Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Wedeking (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect Procedural close, article restored to a redirect. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

Friedrich Wedeking

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing significantly has changed since the June 2014 discussion version other than we have an editor who will edit war uncivilly to re-store this. Adding Table M for the purpose of who succeeded him doesn't show coverage of Wedeking which was the issue before. Suggest redirect again and if edit warred again, protection. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Oh, so it's a fact that he's not listed as being the OLM at the time? DN-boards1 (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the box at the bottom of this page with the words "Oldest recognized living man" and the table labeled "Oldest man in the world since 1899"? People saw it then and didn't care. What's changed other than the fact that you are here to insult and fight everyone to get your way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't follow here. Are you saying his name is NOT in the box? And I apologize for my lack of civility. DN-boards1 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's start over. I'm pointing out that he was listed as the OLM in June 2014 as the June 2014 version of the article included that information. That information was in the article and was visible to the people who discussed it at Articles for deletion/Friedrich Wedeking. It was decided in June 2014 that the article should be redirected. You've decided to ignore that discussion and restored basically the exact same article with the addition of a link to Table M. The general presumption is that there is some closure to discussions and if you want to object to a discussion or argue for reconsideration, that belongs at WP:DRV not here and not by just restoring it repeatedly. Are there additional sources that people here should consider? Is there anything that resolves the concerns expressed last year? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me some time and I can find some RSes. We can userfy in the interim, if you like. DN-boards1 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.