I find this article to be one of considerable notability and very well written. I therefore seek a reassessment of the previous delisting.
THE KC (
talk)
23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC).reply
Comment: I can find no evidence that this article was ever a Good Article, although it did fail a review back in January 2006 (according to the Article History). Obviously, if it was never listed, it can't have been delisted. It's possible that you meant to request a fresh assessment, but because it has been such a long time since its GA review, this page is not really the appropriate place to challenge that outcome. Instead,
Martin Luther King, Jr. should be listed at
WP:GAN so it can be reviewed under a completely new nomination. If I've misunderstood, or you need help with this, please let us know!
EyeSerenetalk20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I find this article to be one of considerable notability and very well written. I therefore seek a reassessment of the previous delisting.
THE KC (
talk)
23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC).reply
Comment: I can find no evidence that this article was ever a Good Article, although it did fail a review back in January 2006 (according to the Article History). Obviously, if it was never listed, it can't have been delisted. It's possible that you meant to request a fresh assessment, but because it has been such a long time since its GA review, this page is not really the appropriate place to challenge that outcome. Instead,
Martin Luther King, Jr. should be listed at
WP:GAN so it can be reviewed under a completely new nomination. If I've misunderstood, or you need help with this, please let us know!
EyeSerenetalk20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply