Endorse. It can not be said, when viewing the above links, that significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. Had such a list been posted in the AfD it wouldn't have affected anything. The Boston.com article is an interview. —Alalch E. 10:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was correct, as no editor argued to keep the article. As the title has not been salted, an article could be created going through the Articles for Creation process. --Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is done then I would suggest that the creator doesn't offer Youtube, Soundcloud and IMDB as sources. Maybe there are independent reliable sources among the others offered here, but if so they are drowned out by the obviously unreliable or non-independent ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close seemed reasonable and reflected consensus Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation but Phil Bridger's advice is sound and should be followed. And by "should be followed" I don't mean "it would be nice to" I mean, "Needs to, but we're being polite about it." Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. To restate what Phil Bridger and Jclemens have said, the submission of a draft using unreliable sources will waste the time of the submitter and the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable close that reflected unanimous consensus. I agree with the above that the sources presented to justify WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 are mostly unconvincing (non-reliable ones, interview and short announcements, etc...). VickKiang(talk) 08:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
