This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 29 December 2024 (→Brian Thompson (businessman): unsigned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:51, 29 December 2024 by Cryptic (talk | contribs) (→Brian Thompson (businessman): unsigned)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2024 December 28 Deletion review archives: 2024 December 2024 December 30 >29 December 2024
Brian Thompson (businessman)
WP:BADNAC. The support for keeping, while strong, was not unanimous or nearly so, and there was considerable support for merging/redirecting the article. The closer made no attempt to weigh votes by the validity of the arguments, and many of the arguments made by keep supporters were weak and should have been discarded/downweighted. I would put the discussion personally at "no consensus", but I wouldn't mind somebody else (preferrably an admin) closing the discussion as "keep" provided that a proper and thorough rationale was provided. 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs)
Greg Flynn (businessman)
It is clear to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. Several solid sources were found late in the deletion discussion. I think if more editors were involved who examined those sources, the article would have been kept. Thriley (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse The discussion clearly shows that you and others made their cases there but failed to convince the other participants. DRV is not for taking a second bite at the apple. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse That was closed correctly. There was a clear consensus the available sources were not good enough for an article, and in reviewing those sources I don't see clear error. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - The close correctly reflected consensus. It isn't the function of DRV to re-review the sources. The title has not been salted. The appellant may create a draft with the additional sources and submit the draft for review. The AFC reviewer is likely to request that a copy of the deleted article be emailed or userfied to them so that they can compare the draft and the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)