- Ashida Kim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Seemed to be the victim of 7 AFD's in a short period. The individual is a notable author and possible practitioner of Ninjitsu. Currently redirected towards modern schools of ninjitsu. I believe that it deserves its own article based on being a prolific and respected author of ninjitsu. I am interested in putting up another article and do not want it to be speedily deleted. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That does appear to be a big old mess. But that said, the outcome was deletion due to a lack of reasonable sources about the topic. Do you have sources that would help with meeting WP:N? If not, this isn't going anywhere. Hobit (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the moment endorse. Having done some looking, the material found in the redirect target is plenty. Baring some really solid new sources, I think we are fine as-is. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- commenthow long do AFD's last for? What is the time period after which DRV isn't valid any longer for? CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, this is a very old AFD. There was nothing wrong with the close. Nakon 04:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Based on your most recent edit, CrazyAces, I don't think any administrator would speedy delete the page as long as it is substantially different from the article that was deleted during the AFD. Nakon 05:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment given the discussion here to be clear that having an Ashida Kim article won't make his writings automatically usable as a reliable source. Beyond that not sure I'd want to churn up this old mess, guess you are braver than me. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. We are never going to interfere with a deletion discussion from 5½ years ago. If the request is for permission/endorsement for a new version, I would want to see a draft of that new version to proceed. But in practice, I very much doubt that a properly-sourced new version would get speedily deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, the close was accurate and fair, but after all this time I would suggest that nobody is going to get too huffy if a properly sourced article is created there. If you're not sure, I suggest creating a draft and running it through WP:AFC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment from closer This was a fairly routine AFD close that I had no particular memory of. I don't think an old AFD, which was based on the situation back then, really needs revisiting in any case. In general, speedy deletions for G4 will not occur if a new version is substantially different from the deleted version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember this from 2009. It's ancient history now, but there's a lot of history there and I recall that Mr Kim has some "fans". I suggest that any fresh article in this space should be semi-protected from the get-go.—S Marshall T/C 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
