| Revision as of 03:00, 11 February 2008 editYamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs)47,174 edits heading← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:12, 11 February 2008 edit undoWWGB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,485 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Zaiarna: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:Yamamoto Ichiro/talk}} | {{User:Yamamoto Ichiro/talk}} | ||
| <!-- Please leave message at the very bottom of this page --> | <!-- Please leave message at the very bottom of this page --> | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, I am most surprised at the outcome of this debate. I understand that it involves more than counting votes, but there were four votes in favour of delete and only two for keep. How does that equate to "possibility leaning towards keep"? The article still remains devoid of independent references, and claims of notability are unproven. Before I plan any further response, I am interested in knowing more of your reasons for maintaining this article. Thanks, ] (]) 04:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:12, 11 February 2008
- Please add new entries at the bottom of this page.
- Please SIGN your entry with ~~~~
- If you are here to report a vandal, please use WP:AIV., unless I'm online.
- Archives
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lilia Zaiarna
Hi, I am most surprised at the outcome of this debate. I understand that it involves more than counting votes, but there were four votes in favour of delete and only two for keep. How does that equate to "possibility leaning towards keep"? The article still remains devoid of independent references, and claims of notability are unproven. Before I plan any further response, I am interested in knowing more of your reasons for maintaining this article. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)