Hodgdon's secret garden (talk | contribs) list |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Benjamin E. Park]]==== |
|||
:{{DRV links|Benjamin E. Park|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin E. Park|article=}} |
|||
(I've spoken to the closing admin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=prev&oldid=771311709 here]; thanks.) - Wikipedia is alleged to have no clear policy for notability. This is not the case, the guidelines are clear its simply that !voters are clueless with regard to them a fair percentage of the time. In the foregoing discussion the closing administrator only thought one person !voted for keep, which is untrue. Furthermore, the closing admin him-/herself is upposed to research the matter at hand as well as a !votes vis a vis the guidelines in order to come to his/her determination. (One voter in this blp's case cited [[wp:NOTYET]], yet this guideline solely refers top actors who haven't been written about in reliable secondary sources, for example, and other !votes gave as justification for their conclusion statements that are patently untrue, as the discussion makes clear.) [[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden|talk]]) 01:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====Files tagged with keep local (closed)==== |
====Files tagged with keep local (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
Revision as of 01:01, 21 March 2017
21 March 2017
Benjamin E. Park
- Benjamin E. Park (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
(I've spoken to the closing admin here; thanks.) - Wikipedia is alleged to have no clear policy for notability. This is not the case, the guidelines are clear its simply that !voters are clueless with regard to them a fair percentage of the time. In the foregoing discussion the closing administrator only thought one person !voted for keep, which is untrue. Furthermore, the closing admin him-/herself is upposed to research the matter at hand as well as a !votes vis a vis the guidelines in order to come to his/her determination. (One voter in this blp's case cited wp:NOTYET, yet this guideline solely refers top actors who haven't been written about in reliable secondary sources, for example, and other !votes gave as justification for their conclusion statements that are patently untrue, as the discussion makes clear.) Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Files tagged with keep local (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn - If an editor has tagged a file with {{keep local}} or {{keep local high-risk}}, the deletion of such a file is not uncontroversial maintenance (i.e. outside the scope of G6), therefore these deletions were out of process. I've discussed these deletions with the deleting administrator. They offered to restore them if someone "was willing to commit, indefinitely, to maintaining such local copies", but disagreed that the deletions were inappropriate. I suggested that the proper place to seek the deletion of such files is files for deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |