Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 23: Difference between revisions
→23 November 2013: article essential for arab ancestry |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
====[[:Abraham modal haplotype]]==== |
====[[:Abraham modal haplotype]]==== |
||
:{{DRV links|Abraham modal haplotype|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham modal haplotype|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Abraham modal haplotype|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham modal haplotype|article=}} |
||
I have more data to add : issn and oclc numbers to prove publishity of studies. Klyosov 2009 study was cited by rozhanski article making klyosov study not primary, and to add more studies reference the studies in article.the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while |
I have more data to add : issn and oclc numbers to prove publishity of studies. Klyosov 2009 study was cited by rozhanski article making klyosov study not primary, and to add more studies reference the studies in article.the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while other editors like user-agricolae were stonewalling/word play and making arguments outside the notability guideline of which the page nominated for deletion for deletion in the first place.I contacted administrator coffee but no response. The article is important for Arabs and i would appreciate serious adminstration review of discussion[[User:Viibird|Viibird]] ([[User talk:Viibird|talk]]) 02:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
====[[:Galilee modal haplotype]]==== |
====[[:Galilee modal haplotype]]==== |
||
Revision as of 02:27, 23 November 2013
I have more data to add : issn and oclc numbers to prove publishity of studies. Klyosov 2009 study was cited by rozhanski article making klyosov study not primary, and to add more studies reference the studies in article.the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while other editors like user-agricolae were stonewalling/word play and making arguments outside the notability guideline of which the page nominated for deletion for deletion in the first place.I contacted administrator coffee but no response. The article is important for Arabs and i would appreciate serious adminstration review of discussionViibird (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while editor agricolae was stonewalling and making arguments outside the notability guideline of which he nominated the page for deletion in the first place Viibird (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)