64:
On my second look, you're actually right. I mis-read the article history and thought you'd PRODed the article both times. Sorry for lecturing you over something you didn't do! At any rate, though, now that someone has declined the PROD, my incorrectly-based advice is actually right again - if you
29:
is not uncontested, and PROD tags are only for uncontested deletions. Re-PRODing it at this point won't gain you what you want; if you want to pursue the matter of arguing that the article should be deleted at this point, you'll need to do that at
48:
Sorry, I didn't realize I had done something wrong. I had proposed a "speedy deletion", which was objected to; then I proposed a "deletion", which appeared to me to be the next step between "speedy deletion" and "articles for
65:
still want to discuss deleting the article, its talk page won't be of much use, since talk pages aren't a venue that can decide to delete an article. You'll be better off using AfD still.
25:
declined, you shouldn't re-add it, as you've done today. Someone removing the PROD you added is evidence that deletion of
70:
39:
66:
35:
34:, where the community can have a discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of the article.
26:
22:
31:
50:
74:
58:
43:
21:
Hello! I just wanted to let you know that once you have a
8:
7:
14:
67:A fluffernutter is a sandwich!
36:A fluffernutter is a sandwich!
1:
91:
75:18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
59:17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
44:17:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
54:
23:proposed deletion
82:
27:Harold Covington
90:
89:
85:
84:
83:
81:
80:
79:
19:
12:
11:
5:
88:
86:
78:
77:
47:
46:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
87:
76:
72:
68:
63:
62:
61:
60:
56:
52:
45:
41:
37:
33:
28:
24:
17:Declined PROD
16:
20:
49:deletion".
51:Wasp14
32:WP:AfD
71:talk
55:talk
40:talk
73:)
57:)
42:)
69:(
53:(
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.