Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ricardo Karam

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

The result of the discussion was  snow keep. I'm closing as a snow keep as the page has been moved and (IMO, wrongfully) the MFD notice has been removed. It could be treated a transfer to AFD though had there been some more concern expressed here. In the future,, I think you should let an admin close the discussion as a snow keep and then independently move it or wait it out. We don't have a withdrawal from the nominator and one day with three !votes is not a real discussion. This would be no different than moving a page subject to an AFD and arguing that it's moot now that it's somewhere new. No prejudice to an AFD on the mainspace version now. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ricardo Karam


This draft has been declined for 4 times, the first review is 7 months ago. 333-blue 13:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I don't see why the draft should be deleted. In the times it was declined, the only feedback I got was that the references should be improved to prove notability, which I tried to work on as much as possible. If there is something else wrong with it, kindly let me know. Please do take the draft into consideration, I have put a lot of effort into it and am a big fan of Mr. Karam. SarahYakzan (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

object strongly. IMO we are messing about with an OK draft and p***ing off a good contributor. I have made comments at the last objectors talk page which reads..."I'm about to move Draft:Ricardo Karam to main:space as IMO this article is good enough for Wikipedia. The guy is notable and although the current author/draft may have some errors it is on balance fine. If it had been typed directly into main space then it would not have had significant problems. I see that there are some points that could be improved, but what stops it from being moved to main space? Why are we not encouraging this author to do more? Thanks for your work. Victuallers (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)"


 * Can someone explain why this article wouldn't be just fine if it was already in main space??? We are discussing the state of the paint on the lifeboat. I apologise to Sarah for being too patient. Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to mainspace, allow listing at WP:AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep / promote to article space - As far as I can tell, the creator of this draft has taken the advice of the draft reviewers and made the appropriate changes. The last comment was that the citations should be to the actual press articles and not to pointers/copies on the subject's site which has been done.  There appears to be multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage in particular there is coverage from La Revue du Liban, Al Ghad, and Asharq Al-Awsat meaning it would very likely survive AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for views - JFDI - I moved it to mainspace. I'm not sure how to fix the AFC process, but the editor and article is the important bit here. Victuallers (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.