User talk:Johnoben

Speedy deletion nomination of Jigsaw Medical Services Ltd
Hello Johnoben,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jigsaw Medical Services Ltd for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Percival
Hello Johnoben,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Christopher Percival for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Repost of Chris Percival
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. I tagged the article after reviewing it and determined it was substantially similar to the articles deleted previously by this deletion discussion. However, if a second admin considers it sufficiently improved, they will decline the deletion. Alternatively, you could ask for a review of the original deletion by following the instructions here: Deletion review. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming back to me so quickly. I note that the initial discussions surrounding deletion was that it was a "borderline" case and indeed the additional amends should be sufficient to meet WP:BIO as previously stated. As such, I must disagree that not only does this now meet criteria for inclusion, it most certainly does not meet speedy deletion. Changes were made following the AfD discussion to improve the article. It has since been patrolled by admins and until your nomination, was clearly deemed fit. Johnoben (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)