21 February 2017
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The page was deleted today with the claim that the page had already a discussion page for deletion and they reached that the page should be deleted. I'm not the author that made the first copy of the article. I built another one and tried to be accurate when it comes to creation, phrasing and citing sources. I was NOT NOTIFIED that the page is proposed for deletion and the page was deleted immediately. I have put a lot of hard work in order to come up with that result. I had a discussion with the admin who deleted it. Till he replies, I tried to create another one with an older version that I had and added {{ underconstruction}} to try to resolve the problem with the admin who deleted it, but it was again deleted immediately and then he responded to me. His claim was that the page is identical to the one that was deleted and that is not true. And that's his claim why he deleted it immediately without notifying me. After creation of the article before that all happened, there is one admin who reviewed my article and I had a notification that says, "The page Kerry Lee Crawford has been reviewed". It has gone after deletion of the article. He was not convinced that happened. When asking him what is wrong with the article, he kept telling that my article is identical to the one that was deleted by another author and referred me to the deletion discussion of it. I tried to defend my claim that he was notable by mentioning that he was featured on CKFG-FM (already has a wikipedia page), CityNews (already has a wikipedia page) ,but received no response regarding this point. Now my work is gone without even notifying and I think that is pure vandalism. If he is doing his work, which I appreciate, give me my right to even discuss issues with my work. If I have a misconception regarding Wikipedia rules, I'd be more than happy to understand. Thanks you. Khaled Abolaynain ( talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Paul Joseph Watson had appeared as the primary focus in recent reliable sources, especially in a recent BBC article called Alt-right editor challenges journalists to visit Sweden as well as a Business Insider article entitled Inaccurate InfoWars report leads 100,000 to sign petition for Comedy Central to fire comedian it doesn’t employ. When the article was last proposed on 12 July 2016, there weren't many articles that focused primarilly on Watson. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
<Article Exadel was deleted without any explanations, despite the fact that it was updated with new links and I expected feedback on my corrections. Admin Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus wrote: "you can request that it is instead moved to your sandbox for future refining. If the conclusion is that the company is not notable now, it could become notable later, so your work wouldn't have to be wasted." So according to his advice, I wrote request to move this article to Sandbox. Instead , it got deleted without even further discussions. Regardless, I have added new good links and nobody answered wheather they are ok or not! Could you please help to move the article to Sandbox or if possible, just send me the source code of it, because I spent a lot of efforts to create it and now I don't even have any copy of it. Natallia Sasava ( talk) 09:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |