there was no reason given as to why the page was deleted or a chance to remedy the problem. If the page did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, the appropriate changes to the page would have been made
Chbeaini (
talk) 00:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC) -->reply
Endorse the closing admin accurately assessed the policy-based consensus when this AfD was closed back in January.
Lepricavark (
talk) 04:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Close as not meeting
WP:DRVPURPOSE; AfD was unanimous. Obvious
WP:COI from obvious socks. Article read like a resume; I pretty much stopped reading when the lede told me he was a notary. --
RoySmith(talk) 13:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorseno reason given as to why the page was deleted - the AfD nominator gave a reason, which looks perfectly fine to me. or a chance to remedy the problem - the AfD was open for a week and nobody posted any sources which might have addressed the problem, you're also not posting any here. If the page did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, the appropriate changes to the page would have been made - the major problem is that the subject
doesn't have the right kind of source coverage, if you can address this by finding better sources you are welcome to do so. Hut 8.5 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I will change the content and set out and add better reliable sources. how do i make these changes to the page when it has been deleted?
User:chbeaini(talk) 22:9, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It might be possible to restore the page to a draft version for you to work on improving it, you can ask the deleting admin for that. It would help if you posted the sources you're thinking of adding here. Hut 8.5 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Reasons, sufficient reasons, were given. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse Looks like a garden variety AfD to me without any error on the closer's part.
SportingFlyertalk 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. If you really think you can do better at properly demonstrating and
reliably sourcing his notability under a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, you're free to try again in draftspace or your own user sandbox — but nothing was improper about the discussion: valid reasons were given and the debate was open for long enough that you did have ample opportunity to remedy the problem.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
there was no reason given as to why the page was deleted or a chance to remedy the problem. If the page did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, the appropriate changes to the page would have been made
Chbeaini (
talk) 00:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC) -->reply
Endorse the closing admin accurately assessed the policy-based consensus when this AfD was closed back in January.
Lepricavark (
talk) 04:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Close as not meeting
WP:DRVPURPOSE; AfD was unanimous. Obvious
WP:COI from obvious socks. Article read like a resume; I pretty much stopped reading when the lede told me he was a notary. --
RoySmith(talk) 13:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorseno reason given as to why the page was deleted - the AfD nominator gave a reason, which looks perfectly fine to me. or a chance to remedy the problem - the AfD was open for a week and nobody posted any sources which might have addressed the problem, you're also not posting any here. If the page did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, the appropriate changes to the page would have been made - the major problem is that the subject
doesn't have the right kind of source coverage, if you can address this by finding better sources you are welcome to do so. Hut 8.5 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I will change the content and set out and add better reliable sources. how do i make these changes to the page when it has been deleted?
User:chbeaini(talk) 22:9, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It might be possible to restore the page to a draft version for you to work on improving it, you can ask the deleting admin for that. It would help if you posted the sources you're thinking of adding here. Hut 8.5 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Reasons, sufficient reasons, were given. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse Looks like a garden variety AfD to me without any error on the closer's part.
SportingFlyertalk 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse. If you really think you can do better at properly demonstrating and
reliably sourcing his notability under a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, you're free to try again in draftspace or your own user sandbox — but nothing was improper about the discussion: valid reasons were given and the debate was open for long enough that you did have ample opportunity to remedy the problem.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.