From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

23 August 2013

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mokenge P. Malafa ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Incorrectly closed. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 09:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • This was an inappropriate non-admin closure and I do notice serious issues in the article, so I revered accordingly. But considering your rationale for nominating the article at AFD is weak and vague, can you clarify this further in the AFD page? Thanks Secret account 03:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
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.
David Mahmoudieh ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Reference material online suggests this is a significant player in their field Jimdussier ( talk) 21:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion vague, no new evidence with which to overturn AFD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - The editor requesting the review also posted on my talk page listing some sources, none of which pass muster as a reliable source. -- Whpq ( talk) 22:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion per Whpq. However, if the subject becomes more clearly notable in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

23 August 2013

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mokenge P. Malafa ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Incorrectly closed. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 09:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • This was an inappropriate non-admin closure and I do notice serious issues in the article, so I revered accordingly. But considering your rationale for nominating the article at AFD is weak and vague, can you clarify this further in the AFD page? Thanks Secret account 03:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
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.
David Mahmoudieh ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Reference material online suggests this is a significant player in their field Jimdussier ( talk) 21:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion vague, no new evidence with which to overturn AFD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - The editor requesting the review also posted on my talk page listing some sources, none of which pass muster as a reliable source. -- Whpq ( talk) 22:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion per Whpq. However, if the subject becomes more clearly notable in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook