Diamond Standard – Closed - the deleting admin has undeleted it and listed it at AfD, so there's nothing left to discuss here. WilyD 09:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC) WilyD 09:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
With 19 references, including Bloomberg, Fox Business News, The Royal Gazette, and a notable founder, G11 was clearly inappropriate. Speedy Deletion was made despite a challenge. The nominator and the deleter are coordinating, to effect unilateral actions without debate. Nixie9✉ 00:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G11 has nothing to do with the number of sources. Did you discuss this with deleting user RHaworth? I don't see any discussions about this on their talk page apart from you requesting the text by email on November 4, which they said they provided. If this goes any further, I wouldn't mind a temp-undelete so I can review for myself. SportingFlyerT·C 04:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Salt. I haven't seen the deleted article, but the argument being given by the appellant is so completely arrogant and meaningless and unsound that I have to assume that the language in the deleted article was similar, and had very little actual content except puffery. I don't need a temp delete to be able to infer that the request is nonsense (and the deleted article may have also been nonsense). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the text quite qualified under G11. But I also doubt this has enough WP:CORPDEPTH to survive AfD. Haukur (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've temp undeleted it so people can review it WilyD 08:16, 25 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.
