User talk:Wp20151110

Speedy deletion nomination of Douglas Bertram MacDonald


A tag has been placed on Douglas Bertram MacDonald requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Douglas Bertram MacDonald for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Douglas Bertram MacDonald is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Douglas Bertram MacDonald until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion
A surprising close. I can't even begin to comprehend why an admin thought should be no mention of this in another article, and are so quick to close a discussion that's only been open a week. Before I appeal at WP:DRV - who else accessed the scans you have? Particular the nominator, the six(?) delete votes, and the closer? Nfitz (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A week seems to be a long time in Wikipeadian politics :) I only sent the scans to you, no one else requested them. Replying to the admin now Wp20151110 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're being led down a dead end here. The Deletion discussion only had 2 Keep votes, and one of those was actually a Merge vote (which results in the article being deleted anyway). It may be time to move on. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Three keeps, not two. There were no merge votes. Also, consensus isn't based on the number of votes. There was no explanation by any of the deletes why the articles in question didn't meet GNG. I'm not saying there was consensus to keep or merge. But I don't see consensus - and normally when there's not a very clear consensus, at least one relist is standard. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I hate to point out your simple mathematical error there, but you may want to reread the AfD. Anyway, I didn't say there was a merge vote, I said that one of the keep votes was really a Merge - that was you, saying you wanted the article kept so you could merge it. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)