Talk:Chris Duffey

This article was tagged for speedy deletion under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion but a reviewing administrator or uninvolved experienced editor (DESiegel (talk)) declined the request on the basis that: Not unambiguously promotional, although significant rewriting is needed before this could be approved as an article. This article should not be tagged again for speedy deletion under the same criterion and, unless a valid, separate speedy deletion basis exists, further attempts at deleting this article should be made via the proposed deletion process (prod) if uncontroversial, or the article taken to articles for deletion (AfD) for debate on the merits.

Note: this template should be removed once the associated article has survived an AfD debate; or has been significantly changed such that further speedy deletion requests are unlikely.

This page was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2020. The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW keep.

Contested deletion

Vandalism, page does not, on it's own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion --192.150.10.205 (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it's written a fairly neutral point of view. It's being discussed at MfD, which is where it should be. It's, thus, not eligible for CSD for the criterion given. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... Three editors have now opposed deletion, both here and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chris Duffey. I'm not certain if I can/should remove the CSD tag. Instructions suggest yes, but I'll leave for an administrator to do when checking MfD and this talkpage. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus for the future, any experienced editor other than the page creator may remove speedy deletion tags if the editor has a good-faith belief that the page does not qualify. (Novices are advised not to do so, because they may well make good-faith errors in the process.) Admins are supposed to look at the talk page for possible contested deletion reasons before deleting, but sometimes do not do so. However, unlike proposed deletion a third editor could restore the tag. If a speedy request is declined by an uninvolved admin, it should normally not be replaced, but the page may be taken to an XfD discussion. (In this case it is there already, of course.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, Thanks for clarifying, and thanks for checking the talkpage for the contested deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 17:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement suggestions

After the discussion is closed, I actually double checked sources in the draft - for at least half of them are fairly good and the person also published a book (appears on WorldCat) and has a few notable reviews about it. The page has to be completely rewritten and 1/3 of the sources has to be thrown away as spam/promotion. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:F866:89C6:DA79:BD28 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]