Vidyut Kale ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Politically motivated deletion. Subject of article is a known dissenter of the government and several delete votes are by profiles with history that aligns with ruling party. User_talk:JamesBWatson

-Preethi 150.242.197.197 ( talk) 22:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply

She appears to have posted her reasons on the user talk page for closer:

I am from India and found the article page through Google only to see that it was deleted and read the page for why it was deleted.

I think this deletion was political vandalism. Vidyut Kale is a public figure on digital rights in India and has participated in internet rights movements in the country. She is something of a lone wolf and polymath supporting many campaigns in public interest, but there won't be significant organization related coverage of her because she is careful to stay independent of organizations and political parties. Being a woman, and opposing ruling party that controls most media, you will not find coverage for activists opposing government.

She opposes the ruling BJP in India with a notorious IT cell and is the subject of several targeted attacks from them. They have organized workers on all social media as well as Wikipedia. Some of the delete recommendations are by users whose history reveals edits of interest to the ruling party.

Some of the analysis of references is also not correct. You can verify for yourself.

For example, this article, that is analyzed as only mentioning her is interviewing her as among the early founders of the group intending to form a Pirate Party in India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Activists-bemoan-absence-of-active-Pirate-Party-in-India/articleshow/34542968.cms

This article is analyzed as her being mentioned in a "non-substantive, transitory sense" while discussing laws used for censorship in India. This is not correct, her case is being analyzed because she got defamation notices due to an expose of a scam. https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/VViKHUnyEZzuxOSQumBhEL/Free-Speech--Virtual-empowerment.html Another user calls it an advocacy piece because its sources include three major digital rights related organizations in India!

This article in an award winning publication with its own Wikipedia page (as pointed out by another user) is called an unreliable source in the analysis https://www.thefridaytimes.com/peace-after-pathankot/ what is important here is that this is a Pakistani newspaper quoting her on a subject of tension between India and Pakistan.

I contacted her before messaging and she is not interested in pursuing this, but as administrator, you should care that Wikipedia is being used to refuse credibility to dissenters by the fascist party in rule.

~ Preethi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.165.21 ( talk) 07:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• A contentious AfD, started by a user now blocked for sockpuppetry, with a possible visit by the actual subject, brought to DRV by an IP whose first-ever edit was to a user talk page claiming they have talked with the subject about the page. Fortunately, while I also believe the closer did a commendable job, I also consider a "politically motivated deletion" to be outside the scope of WP:DRVPURPOSE. SportingFlyer T· C 22:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Relist with allow recreation in all event: Weak overturn While I don't think I particular agree with the reasons (from a Wikipedia viewpoint) this was brought to DRV there may be good reason to be at DRV to oversight the complexity and suggest the closer possibly just may have misinterpreted the consensus. I do agree the commendable job of summing up, I don't think those trying to keep the article did themselves too many favours. I was going to say Weak endorse because the closer seemed to have summed up the situation accurately however I seem to observe that this source in the 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research (p 384) was introduced and does not seem countered within the chaos. And all also depends on what is WP:SIGCOV and what isn't and AfD regulars have an advantage here. Another option might have been to have brought the AfD to order with a relist and suggested there seemed to be consensus on one WP:RS and for the keepers present their top three other sources for consideration. In all events WP:SUSTAINED seems to apply and WP:TOOSOON may apply and draftification may be an option and further sources may emerge but those are AfD matters and not DRV matters. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• I am minded of Robert McClenon's comments below and observe the DRV nominator's additional information added since Robert's but bewail the manner in which it is put. I think the core point is the nominator is challenging the weight (or lack thereof) of weight applied to the Friday Times and the livemint was not given due weight. As far as I can tell both the keepers and deleters appear to have disrupted the AfD with content and presentation being changed I have some concerns. A relist may have been a better option; though it would likely have resulted in more contentiousness. I haven't seen the article but in general trashing the effort getting the existing references and content for a possible WP:TOOSOON should mean allow recreatation is a minimum and draftication should probably be permitted. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• I am going to ignore your comment re: "[...] deleters appear to have disrupted the AFD with content and presentation being changed" since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. As far as your point regarding "source in the 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research" is concerned, this is an article by a final year undergrad law student in a no-name law journal, whose editorial board is populated by non-notable law lecturers and junior academics. It was produced after I had posted my analysis of the quality of the sources contained in the article, and even after I saw it, I did not see any reason as to how this could, ever so slightly, sway consensus in the direction of "keep". That being said, I believe that even this article does not cover the subject of the biography in a manner that could be described as "significant". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@Love the duality Nearly Headless Nick/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and the which quite likely drove the person attempting to improve the article up the wall and likely escalated the contentiousness alone of someone trying to improve the article. Let alone the WP:WPA personal (you clearly have no idea what you're talking about). Are you absolutely totally sure you are fit to be sysop? Is your mind rind for it? Great points are made while subtly twisting others. While the closer may be technically correct most experienced closers might have considered a re-list at this point especially given the appearance of the obviously inexperienced COI editor who seemed to get very little WP:NEWBIES experience and I wonder why their edits weren't immediately backed out and pointers given on their talk page. Perhaps especially given the AfD nom. got blocked. This AfD must look awful to outsiders which may be why this DRV got raised as it did and is which is why we are still discussing it. I've read SmokeyJoe's comment including the WP:THREE and if the AfD had been guided in that direction it might have stood. A relist might also have enabled a WP:1E approach. Observing SmokeyJoe's comments I'll cede to allow recreation and take a userfication if no-one else will ... I'm not Wikipedia's greatest edtitor and somewhat tainted and don't do WP:BIO's much and hope my recent interactions with the COI editor will be seen as good faith newvbies advice and not giving me coi with the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 01:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close, WP:DRVPURPOSE #8. — Cryptic 03:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Reason for requesting an overturn is not clearly stated. As noted, the AFD was contentious, but without a clear statement of what was wrong with the close, I have to conclude that the closer used proper judgment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Very strongly leaning endorse. Bent over backwards to read the DRV nomination with AGF. Outsider protests should be taken seriously. “Politically motivated deletion” is definitely reviewable. I didn’t for a second believe it, and on examination the allegation has no credibility. To be completely sure, I request a temp undelete. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I reviewed the temp-undeleted article and the XfD, and Hobit's 17:24, 4 April 2019 post below. The article has a lot of poor sources. These seems to have been collected every source that makes a mention of her. If Hobit has identified the best sources, I too would !vote delete, as these sources are not independent of the subject. You cannot interview someone about something and then claim that interview as an independent source for that someone. I know that some others have rejected this method of GNG-source-rejection, but it works, and every source rejected by this method can be rejected by other arguments as well. I am comfortable with deletion of this article on the basis that no third parties have published commentary on her. (WP:ATHLETE aside). Endorse the deletion and congratulate the closer on an excellent close. "Delete" was a good close, and is unquestionably within admin discretion. I recommend allowing userfication for any *experienced* editor, and recommend to them that they read WP:THREE, and remove all low-quality sources before seeking to test a new version. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I would say those are the best sources, though perhaps not if you want to discard anything that even resembles an interview. But isn't the case that almost every bio we have (literally) comes from interviews of the person and a review of what they've done? She's published on-line and gotten very significant attention for doing so. She sees coverage in a massive number of places and he contributions in those sources are discussed in the context of something larger. We have a NYT article that covers her a bit. I think that the NYT would take the time to cover some blogger in India would indicate that she's notable in the English sense of the word. The other sources are significant sources in India. But what else other than interviews and reviews of her writing do you expect to see for a writer? Hobit ( talk) 15:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia hosts a lot of biographies that are not Wikipedia-notable. Should Wikipedia host original research biographies? Wikipedia Biographies for people who have never has their biography, even two paragraphs, previously published in any reliable source? The deletion decision is entirely reasonable, the AfD has no systematic flaw or a result that is unreasonable. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Wow. IMO this clearly and easily meets the GNG. [1] is just about her in what appears to be a reliable and well-respected source. [2] is about 8 paragraphs just about her in a reliable source. [3] is solely about her in what the discussion seemed to conclude was a reliable source (I don't know much about it). [4] seems to be a reasonable article, though again I can't say much about the source. And there are lots of other sources that mention her, often a bit more than in-passing, but certainly not the focus of the article. So I'd be an easy keep !vote. That said, there were some pretty well-reasoned delete !votes, one of which walked the sources and concluded there were only two good sources. I tend to disagree with some of that reasoning (only half the article was on her so it doesn't count?!). The !vote numbers were strong and the arguments were occasionally good. But things like "doesn't meet the GNG" just don't count for much when the subject clearly does. weak overturn to NC. Delete wasn't unreasonable. But I just think many of the delete !votes need to be discounted. (Were I an admin looking to close this, I'd have !voted to keep rather than closing). In any case, I do wonder of politics, gender, or being a non-American/European caused some kind of a bias, because the outcome seems extraordinary given the sources. I'll admit I have to use a fair bit of IAR to even get to this point given the discussion. But that's what IAR is for. Hobit ( talk) 17:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse — the arguments for and against have been made through the AFD process itself. This is not a place to rehash those arguments and try to overturn the decision. The subject of discussion here is strictly whether the close was made within the ambit of the process or not. In my view, the closing administrator made a considered decision, carefully weighing the arguments on both sides before determining consensus. The article has been deleted without prejudice to re-creation. The issue of the notability of the subject of the biography may be revisited at a later date in case they achieve further coverage for their work, after reasonable time has elapsed. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Note: I participated in the AFD discussion. reply
• Overturn. To me, the most significant part of the AFD debate was an analysis of the sourcing by one of the delete voters. In that analysis, two sources, Femina (India) and India Today, are admitted to be reliable and in-depth. I will pass over how it can be argued that that in itself does not meet GNG. A further source, in Times of India, is admitted to be reliable and in-depth, but is discounted because that publication and Femina have the same owner. These are two articles by different journalists in different publications at different dates. Another article in India Today is discounted for similar reasons. I don't believe that there is any basis in policy for such a rationale. If this were a scientific article, would there have been any comment on using two different articles from New Scientist or two articles in two different IEEE publications? The closer should have commented on this rationale and explained why he accepted it as a valid argument. In my opinion, this analysis by a delete voter is enough for keep voters to claim that GNG has been met without further evidence, and the closer was mistaken to dismiss their arguments as less "substantive". Having said that, a newly written article that doesn't use the trash sources would result in a better page. Spinning Spark 14:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• From WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." In this case, Femina and Times of India may not be counted twice for the purpose of establishing notability as they have the same publisher and owner - The Times Group. Same rationale applies for not counting the other article from India Today for the second time. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• "Same author" does not apply here and interpreting "same organization" as meaning "same journal" is a distortion of the intention of the guideline. Spinning Spark 21:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Are you sure that this is a "distortion" of the guideline? I ask because based on your previous post, you appeared to have been unaware of the guideline cited in response, and seemed absolutely convinced that even India Today would be counted twice for the purpose of establishing notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• I am, and was, aware of the guideline. I am also aware that ad hominem attacks count for nothing in deletion debates. Please stick to the substantive issues. Spinning Spark 09:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Femina is an Indian magazine owned by Worldwide Media, a 50:50 joint venture between BBC Worldwide and The Times Group. - First line on the page for Femina Magazine. It is not solely owned by Times Group, but The Times of India is. To say they are the same source would be like India Today and Readers Digest India are the same source. But I don't know if it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparebug ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) — Sparebug ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• The page must not have been updated, as BBC Media offloaded its stake and quit the joint venture in 2011 — [5], [6], [7]. Femina is now wholly-owned by the Times Group. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that this were not true, the publishing organization (the Times Group) would still be seen as having a substantive stake in both publications, thereby bringing us back to the same position that Femina and Times of India may not be counted twice for the purpose of establishing notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Femina isn't owned by Times Group technically. It is owned by a subsidiary (as opposed to division) of Times Group. A subsidiary is a separate legal entity that may be controlled by another company through ownership of majority (or all) shares. For example, good luck including Times Group on a defamation notice to Femina as those influencing editorial policy. So, the argument you are making isn't about "same organization" - you have unilaterally extended "same organization" to mean "organization and any other organization it controls". As for your allegation of editorial control, both Times Now and Mirror Now are owned by BCCL (Times Group). Both news channels. Good luck finding editorial congruence in content. One serves almost as a mouthpiece of the govt, the other routinely explores dissent. Times of India is a newspaper. Femina is a fortnightly magazine for women. I am trying to imagine what an editorial directive to cover one obscure stay at home mom by India's biggest publishing giant would look like to have an impact two years apart as single articles on different platforms in the umbrella. Creative writing challenge. 'Disclosure: I have CoI with the article - it is about me. Yes, I am aware participating in the discussion could get the article deleted. I don't particularly care. The arguments are fascinating. Vidyutblogger ( talk) 07:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Vidyutblogger: You are welcome to participate here, there is absolutely no rule against it, nor will that in itself cause the article to be deleted. You have declared your COI so everything is good in wikiworld. Spinning Spark 09:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Femina isn't owned by Times Group technically. It is owned by a subsidiary (as opposed to division) of Times Group. A subsidiary is a separate legal entity that may be controlled by another company through ownership of majority (or all) shares. For example, good luck including Times Group on a defamation notice to Femina as those influencing editorial policy. — The distinction between direct or indirect legal ownership does not make a difference in this argument, as those are fundamentally corporate governance decisions made due to the need of minimizing exposure to legal and tax liabilities. The crux of the matter is that the Times Group is still the beneficial owner, and as the publishing organization/publisher, is deemed to exert control (including editorial control) over its publications. Such sources are also regarded as a "single source" for the purpose of establishing notability as provided in Wikipedia's general notability guideline. You are certainly welcome to participate in this discussion, however, and if you don't mind me saying, I must note that for an individual who claims to be generally disinterested in whether your article is kept or deleted, you are sure showing a lot of personal interest in these discussions as is demonstrated through your enthusiastic participation in them. Again, by all means feel free to participate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Well, it is a novelty. Not everyday you get an article in Wikipedia. And then to discover the utter chaos behind the scenes, to discover sources about yourself you had no idea... it is quite intriguing. Never got around to it, but one of the research sources I discovered here is factually incorrect too (not the citation, the research itself). Initially I thought it was interesting to see myself from the lens of a third person. Then, seeing the wrong name, references that don't really matter to me... thought it isn't really an advantage to have the first answer in search results for my name to be things I don't consider important pushing down results that matter. Not to mention promoting a surname I'm trying hard to leave behind - given that I left the man attached to it due to domestic violence. At this point I frankly don't have a dog in this fight. I replied to your "same source" thing because you seem quite active all through contradicting anyone who wanted to keep the article, and I found your argument quite like using a technicality, so couldn't resist commenting to see how far you carry that interpretation. The answer appears to be "as far as it takes" :D That said, I don't know what counts as "a lot of" given that that was my only comment on this deletion review so far. Vidyutblogger ( talk) 15:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Adding: The other reason I'm participating, particularly now that I no longer care about the fate of the page is that I felt bad for that fellow who made so much effort to line up references. No one else made any effort to improve the article, only to criticize his efforts. Or there wouldn't be a three ring circus about only the sources he was able to find, not knowing that I am often covered without a surname or with the surname Gore. So I suppose I feel an urge to question discrediting of his work. About "Such sources are also regarded as a "single source" for the purpose of establishing notability as provided in Wikipedia's general notability guideline." I was not actually able to find anything about legally separate entities being same source if editorial control is present (and how presence of editorial control is established or assumed in such an instance - other than confident assertions, that is) in the notability guidelines you linked to.. Vidyutblogger ( talk) 16:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• The independence of Femina from The Times of India is being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN § Sources from the same organisation. —  Newslinger  talk 01:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I have determined a possible concern in the process of the AfD with regards to the actions following the strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. The good faith strike of the nominator AfD reasoning but with no followup by someone else left the AfD nomination in an arguably invalid state and with no requirement for anyone to take responsibility to perform WP:BEFORE. Per WP:BEFORE C.2 If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. would surely have been the best practice pathway. A WP:SPEEDY at this point by someone else would possibly have been best practice. This happened for this similar nom. which had the AfD struck albeit not a WP:BIO with its associated issues. Here an acrimonious AfD resulted with this possible result(they do now seem to be back) for someone attempting a good faith (albeit seemingly with content issues) article rescue. The closer summary of the AfD if not technically wrong could be read as somewhat smug (its actually amazing how AfD is all about arguments and not about positive article content!) ... perhaps not helped by the signature .... and in totality one might understand how reading the AfD might lead to concerns to possible concerns of politics, gender non-American/European bias which seem to have been raised (albeit in an inappropriate manner) by the DRV nom. and why there have been some good faith scrutiny here to confirm the technical validity of the AfD decision. Pragmatically because even if removing the COI editors last two edits from the article there appear to be at a minimum need to address some cleanup issues in the article and makes immediate return to mainspace probably inadvisable and therefore the key outcome to me remains allow recreation via WP:REFUND to non mainspace. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Marketing operations management ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I'd like to self-refer my G12 deletion of this page. I'm starting to doubt my decision and would like more eyes on it. The deleted article was an almost identical copy of text from this book. It comes from an apparently reputable publisher, but a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY is possible. The article was created (with the suspect text) in 2005, the book was published in 2009 and I can locate no earlier editions. Further, Product management has the same problem wrt to this book, but it is somewhat clearer in that article that the text developed organically rather than bulk copying. Since my deletion cut short the AFD, if restored, it should be returned to AFD to complete that process. Spinning Spark 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Google books won't show me the page you link to. Was it everything in the first revision, or something else? (I also see that text in a 2006 patent.) — Cryptic 03:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Besides some ENGVAR changes, the original is identical except for the last sentence. By this version in 2007, the last sentence is also aligned with the book, which is even stronger evidence that this is a BACKWARDCOPY and I made a mistake. Spinning Spark 12:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak List: From the noms comments it seems most probable the good faith G12 was in erroneous against the compared book isbn:978-93-80228-55-6 due to BACKWARDCOPY therefore list or overturn looks appropriate. However I am minded there may be strong risk of WP:COPYVIO from another source X due to lack of references (at least on the last version of the article where the only reference was all about marketing performance measurement if I recall correctly) so I will accept if DRV chooses to endorse. I make a weak request for a temp undelete and wonder if a COPYVIO expert might help? Also note I am able to see relevant contents of isbn:978-93-80228-55-6 from UK via google chrome (possibly auto logged in by a gmail account). (Note: I was the AfD nom and had discussions with AfD closer post close and commend willingness to review actions) Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The original article had a different reference (later deleted) which is now a deadlink. This archive copy is from immediately prior to article creation. Basically, it is a trailer for a symposium on the subject and the article may have been created to promote the symposium. You may be right that this is still copyvio, but from a different source, and the most likely being one of these symposium papers/speeches. Unfortunately, I can't find any online record of these to verify either way. Spinning Spark 17:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Well found. I'd suggest that source does is likely to be considered inadequate to cover the article content and the community might want to endorse ... my problem is as AfD nom I am not neutral in this discussion.... I can't really call it either way.... now am more interested in how the outcome is chosen rather than what the outcome is. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Not looked closely, but if the deleting admin feels it would be better discussed, it should be listed. Reasonable mistake, good call asking for a discussion if you later have doubts. Hobit ( talk) 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• List - If the deleting admin thinks that a listing is a good idea, a listing is a good idea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• I think, at this point, that we should go ahead and list at AFD and see whether it should be deleted based on its content. Investigating a 15-year-old copyvio is hard; no reason to go to the trouble if we'd just delete it anyway. If it survives, then we can look into this a bit more. — Cryptic 04:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Love You Two ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion discussion closed, following AfD (8 March). We need to restore the page because the show will premiere this month of April, and the trailer was officially released, and we have sources: https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/48906/magkapatid-na-na-in-love-sa-iisang-the-one-tampok-sa-love-you-two/story and https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/95646/love-you-two-love-triangle-teaser/video Mc Eduard Figueroa ( talk) 10:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the original decision was sound, and the provided sources in this review are not independent of the subject. Additionally, "the show will premiere this month" is not a reason for creating the article. Once the show has been aired and independent coverage is available, it may be appropriate to reassess. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted weak delete in the original AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse nothing wrong with the close, and the new information isn't enough to allow recreation. SportingFlyer T· C 23:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation Well, the sources related to the show are reliable, so we need to fix this problem. Please allow us to recreate and restore this page. Mc Eduard Figueroa ( talk) 02:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Who are you referring to when you say, "we" and "us"? Do you have some sort of business connection with the subject? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mc Eduard Figueroa: you haven't answered my question, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith: I don't know how I say about that. Sorry for misunderstanding. Mc Eduard Figueroa ( talk) 06:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mc Eduard Figueroa: To avoid me thinking you have a WP:COI it and are trying to avoid saying it it would be better if you started your reply Yes I have a connection .. or No I do not have a connection but when I said 'we' I meant ... Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - In addition to the above arguments, the reason that we need to restore the page because the show will premiere this month is promotional. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Looks like WP:TOOSOON. Allow REFUND to draftspace or userspace. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation Reliable sources are provided for the show, so we restore this page without any harm. Ria Cruz ( talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Ria Cruz: I would urge you and Mc Eduard Figueroa to please read through Wikipedia's explanatory supplement on source independence. Love You Two is a show that is slated to be broadcast on the GMA Network. Thus, articles hosted on the GMA Network website are not independent and do not contribute to the subject's notability. Waving these sources around is not an argument to recreate this article. I would suggest you look for coverage in The Manila Times, The Philippine Star or another major news source of the Philippines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Rosguill: I already found an independent and reliable source about the show: https://www.philstar.com/pilipino-star-ngayon/showbiz/2019/04/02/1906623/jennylyn-dati-lang-pinapanood-si-gabby (sourced from The Philippine Star). Mc Eduard Figueroa ( talk) 02:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mc Eduard Figueroa: two paragraphs of promotional fluff is not significant coverage. At any rate, DRV is not the place to re-litigate a subject's notability, it's to raise issues about deletion discussions that were inappropriately closed (e.g. if the closer chose a minority view without good justification, or if they appear to have misread a significant argument based on their closing summary). In the case of this article's deletion discussion, editors were almost unanimously in favor of deletion, making it a rather uncontroversial close––I really can't imagine what argument you could possibly make to argue that it wasn't. Now, if you think you've collected enough sources to demonstrate notability, you can just recreate the article with those sources. But uh, based on the sources you've presented here, I don't think that you're going to get very far with that. I would suggest that you wait until reviews of the show have been published, as they would constitute significant independent coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Rosguill: Well, thank you for your understanding. Should I recreate the page now? If not, it's okay. Mc Eduard Figueroa ( talk) 01:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mc Eduard Figueroa: Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think sufficient sources exist yet. I would wait until you can find some actual reviews once the show's season starts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• endorse but allow recreation after show is launched and reviewed, depending on coverage. Sparebug ( talk) 00:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• endorse but allow recreation after show is launched and reviewed, depending on coverage per above but also note COI editors need to follow WP:COI/ WP:PAID Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply