Obada Adnan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted before months , and I understand why(because Obada Adnan wasn’t notable) , But now I’m sure he is notable ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse this is a baseless and frivolous request. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the process or deletion and I highly doubt anything has changed in 2 months in terms of credits given most productions are shut down due to covid. See also this history on arwiki. Praxidicae (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure. None of those are reliable sources that establish notability. Baby names? Seriously. Praxidicae (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google play isn’t reliable? I’m sure there are some reliable sources.. AND!! You didn’t read the whole page ,so you said baby names, If you scrolled down, you would see them saying that there are actors who’s name is Obada , and one of them is Obada Adnan , Please read the whole thing and think logically before saying anything.

Greetings,Alex1981march (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Praxidicae (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your time , And by the way, you should explain for what is the “No” and I think you need to answer the questions more professionally and read the whole linked sources instead of saying things that are wrong

Practice more to reach the profession level that is accepted by people

MAYBE SOMEONE WHO HAS JOINED BEFORE 10+ YEARS SHOULD HAS TAKEN THIS CASE Best, Alex1981march (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD was closed correctly based on the discussion. As to the new information, I randomly check 4 of the links above, and none had significant coverage of Obada Adnan. If you want any chance of a positive response here, Alex1981march, please find and present three to five sources (no more!), each of which includes significant coverage, say multiple paragraphs about Obada Adnan, and each of which is independent and reliable. This means nothing which is or is largely based upon a press release or an interview, nor any fan sites or directory entries or other trivial coverage. A few good sources is much better than many poor ones -- good sources get lost among poor ones. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh and Alex1981march, please do not post in ALL CAPS, nor attack the editors who post here. No one editor "takes" a "case", each page brought to deletion review (DRV) is discussed by whatever editors choose to participate, and a consensus is formed.RV is not for reqarguing points discussed in the AfD. It is for correcting errors of procedure, or bringing forward new information that was not raised in the AfD. Dumping large numbers of mostly poor sources tends to convince people that the page is not worth considering. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal from the original close. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an effort to re-litigate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is a request to submit a draft for review, I will take a very unusual position, which is a Weak Oppose to even allowing re-creation in draft by the current appellant, who appears to be ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Interested editors may wish to read the post-close discussion at my talk page, which is basically more of the same from Alex1981march. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to raise issues of the deletion process not being properly followed. It is not a "second bite at the cherry" if the AFD doesn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, I told Alex1981march I wouldn't unsalt unless he brought this here. —Cryptic 10:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and decline unsalting. Alex1981march, most of the sources you provided are not WP:SIGCOV, and a quick research trip on google finds nothing at all about him. The Draft is also not informative at all. I would advise you not to bring the matter again, until you can present a good draft of the article . Techie3 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techie3 Techie3 , I’m sure you will find a lot of results if searched for “Obada Adnan” on google, you may have spelled it wrongly , if you don’t believe me, please use this link :

https://g.co/kgs/rKtGhq

Note:- please scroll down to see al the results - The sites that says Obada Adnan is a singer , are not completely honest , And the LinkedIn account is not his account as I believe

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

• • @Alex1981march: , I pose a challenge for you. If you can find three facts about Obada Adnan, that are not his birth or personal details, or his films, and you can source them, I will try to start clean up your draft and might reverse my position. Techie3 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, the draft as it is, does not look good on this kind of encyclopedia. Techie3 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Techie3   Ok, here are some facts about him :

(Food Habit Non-Vegetarian ,

Does Obada Adnan know cooking? Yes,

Does Obada Adnan go to the gym? Yes,

What are the hobbies of Obada Adnan? Reading, photography, learning, traveling, internet surfing and to name a few.) Source for above ;

https://www.filmifeed.com/celebrity/obada-adnan/amp/

(He studied at King Abdullah Second School For Excellence in Jordan) source:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm10921122/

https://limaomecanico.com.br/celebridade/obada-adnan/?amp

https://www.filmifeed.com/celebrity/obada-adnan/amp/

Height: 5' 9¾" (1.77 m) , source: https://m.imdb.com/name/nm10921122/ Alex1981march (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan loves Reading Quotes from Albert Einstein , source: https://Instagram.com/obada.adnan (In the bio)

Alex1981march (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @Alex1981march: Ok, you have found a few facts, but only one fact I think could be added, that beingstudying at King Abdullah Second School For Excellence. I am pleased you are willing to commit to this draft. I challenge you again to find at least 2 news sources, (not IMDB or a film database website or actor database website , or social media accounts), 2 actual news sources, that talk about him in detail. Techie3 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitit (French company) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The sources are not unreliable as claimed. There are more sources available. The news were published by editors, not contributors or PR person. Freaintanl (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the sources presented at the AFD were discussed pretty thoroughly, there is no evidence that they were ignored by voters and I see nothing wrong with the close. Praxidicae (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The discussioin was fine and could not have been closed in any other way. The analysis by HighKing was particularly persuasive. The comment above by Freaintanl is very similar to comments by the same editor in the AfD, which did not persuade the others in this discussion. However, the title was not protected against creation. If there truly are better sources, a new version could be created using them. But from the discussion, Freaintanl does not seem to understand the kind of sources needed to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and thus WP:NCORP. I would strongly suggest that any recreation be as a draft subject to the articles for creation review process. Otherwise a 2nd deletion followed by protection against creation are not unlikely, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid close. I think that either Delete or No Consensus would have been valid. The question is whether the close was valid, and it was. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a place to address concerns about deletion process not being correctly followed. It is not an opportunity to re-argue the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is a permissible interpretation of consensus in the discussion. I agree with DES that the objector's best route is to have the article restored to draft and work on it there. BD2412 T 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Public Party (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notability status has changed. Page was deleted for lack of notability. Since deletion party has joined an electoral alliance with the (soon-to-be) registered Advance New Zealand party and clarified that it will be running candidates. This has received significant coverage in local media.^[1][2][3] In addition, there has been coverage in second-tier NZ media of party positions.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} While a merger / alliance might seem to make it less notable, a feature of the Electoral system of New Zealand is that parties can have "component parties" (e.g. see Alliance (New Zealand political party)). There will thus be NZPP candidates, distinguishable from those of Advance New Zealand, on the ballot. Running candidates has historically established notability for an NZ political party. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but permit restoratiuon as a draft. The AfD was correctly closed at that time, and a major point was the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage at that time. New sou7rces may be the start of sustained coverage, but do not seem to have clearly achieved itm yet, in my view. But there is no objection to starting a draft on this topic, and I for one see no objection to restoring the deleted article as such a draft, to be improved until it clearly meets notability criteria. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but permit restoration of draft, as per DES. (Unlike another request here.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and allow recreation New sources are enough to overcome a speedy. The rest belongs at AfD. (Plus, it's already been recreated). Hobit (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]