Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 23: Difference between revisions
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
*'''Uphold decision''' There was a clear consensus to delete. And despite huge walls of text and attempts at wikilawyering by {{u|Viibird}}, no cohesive argument to keep was presented. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 09:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Uphold decision''' There was a clear consensus to delete. And despite huge walls of text and attempts at wikilawyering by {{u|Viibird}}, no cohesive argument to keep was presented. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 09:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' - nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to [[WP:STICK|drop his stick]] and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' - nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to [[WP:STICK|drop his stick]] and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
*''' |
*'''Overturn''' - Let's give it another chasnce, for I need to add issn and oclc numbers to main source (klyosov 2011), my use of doi (more authorative for scientists, showed it in prepublication nature proceedigs, but issn/oclc show it in a published journal available in 100s of libraries as a paper document) also the same to other all articles showing they are available in tens of university libraries (in paper not just edocumet) and still being sold by mail order, plus to add more studies/sources of same topic that are referencing the main sources. I was not aware of 7 days limit of discussion and days wasted in wild goose chase because the other partyies did not specifiy which part of notability they allude to. article is essential for genetic diseases studies for many diseases are race specific and paternal line, even y-chromosome linked[[User:Viibird|Viibird]] ([[User talk:Viibird|talk]]) 17:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
====[[:Galilee modal haplotype]]==== |
====[[:Galilee modal haplotype]]==== |
Revision as of 20:23, 23 November 2013
Page has been deleted with reason A7 despite the subject being a well-known Irish academic, with dozens of citations on the deleted page. Timing of deletion is suspect as subject has just recently been featured in article on Russia Today on controversial subject - Link here: http://rt.com/news/wikilicious-whistleblower-calendar-glamor-091/
Please advise as to possible steps to reverse deletion
Abraedt (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy close on procedural grounds, DRV is not for reviewing CSD. The admin who deleted the article (or any other admin for that matter) can "userfy" the article to your sandbox so that you can work undisturbed on it until it is ready to be moved into mainspace again. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Of course DRV can look at if a CSD was applied correctly. Point 2 in fact of what DRV can be used for. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The admin who deleted it hasn't given any grounds beyond A7, nor has the admin sandboxed the article for me, but simply deleted it. Request for the article to be reinstated. If an admin wants it deleted, grounds need to be given.
Abraedt (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The page was already reviewed for Deletion in 2009 and content upheld... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyscooby (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Restore and send to afd First of all, it is not an A7 by any stretch of the imagination, as there are very clear claims to significance. Second, it was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roslyn Fuller. FWIW, I am not at all sure that there is clear notability , but it has to be discussed. This speedy was totally out of process.
- And Del Rev can certainly be used for undeleting a speedy. It's not usually necessary, but if the deleting admin declines to restore or userify it, it can be appropriate to come here. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
- Uphold decision There was a clear consensus to delete. And despite huge walls of text and attempts at wikilawyering by Viibird, no cohesive argument to keep was presented. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse - nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to drop his stick and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. Stalwart111 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Overturn - Let's give it another chasnce, for I need to add issn and oclc numbers to main source (klyosov 2011), my use of doi (more authorative for scientists, showed it in prepublication nature proceedigs, but issn/oclc show it in a published journal available in 100s of libraries as a paper document) also the same to other all articles showing they are available in tens of university libraries (in paper not just edocumet) and still being sold by mail order, plus to add more studies/sources of same topic that are referencing the main sources. I was not aware of 7 days limit of discussion and days wasted in wild goose chase because the other partyies did not specifiy which part of notability they allude to. article is essential for genetic diseases studies for many diseases are race specific and paternal line, even y-chromosome linkedViibird (talk) 17:15, 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)
- Uphold decision Basically the same as the one above. Viibird is encouraged to get more acquainted with our notability standards and to stop creating pages on non-notable subjects and creating unnecessary DRVs. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse - as above, nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to drop his stick and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. Stalwart111 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relist Even though I don't have BA degree in English, I have MD degree among others, and I managed to study extensively the great wiki-Notabiblity guidelines, to see the article clearly fit the guidelines. The sources in the article are clearly not Primary but secondary and tertiary. The article is important scientifically for Arab ancestry and scientists tangling the issues of genetic diseases of Arabs.Viibird (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)