Talk:Dustin Kahia

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted for multiple reasons that I will further explain. I added this article last week and it was deleted without any explanation, which made me really upset. I was upset that the Article wasn't given a fair discussion -- it was simply deleted at whim. Whoever deleted the article should've at least had the decency to explain why it's being deleted. I understand this article was created a while ago by someone else. I re-added this article with 18 different verifiable and reliable sources. Just because this article was deleted in the past (for whatever reason), that doesn't mean there isn't a case for it to exist now. It appears to me that this article was not given a fair hearing. It was deleted without explanation. This Article passes the Notability guidelines outlined, especially these note:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

•'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

• 'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

• 'Sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

• 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

•'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included.

A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

'''If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. ''' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG)

From my understanding, the first time this Article an was ever created on this subject, it didn't meet the Notability guideline outlined on Wikipedia. With my edits, this has now changed. Furthermore, the first time this Article an was ever created on this subject, it was believed to be created by the subject, which is not the case now.

All I'm asking for is a fair discussion on whether or not this article should be accepted, regardless of its past reasons for deletion. Let's discuss the Article as it exists now.Moviebuff323 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)