Please consider this removal. This article has already been deleted before and I disputed the deletion. It was indicated that additional sources should be added to the article and work on the text in the draft should be done. I created an article in the draft, improved it, added additional sources, and the reviewer moved the article to the main space. The same participant put it up for deletion again. Only one participant spoke and did not take into account my arguments and my adherence to consensus.
Endorse as a proper close, again. Evidently the additional sources and additional text were not sufficient to establish notability.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Allow Submission of Draft - The title was not salted, although one participant in the AFD recommended that it be salted, so a reviewer can accept the draft if the body of the article as resubmitted
speaks for itself. It is normally not enough just to add sources.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Properly deleted at two AfDs. The article was reference bombed and lacked independent secondary sources. DO NOT encourage submission of draft, but respect the AfD decisions, until at least six months after the second AfD. Do not encourage “additional sources”, further reference bombings makes it worse, instead require less and better sources. Do not entertain any protest that does not follow the advice at
WP:THREE, and also demand that the native language Wikipedia article (Russian) exists and is linked. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Every project has their own guidelines. English's are among the most stringent, notability wise. StarMississippi 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Indeed. En.Wikipedia seems very strong on insisting on quality independent reputable reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in depth. The Russian article lacks this. I wouldn’t call the Russian article “reference bombed”, but is thoroughly referencing every little fact including. It is very primary-source biased, and incompatible with
WP:PSTS. I think en.Wikipedia is so insistent because it is sensitive about being regularly abused by companies, companies CEOs, and company products being advertised in en.Wikipedia.
It’s good that there is a Russian article linked. Next required are the
WP:THREE best sources for demonstrating notability. Scanning the translated Russian article, I don’t see them.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Endorse incubate in draft does not mean immediately resubmit when the underlying issues haven't been addressed. Is there a reason you're so focused on this article? Courtesy @
Liz: as closer of last AfD. StarMississippi 18:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Please consider this removal. This article has already been deleted before and I disputed the deletion. It was indicated that additional sources should be added to the article and work on the text in the draft should be done. I created an article in the draft, improved it, added additional sources, and the reviewer moved the article to the main space. The same participant put it up for deletion again. Only one participant spoke and did not take into account my arguments and my adherence to consensus.
Endorse as a proper close, again. Evidently the additional sources and additional text were not sufficient to establish notability.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Allow Submission of Draft - The title was not salted, although one participant in the AFD recommended that it be salted, so a reviewer can accept the draft if the body of the article as resubmitted
speaks for itself. It is normally not enough just to add sources.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Properly deleted at two AfDs. The article was reference bombed and lacked independent secondary sources. DO NOT encourage submission of draft, but respect the AfD decisions, until at least six months after the second AfD. Do not encourage “additional sources”, further reference bombings makes it worse, instead require less and better sources. Do not entertain any protest that does not follow the advice at
WP:THREE, and also demand that the native language Wikipedia article (Russian) exists and is linked. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Every project has their own guidelines. English's are among the most stringent, notability wise. StarMississippi 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Indeed. En.Wikipedia seems very strong on insisting on quality independent reputable reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in depth. The Russian article lacks this. I wouldn’t call the Russian article “reference bombed”, but is thoroughly referencing every little fact including. It is very primary-source biased, and incompatible with
WP:PSTS. I think en.Wikipedia is so insistent because it is sensitive about being regularly abused by companies, companies CEOs, and company products being advertised in en.Wikipedia.
It’s good that there is a Russian article linked. Next required are the
WP:THREE best sources for demonstrating notability. Scanning the translated Russian article, I don’t see them.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Endorse incubate in draft does not mean immediately resubmit when the underlying issues haven't been addressed. Is there a reason you're so focused on this article? Courtesy @
Liz: as closer of last AfD. StarMississippi 18:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.