Wikipedia:Deletion review/Global Resource Bank Initiative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Come on whats wrong with this article? I have started work on Wikipedia recently and am a big fan as a user. Would like to get more involved (and will be, belive me) tried to put down this article after a original article about GRB which had been on Wiki for many years (not written by me) was deleted some time ago. Yes that article was to be improved I agree but not deleted? And this one is totally correct and usefull for Wiki users I belive...It looks like the delete maffia is destroing the core idea that articles should have a chance to develop if they are not totally illegal, nonsens or spam.
11:17, 22 April 2006 Redvers deleted "Global Resource Bank Initiative" (CSD-G4 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank)
- Undelete. Put it back on, its good info...--Swedenborg 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. I was the one who tagged it as a CSD-G4 with the added bonus of "admin, please check previous version for clear G4" which I'd have to assume meant it matched. RasputinAXP c 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and send to AfD. There has been additions to the article since it was last AfDed that make it worthy of a second hearing, the version as it was prior to the AfD is here. It was previously deleted as original research/vanity, and I haven't checked any of the additional information to see if it has the same problems, but I don't think it will harm to spend another week at AfD. Thryduulf 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That version looks to be identical to the one reposted. RasputinAXP c 21:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. Changes made to this article (which is being constantly reposted under various titles by User:Swedenborg) haven't altered the fundamental reasons it was originally deleted for: original research and vanity. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf. If he can make out a sufficient, anyone at AfD might; that provides basis for a re-evaluation in itself. Xoloz 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf and Xoloz. JoshuaZ 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. What additions? There's a lot of vague assertions that "people have been talking about something like this", but no evidence whatsoever that anyone has paid any attention to these people. Valid G4, why should AfD have to waste time on it again? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. A little bit of paraphrasing and other forms of hand waving do not address the core problem identified by the AfD of the article being original research. Come back when some reliable sources can be provided for the material. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. Valid G4 and valid (though low-participation) original AfD which correctly identified the Original Research problem with this article. David | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete Fight the "delete maffia"!--TheMadTim 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is borderline, 5 to endorse, 5 to overturn. The wording at the top of the DRV page says: "If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.". There is not a "majority" to endorse, so this is being relisted on AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.