339:. The text is virtually identical. A number of wikilinks were added, but that is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. A large number of new "references" were cited, but unfortunately, contrary to what Hyrdlak says, they do not by any means "prove the subject's notability". Most if not all of the 52 new "references" that were added to the new version of the article either don't mention Bardhyl Selimi at all or merely mention his name briefly in passing. At least one is a page which is marketing a book of his, and merely gives his name as author. Some of the references are pages on Knowledge or forums,
318:
The reason why the re-created article was deleted "without any discussion" was that we had already had the discussion. We don't repeat a discussion, probably with exactly the same reasons as before, every time an individual editor disagrees with the outcome of that discussion. Personally, if there is
238:
The main argument for deletion was that some of the 20 odd provided references led to the article's subject as an author or co-author. I improved on that adding 50 more references by other authors from
Albania / Kosovo (in Albanian) and from all around the world (including China, France and Poland)
343:
scarcely mentioning him. And so it goes on... Not only do the new references fail to "prove the subject's notability", they fail to even provide a small step in the direction of showing more notability than was already demonstrated when consensus at a discussion decided the subject did not satisfy
323:, and I regard it as better to give the benefit of any doubt. However, in this case I felt, and still feel, that there isn't any reasonable doubt to give the benefit of. So that editors who are not administrators can judge for themselves I have restored the history of the article, and moved it to
293:
The contention point that led to the deletion of this article on Sept 4, 2019 was the issue of notability as proved by sources not connected to
Bardhyl Selimi. With the 'carpet-bomb' of 50 references I prove the subject's notability in the spheres of Albanian/Kosovan and Esperanto (global)
78:, in large part because of the shoddy deletion review nomination. A better presented case that makes clear what is being appealed and why might have more success, although one has to consider that the additional references mentioned here apparently didn't convince anyone.
278:
The re-created article looks vitually identical to the one deleted by AfD. The only difference looks like a carpet-bomb of additional references, but there's no indication that any of them are significant in terms of addressing the issues raised in the AfD. --
319:
even the slightest reasonable doubt about whether a recreated copy of a deleted page is changed enough to warrant a new discussion then I restore it on request, because there is considerable disagreement as to what changes are enough to invalidate
381:, I have to rely on those who have seen the two pages that they are substantially the same. If this is a request to re-create due to new information, it isn't clear what the new information is. So for whatever reason, we can leave it deleted.
348:: the mistaken belief that simply throwing large numbers of references at an article adds evidence of notability, even if none of those references contain anything relevant to Knowledge's notability guidelines.
373:, or a request to re-create due to new information. The fact that this filing isn't clear is another reason to endorse. If this is an appeal of the original Close as Delete, all that is noteworthy is the
220:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
48:
34:
164:
43:
235:
Originally, this article was deleted on Sept 2-4, 2019, though due to my summer holiday I requested a delay on any final decision until Sept 7, 2019.
324:
152:
239:
in
Esperanto, as a proof of the global-wide notability of Bardhyl Selimi in the spheres of Albanian- and Esperanto-language cultures.
87:
39:
173:
21:
401:
386:
213:
102:
17:
390:
357:
308:
286:
259:
229:
190:
91:
83:
353:
122:
382:
374:
217:
118:
70:
377:
by
Hyrdlak, but it isn't clear what the meaning of the wall of text is. If this is an appeal of a
369:, although I am not sure whether this is an appeal of the original Close as Delete, an appeal of a
300:
251:
221:
182:
283:
79:
299:
I still have no clue why the relisted draft of this article was deleted without any discussion.
349:
345:
332:
304:
255:
225:
186:
344:
Knowledge's notability guidelines. This is, in fact, a good example of what is described at
280:
378:
370:
320:
273:
245:
The relisted article was removed with no explanation, let alone any discussion.
202:
248:
I request the relisting of the deleted improved draft of this article.
325:
Knowledge:Bardhyl Selimi/Temporary copy for deletion review
336:
328:
327:. The version deleted as a result of the discussion is
159:
145:
137:
129:
242:I relisted the improved article on Sept 9, 2019.
321:speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted page
8:
101:The following is an archived debate of the
196:
63:
199:
335:tagged for deletion and I deleted is
7:
404:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
201:presumably this was intended for
400:The above is an archive of the
391:22:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
358:20:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
309:08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
287:15:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
260:09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
230:09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
191:09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
92:12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
1:
427:
212:An editor has asked for a
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
407:Please do not modify it.
331:, and the version which
108:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
105:of the page above.
414:
413:
267:
266:
59:14 September 2019
49:2019 September 15
35:2019 September 13
418:
409:
197:
176:
171:
162:
148:
140:
132:
110:
64:
53:
33:
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
417:
416:
415:
405:
402:deletion review
383:Robert McClenon
268:
214:deletion review
206:
172:
170:
167:
158:
157:
151:
144:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
106:
103:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
424:
422:
412:
411:
396:
395:
394:
393:
363:
362:
361:
360:
313:
312:
296:
295:
290:
289:
265:
264:
218:Bardhyl Selimi
208:
207:
200:
195:
179:
178:
168:
155:
149:
141:
133:
125:
119:Bardhyl Selimi
113:
112:
97:
96:
95:
94:
71:Bardhyl Selimi
61:
56:
47:
44:2019 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
423:
410:
408:
403:
398:
397:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
364:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
277:
275:
270:
269:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
243:
240:
236:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
210:
209:
204:
198:
194:
192:
188:
184:
175:
166:
161:
154:
147:
139:
131:
124:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
111:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
89:
88:contributions
85:
81:
80:Jo-Jo Eumerus
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
406:
399:
375:wall of text
366:
350:JamesBWatson
340:
333:Power~enwiki
271:
250:
247:
244:
241:
237:
234:
211:
205:'s talk page
181:improvement
180:
107:
100:
75:
69:
58:
346:WP:BOMBARD
341:as well as
203:User:Tone
294:culture.
281:RoySmith
272:Endorse
262:Hyrdlak
232:Hyrdlak
193:Hyrdlak
20: |
367:Endorse
311:Hyrdlak
301:Hyrdlak
252:Hyrdlak
222:Hyrdlak
183:Hyrdlak
174:restore
138:history
76:Endorse
284:(talk)
274:WP:G4
160:watch
153:links
52:: -->
16:<
387:talk
354:talk
337:here
329:here
305:talk
256:talk
226:talk
187:talk
146:logs
130:edit
123:talk
84:talk
32:<
216:of
165:XfD
163:) (
22:Log
389:)
379:G4
371:G4
356:)
307:)
258:)
228:)
189:)
90:)
86:,
74:–
42::
385:(
352:(
303:(
276:.
254:(
224:(
185:(
177:)
169:|
156:|
150:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
121:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.