Ryuya Fukushima (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't see any proper discussion of the sources I provide in the AFD. Other than the TBS article, All of them have significant coverage of the guy. Due to my lack of knowledge in Japanese terms for football, or my football knowledge as a whole. I couldn't fully squeeze the sources I provided. I already WP:HEY'd it by adding some of the sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I see a lengthy discussion of the sources, by three editors in addition to the appellant, two of whom are among our most experienced. In fact, a full 348 out of the 544 words in this AfD (64%) are just the exchange about the sources presented by the appellant, and that excludes the comment where he presented those sources (with a "Weak Keep"!), or his repeated, lengthy sig (which by itself consumes over 5% of the word count...). All included, over three quarters of this AfD was dedicated to discussing the sources the appellant presented. And then, one of those involved in that exchange, as well as an experienced admin, !voted to delete. Not a single Keep following the source debate. I don't see any basis for the accusation that there was no "proper discussion of the sources", and considering the amount of time and effort spent in the AfD engaging with the appellant in good faith, I find the claim borderline offensive. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse largely per OwenX. There was considerable discussion, and rejection, of the sources presented in the AFD such that delete was the only viable close. Even relisting doesn't make sense as it is one keep !vote that was adequately refuted against several P&G-based delete !votes. Frank Anchor 19:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Request draftification and follow the advice at WP:THREE.

Is there a native-language Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, as well as on the German wiki. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the proper conclusion by the closer. There was discussion of the sources identified by the appellant, but that doesn't matter, because DRV is not AFD Round 2. The appellant's comment in the AFD that the ja.wiki article has a lot of press releases is irrelevant anyway, because, as was pointed out in the AFD, press releases are considered primary sources in en.wiki. The title has not been salted, and the appellant should be allowed to request refund of the article to draft space to find better sources. (However, it might be just as effective to machine-translate the ja.wiki or de.wiki version to get an inadequate starting point. Either the deleted article or a machine translation will need work. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]