Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 23
23 November 2013
Abraham modal haplotype
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)
Galilee modal haplotype
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)