Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DJ Many (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This Page Is Waiting To Be Updated With References And Information To Show This Person's Public Status. Please Check DJ_Many Talk Page For The Updated Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.93.81 (talk) 11:21, November 19, 2011‎

  • Comment The talk page has been deleted (not by me this time) but didn't look any much better than the original. One of the refs was non-independent (own site). another was a brief profile with no source, and the last was a link to a magazine and I could see nothing about the subject. A Note To The Author: People Here Will Take More Notice Of What You Say If You Type Like this instead, lowercase on ordinary words being the correct way to type (or write) English. This way is far easier to read anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (Despite Having Been Written In Exactly The Same Style.) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok please review now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 (talkcontribs) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user started to rewrite the patge while it was under review. That's not how it works. Once a decision is made on the deletion review, if the decision is to overturn the deletion, you can edit it then. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humm, an improved article would be handy though for purposes of this DRV. Should they make a copy in user space (deleted when merged if the article is restored), keep it in main space and just replace the DRV notice as they go, or something else? Hobit (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Realistically if someone wants to improve it, it's probably better to usefy, close the DRV then start again when it's complete. Putting a 7 day limit on improvements (which is what DRV would be) to then either decide to delete it again, or userfy at that point seems a bit of a waste of time. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are more promotional external links than references, I think it is too promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse CSD It's a badly written raw promo based on self-references. If someone rewrites it, sources it, and makes it comply then have at it but this isn't it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.