John Mark Dougan – Deletion endorsed. – Joe (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John Mark Dougan (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) John Mark Dougan has received exhaustive media attention. The article is well written, well sourced. I am requesting a copy of the deleted article by email to show the number of reliable sources that were deleted. Only four people voted in the AfD. The article has been in existence for years, and only recently there is more media attention (44 articles on google news) on this former Flordia sheriff who immigrated to Russia claiming corruption. Moscowdreams (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Moscowdreams: Procedurally I don't really think the AfD was defective, maybe on the lightly attended side, and the deleting admin's talk page makes a claim you already have the text. What's your goal here at DRV? SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Same question from me. There's already a copy at User:Moscowdreams#John Mark Dougan. What exactly are you requesting? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] I am requesting that the article be undeleted. There is a lot of media coverage on this individual. There is also Russian wikipedia page which is has many more references. Moscowdreams (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse in the absence of a stronger argument. Either Delete or Relist would have been reasonable, so Delete was reasonable. A request for an email copy is made at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and Relist based on very low participation in the AfD. The AfD only lasted a week, and could have benefited from a relist. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The nomination identifies no procedural defect. Sandstein 07:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] endorse- I can't fault the close, consensus was clear, and this nomination doesn't provide anything new. Reyk roaming (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

John Mark Dougan – Deletion endorsed. – Joe (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

John Mark Dougan has received exhaustive media attention. The article is well written, well sourced. I am requesting a copy of the deleted article by email to show the number of reliable sources that were deleted. Only four people voted in the AfD. The article has been in existence for years, and only recently there is more media attention (44 articles on google news) on this former Flordia sheriff who immigrated to Russia claiming corruption. Moscowdreams (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscowdreams: Procedurally I don't really think the AfD was defective, maybe on the lightly attended side, and the deleting admin's talk page makes a claim you already have the text. What's your goal here at DRV? SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same question from me. There's already a copy at User:Moscowdreams#John Mark Dougan. What exactly are you requesting? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that the article be undeleted. There is a lot of media coverage on this individual. There is also Russian wikipedia page which is has many more references. Moscowdreams (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse in the absence of a stronger argument. Either Delete or Relist would have been reasonable, so Delete was reasonable. A request for an email copy is made at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist based on very low participation in the AfD. The AfD only lasted a week, and could have benefited from a relist. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nomination identifies no procedural defect. Sandstein 07:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse- I can't fault the close, consensus was clear, and this nomination doesn't provide anything new. Reyk roaming (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.