- Lindsay rosenwald (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I've done a research and added several references that I believe are trusted and independent resources and left the comment on [[1]], but I'm not sure if my comment was noticed and the article was re-checked after my changes. If there's anything I else I can do to restore the article, please let me know. Thank you. J.D. (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That's the problem. I was so stupid not to save my changes locally. If there's any archive or a temporary restoration feature, I will copy the content and enhance it. This might be helpful for other resources, too. J.D. (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note: the last saved version of the article is now at User:Healthycare/Lindsay rosenwald. J04n(talk page) 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure The reasons for deletion were a lack of
peacock terms in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. These are strong arguments for deletion, and based on their strength combined with a head-count, closing as "delete" was the right call. The rewrite of the article improved it, no doubt, but it did not resolve the concerns raised by any means, so leaving the debate open longer would not have changed the consensus in the discussion. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 01:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Ugh To be perfectly clear, I would have preferred this be re-listed. The article as it was nominated and the article as of 8 February have very little to do with each other, rendering the !votes (3 of 4 in total) from before 8 Feb's re-write as less persuasive. The last vote came in at 18:35 UTC 8 Feb, after which there were six more edits made to the article before it was deleted. No !voter ever actually discussed the article as it existed at deletion. I find Cirt's close entirely reasonable, and yet disagree with making it. I'll go with endorse, and urge Healthycare to make the article in their userspace better and then think about restoring it to the articlespace. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Thank you, Bradjamesbrown. You are right. I've spent my time to find verifiable resources and when I found them, the article was still deleted. Is there any estimation time for me to improve the article? I'm not sure if I can do this within the next couple of days, but the next week will be just great. J.D. (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- As a practical matter this DRV discussion is scheduled to be closed on February 18th. If you're not done by then it will presumably close as Keep Deleted/Userfy and you can file a new request once you have a draft ready. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Cirt's close as appropriate given the AfD consensus. I took a look at the userspace draft and am not convinced that the changes would have affected the outcome. ]
- Restore per Cunard, below. This passes ]
- Full Rewrite Hi all. I've just spent the last couple of hours to find new material and put it to the article. Well, that's a tough thing, I'd say, but this is just a matter of principle. I think this guy deserves staying here. If other changes must be done or more info must be found, please let me know and I will try to do this asap. J.D. (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore The userspace draft at ]
- Restore with a new AfD at editorial discretion; this article now, I believe, passes ]
|
