| Revision as of 14:45, 27 October 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:48, 27 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (relist at AfD)Next edit → |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
====]==== |
|
|
Creator of page has asked for it to be deleted after the recent "keep" decision. It's not in the most proper place, but the request began at ]. Deletion was also requested by an anon user claiming to be the subject of the article. -- ] 22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure, keep article'''. There were only two actual !votes, and both were "keep"; it's kind of hard for the closing admin to mess that up. There's no evidence that ] is the original creator; it was created by an anon using ] (possible proxy?). There's also no evidence that the anon claiming to be the subject actually is the subject (though his IP does trace back to Cincinnati, where the subject lives). If the anon is truly Blake Bowden, then he should probably take this up with ]. --] 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. I don't really like calling people out, but check the contribution history of ]. He signs <s>his third oldest</s> edit as "Dr. Blake Bowden." From that, <s>which was from before the existence of the ] article,</s> I see the request as legitimate. -- ] 23:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist'''. The notability of the subject is questionable. There are assertions of notability in the article and in the AfD, but all are tagged with {{tl|fact}}. Of the two keep reasonings in the AfD, one relies on how many hits he gets on a search engine, not on whether he has actually written or done anything notable, and one is apparently from the subject and along the lines of "he's a great guy", with some assertions of notability but similarly unsupported by actual credible sources. An AfD with a decent level of participation is needed, I think. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I have blanked the article as a courtesy while we establish what Dr. Bowden's problem is with the content; I have asked at ] since he seems to be, or be known to, the subject. As far as I am concerned we can delete, relist or fix up, but if the subject has an issue with the content we need to do something to fix it without requiring him to first ]. I don't think DRV is necessarily the way to fix a ] issue, but whatever. <b>]</b> 10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Given that Dr Blake Bowden's article was apparently written by one Dr Blake Bowden , I would be interested to hear what problem Dr Blake Bowden has with the article Dr Blake Bowden has written on him. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. The original discussion had no support for the deletion nomination, two people in favour of keeping the article and one comment disputing the grounds for deletion. I stand by my closure of the discussion as a keep. However, the fact that one of the people in favour of keeping the article hs now changed their mind and blanked the article may be a reason to relist it, especially given the low participation. I can't find the occasion Tim speaks of where Theguyinblue signs as Blake Bowden (his third edit was , but whether he or the anon are actually Blake Bowden is irrelevant. A request from the subject is not grounds for deletion. If there is a problem with the content, rather than simply the existence of the article, then we can fix that as soon as we know what it is, but I would be surprised if that is the issue, given that Theguyinblue was in favour of keeping the article a weak earlier. ] (]) 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Comment'''. For some reason I thought that the first screen of contributions was the only screen (whoops). The edit that I was referring to is . As for the original arguments for keeping, that may have partially been due to an obfuscation of the content from a lack of organization. But the question now would be whether the claims made in the article can indeed be cited. Personally, from what I've checked out, it seems that most of them cannot be. I don't doubt what Dr. Bowden has done in his career, but if there are no third-party sources of the info, it doesn't really fit in an encyclopedic article. -- ] 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*If so, that's a matter for a later AfD moreso than a Deletion Review. The process here is geared more towards appealing a closure on the grounds that it was improper.--] 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|