Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 10
page was deleted under the category G11: unambiguous advertising, since page is similar to karnataka state version of Wonders of the World i would like to contest speedy deletion, since after marking page for deletion, page author and myself replied on talkpage that this page is not spam which i think was not noticed by deleting admin, also discussed it with User talk:Randykitty#Regarding_deletion_of_a_page which admin didn't respond after initially replying it was spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~aanzx (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. The article was absolutely blatant promotion, whether the speculation that the deleting administrator didn't check the talk page is correct or not. It is also of interest that in their talk page post denying that the article was promotional, ~aanzx wrote "Furthermore, the tourism initiative by the government of Karnataka is a significant development that deserves attention, and the page provides a platform to showcase the efforts of the government to promote tourism in the state". I find it mindboggling that anyone can think that is a reason why the page was not promotional, and I wonder what on earth ~aanzx thinks would be a reason why something is promotional. JBW (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- My main point if it's really spam, maybe which i didn't grasp, or how it was spam i didn't understood, if someone contest a speedy deletion on talk page i presume it's suitable to respond to to that before deleting article. I am just asking if there was oversight. ~aanzx ✉ © 11:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment (from deleting admin): I always read a talk page (if present) before deleting an article (whether CSD, PROD, or AfD). In the present case, the talk page comments just confirmed that this was a clear G11. I responded to a query on my talk page, but didn't continue what I thought was a fruitless discussion, being rather occupied with other things at that time. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Endorse, having not seen the deleted article, and not wanting to see it, but agreeing that the talk page content establishes that the content was promotional. This is a weak endorse because G11 requires that the article be exclusively promotional, and I am relying on trusting the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse poorly sourced, promotional article. Star Mississippi 02:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse, deleted for good reason, promoting the campaign. Should write about it on own website. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would like withdraw this nomination, as i needed the second opinion from others which by consesus endorse deletion, this request can be closed. ~aanzx ✉ © 08:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)