| Revision as of 05:58, 10 October 2016 editNorthamerica1000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators708,032 edits +sig← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:00, 10 October 2016 edit undoSwisterTwister (talk | contribs)187,094 edits CNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Comment''' – I deprodded the article, but it was not "massremoved". These ] need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon source searches and other variables. For example, when I deprodded, I left the following rationale, "Subject has been featured in the British Journal of Photography per a preview page on the website, but cannot access the source. However, this suggests potential notability. Declined prod." (). Stop casting aspersions. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' – I deprodded the article, but it was not "massremoved". These ] need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon source searches and other variables. For example, when I deprodded, I left the following rationale, "Subject has been featured in the British Journal of Photography per a preview page on the website, but cannot access the source. However, this suggests potential notability. Declined prod." (). Stop casting aspersions. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' - I state the concerns because they apply considering the PROD remover has literally removed over 2 dozen of my PRODs today alone and within minutes of each other. Therefore it's relevant to state this is why we are therefore at AfD now. ] ] 06:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:00, 10 October 2016
Aubrey Wade
- Aubrey Wade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extensive and specific PROD massremoved yet it had the exact and specified concerns in that there are no substantial claims of notability, there's no inherited notability from simply having some art appearances and features, and I noted I not only found nothing better, but that's because this career is not actually advanced yet to come close to it. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I deprodded the article, but it was not "massremoved". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon source searches and other variables. For example, when I deprodded, I left the following rationale, "Subject has been featured in the British Journal of Photography per a preview page on the website, but cannot access the source. However, this suggests potential notability. Declined prod." (diff). Stop casting aspersions. North America 05:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I state the concerns because they apply considering the PROD remover has literally removed over 2 dozen of my PRODs today alone and within minutes of each other. Therefore it's relevant to state this is why we are therefore at AfD now. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)