfD. However, I'm not convinced that the information presented at Talk:List of German supercentenarians would have changed the outcome of the discussion, so endorse the AfD closure. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• The nom was reasonable (though the copyright issue of a source was irrelevant), but the delete !votes were all basically "I don't like it" in the sense that they didn't address sourcing and instead focused on if the reason for coverage for things they think are important--not a policy-based reason for deletion. So we have a policy-based nomination with two non-policy-based supporting delete !votes. That said, the nom is correct, there don't appear to be multiple significant RSes, and so deletion appears to be the right outcome. If someone has more RSes about this person, _that_ would be a reason to have a DRV. But as it stands, endorse Hobit ( talk) 21:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply