This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter
We had an AFD that closed with a consensus to redirect. A single user, admin bit or no admin bit, cannot say they disagree with that closure and unilaterally overrule it. We have WP:DRV for that. Ive restored this as a redirect and ask User:Czar that if they feel this article should have been kept that they utilize our established process for overturning an AFD. nableezy - 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly within policy to restart an article a year later with extra sources published since the last AfD. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Take it back to AfD if you insist, but DRV is not the right venue per its criteria especially as nothing has been "overturned". czar02:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that source existed prior to the AFD. The Verge piece was published on 3/13/19 and the AFD was on 6/9/19, and the subjects "notability" regarding the harassment and drug charges was already in the article that was found by consensus not to meet out notability standards. I'll take this to AN if you insist, but yes, this edit reversed this close, and your edit summary said as much. nableezy - 04:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, The Verge piece was cited in the prior article. Every single source currently in the article was in the article that was redirected by by consensus. This is a classic BLP1E failure, and it should be redirected to the event that this person is notable from. nableezy - 04:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, given that the source you claimed is an "extra sources published since the last AfD" was in fact cited in the article at the time of the AFD and that it predates the AFD (obviously) and not postdates it as you claimed, I request again you return this to a redirect or take it to WP:DRV. nableezy - 18:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources from 2020, the year after the last AfD, concerning Orta's treatment in prison independent from the Garner case. It is not a "classic BLP1E failure". If you disagree that the multiple added sources are sufficient, AfD is the proper venue, not DRV. czar21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
