Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Emmanuel Eni: overturn - not a G11 |
→Emmanuel Eni: ot |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*This was deleted as a [[WP:CSD#G11|G11 (promotional)]]. I don't think it qualified for a G11 speedy, and so I would '''overturn''' the speedy deletion. But it was a BLP containing uncited direct and indirect quotes, and significant uncited statements, and cites to unreliable sources such as aNSWERS.COM. If restored, it should either be draftified to allow proper sourcing, or else cut down to a stub, and statements can be added back with proper sources. Of course an AfD could be started during that process, if any editor chooses to do so and goes through [[WP:BEFORE]]. Personally, I would think moving to draft was the wiser and better course. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |
*This was deleted as a [[WP:CSD#G11|G11 (promotional)]]. I don't think it qualified for a G11 speedy, and so I would '''overturn''' the speedy deletion. But it was a BLP containing uncited direct and indirect quotes, and significant uncited statements, and cites to unreliable sources such as aNSWERS.COM. If restored, it should either be draftified to allow proper sourcing, or else cut down to a stub, and statements can be added back with proper sources. Of course an AfD could be started during that process, if any editor chooses to do so and goes through [[WP:BEFORE]]. Personally, I would think moving to draft was the wiser and better course. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
* '''Overturn''' I don't see that a G11 is appropriate for an article from 2018 with several contributors - not to mention versions in 3 Wikipedia languages. No prejudice against an AFD. I'm curious at [[User:Seraphimblade]]'s thought s though. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |
* '''Overturn''' I don't see that a G11 is appropriate for an article from 2018 with several contributors - not to mention versions in 3 Wikipedia languages. No prejudice against an AFD. I'm curious at [[User:Seraphimblade]]'s thought s though. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
* '''Overturn speedy''' - [[Special:Permalink/970261259]] doesn't have a G11-level of promotion (nothing that can't be fixed by editing), and good sources exist [https://guardian.ng/art/from-germany-enis-new-light-painting-illuminates-the-future/] [https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/04/12/emmanuel-eni-his-art-and-a-time-of-lockdown/] [https://thenationonlineng.net/how-germany-based-nigerian-artist-turned-lockdown-to-creative-forge/]. <sup>[[User:Levivich|Le]]</sup>[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|<small>v</small>!<small>v</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:Levivich|ich]]</sup> 05:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:29, 4 August 2020
This is a longer existing article that was speed-deleted in a sleepless? night. I agree that the article is not perfect, but my hope was and would be that someone else is improving language. PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Willkommen bei en.wiki! Hier kannst du im "draft-space" arbeiten, wenn dein Englisch nicht Perfekt sei.
- Draftify to allow this user to improve and resubmit at AfC in due course.—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- List at AfD. A long term user would like to discuss it. Long term users who have never used draftspace should not be forced to use draftspace. The cashed article had references. The topic suffers systematic bias against for to counts: (1) Nigerian; (2) creative arts. I think it is really a sourcing and notability question well suited for an AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have done a temp undekete to allow non-0admins to see the article as it was. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- This was deleted as a G11 (promotional). I don't think it qualified for a G11 speedy, and so I would overturn the speedy deletion. But it was a BLP containing uncited direct and indirect quotes, and significant uncited statements, and cites to unreliable sources such as aNSWERS.COM. If restored, it should either be draftified to allow proper sourcing, or else cut down to a stub, and statements can be added back with proper sources. Of course an AfD could be started during that process, if any editor chooses to do so and goes through WP:BEFORE. Personally, I would think moving to draft was the wiser and better course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn I don't see that a G11 is appropriate for an article from 2018 with several contributors - not to mention versions in 3 Wikipedia languages. No prejudice against an AFD. I'm curious at User:Seraphimblade's thought s though. Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn speedy - Special:Permalink/970261259 doesn't have a G11-level of promotion (nothing that can't be fixed by editing), and good sources exist [1] [2] [3]. Lev!vich 05:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)