|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This Nathaniel Raymond page was put up for deletion recently. The discussion was closed after a day, possibly two days, as a "Snow Keep." I'm sure that administrators will generally agree that an uninformed vote (such as one made when it's clear the editor in question has not read the sources in question), or one from an editor who demonstrates that he/she does not understand notability, or one from an editor who states he/she is voting as such out of spite and not due to the actual topic, should be invalid. Bearing that in mind, the votes look like this:
Blander Remove; says references weak
So they add up: Interpreting these votes as a "Snow Keep" is (I apologize in advance for this mixed metaphor...) a slippery slope. This deletion discussion should still be open--and, unless there is a drastic change, a consensus should not be taken until the customary seven days have passed. 0Juan234 ( talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Protected redirect linking to an election that is long over. The individual continues to get coverage for example [11], [12] and recently received an endorsement from an Allen West affiliated group. He is a candidate in the upcoming election making the redirect to a previous election problematic. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 11:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are additional sources covering Allen West endorsement, an upcoming talk he is giving, a recently published editorial, Italian media coverage, and West endorses Bongino's bid additional coverage of a recent endorsement for his current campaign. He has also appeared on news programs subsequent to the previous AfD. He is running against U.S. Rep. John Delaney D-Md. in the next election. And frankly I think it's very weird for a major party nominee for U.S. Senate to have their article deleted anyway. There are articles on third party candidates. But since he is running again and getting newer coverage at the very least an update and a new AfD consensus (if one is sought) should be determined. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 14:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Actually, I see now that the pervious AfD occured before he became the Republican nominee for US Senate in the 2012 election. So the article should have been restored once the primary election concluded and additional coverage took place during that general election. At any rate, for all of the reasons I've stated above as well as the substantial coverage in reliable sources, please allow the redirect to be unprotected so the article can be restored and worked on. Thank you. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This file has been deleted as not in accordance with WP:CSD#F7. However, I think that I had tagged it for deletion wrongly, because WP:NFCC#1 states "Where possible, non-free content is replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." [emphasis by me]. There is no freer alternative of acceptable quality currently available. I've discussed the issue at the deleting administrator's talk page. [13] He has stated that it has been deleted routinely in accordance with the {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}}, because there was no significant objection. Eleassar my talk 09:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This Nathaniel Raymond page was put up for deletion recently. The discussion was closed after a day, possibly two days, as a "Snow Keep." I'm sure that administrators will generally agree that an uninformed vote (such as one made when it's clear the editor in question has not read the sources in question), or one from an editor who demonstrates that he/she does not understand notability, or one from an editor who states he/she is voting as such out of spite and not due to the actual topic, should be invalid. Bearing that in mind, the votes look like this:
Blander Remove; says references weak
So they add up: Interpreting these votes as a "Snow Keep" is (I apologize in advance for this mixed metaphor...) a slippery slope. This deletion discussion should still be open--and, unless there is a drastic change, a consensus should not be taken until the customary seven days have passed. 0Juan234 ( talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Protected redirect linking to an election that is long over. The individual continues to get coverage for example [11], [12] and recently received an endorsement from an Allen West affiliated group. He is a candidate in the upcoming election making the redirect to a previous election problematic. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 11:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are additional sources covering Allen West endorsement, an upcoming talk he is giving, a recently published editorial, Italian media coverage, and West endorses Bongino's bid additional coverage of a recent endorsement for his current campaign. He has also appeared on news programs subsequent to the previous AfD. He is running against U.S. Rep. John Delaney D-Md. in the next election. And frankly I think it's very weird for a major party nominee for U.S. Senate to have their article deleted anyway. There are articles on third party candidates. But since he is running again and getting newer coverage at the very least an update and a new AfD consensus (if one is sought) should be determined. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 14:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Actually, I see now that the pervious AfD occured before he became the Republican nominee for US Senate in the 2012 election. So the article should have been restored once the primary election concluded and additional coverage took place during that general election. At any rate, for all of the reasons I've stated above as well as the substantial coverage in reliable sources, please allow the redirect to be unprotected so the article can be restored and worked on. Thank you. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This file has been deleted as not in accordance with WP:CSD#F7. However, I think that I had tagged it for deletion wrongly, because WP:NFCC#1 states "Where possible, non-free content is replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." [emphasis by me]. There is no freer alternative of acceptable quality currently available. I've discussed the issue at the deleting administrator's talk page. [13] He has stated that it has been deleted routinely in accordance with the {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}}, because there was no significant objection. Eleassar my talk 09:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |