|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Larry Kroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) I created an article about Sarah Palin's pastor at Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon on Sept. 2. It was proposed for speedy deletion on Sept. 3 and immediately deleted by Keeper76 despite the "hangon" tag. And in spite of the fact that the article was well sourced form major daily newspapers. Aong the well-sources facts in the article: Kroon is the pastor of a large church. He has been interviewed in the national media. Six years ago was widely quoted in the press on the subject of the efficacyo of prayer and his daughter's need fo ra liver transplant. Several national sources recently picked up his introduciton of a controversial speaker (David Brickner of Jews for Jesus) on a Sunday when Palin was in the congregation, Bricker said that terror attacks on Israelis are God's punishment of the Jews for failing to accept Jesus. I do not think that this was a reasonable deletion. The deletion in the face of the "hangon" tag without the courtesy of an AFD discussion is a violation of policy.Elan26 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The Intention Craft (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) The discussion, which did not achieve concensus to keep, did not address the question of notability of this song, except for the delete voters. This song, simply put, has NO notability whatsoever WP:MUS and its' page should be therefore deleted. I have mailed the deleting admin asking why it was kept, but have had no reply Spoilydoily (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Donkpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
This afternoon, I created this article, about a wiki page about poker, which is the biggest of its kind with almost 2,000 articles. The article was deleted after a short time; the reasoning was "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance".
I think Donkpedia deserves its own article, simply because it is the biggest lexicon which deals with poker worldwide.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dhalla Mahamatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This page was originally posted by a troll,Courttitle, who also contributed to the AfD debate as Eliza Dolots. Once the troll's vote is removed there's a clear consensus to delete. My reasons for claiming there's a troll at work are that Eliza Dolots and Ich bin furzen both created broadly similar articles which have been deleted as vandalism and both of which refered to "Nalanda University". See also here. These fake articles follow a standard pattern:
andy (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
C9orf3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This AfD was closed in just three hours by a non-admin with no reason given despite only two keep votes - one of which gave no reason beyond 'notable' and the other of which was by a major contributor to the page. Following discussion with the closer I still thik this was done too quickly and out of process although I do understand, but disagree, with their reasons. Source one is clearly trivial coverage while source three is verging on it (search several thousand genes and this is one that correlates) leaving only source two as non-trivial coverage and so failining "multiple non trivial coverage". I'd also suggest that all three references are closer to primary sources than secondary (although reference 2 may just pass this thrsehold) as they were written by people who actually discovered, or discovered the function of, this genes. I accept that maybe I was a bit niave in my reason given in that assuming editors would think about it more deeply, therefore if the closure is endorsed I'd ask for permission to open a new AfD with the more detailed explanation given below. I'm asking fot this permission first as I'm sure that if I just opened another AfD someone would close it as 'too soon' and we'd end up back here. "This article comes very close to meeting notability guidelines - many will think it does, although I'd argue that all the references are too close to the subject and are more like primary than secondary sources. Additionally source one is clearly trivial coverage while source three is verging on it (search several thousand genes and this is one that correlates) which leaves just source two which is not enough, IMO, to establish notability. If you feel it meets the notability guidelines I think we need to apply a little bit of WP:Common Sense when considering genes. There are somewhere in the region of 25,000 human genes - if were to have an article on each one that would be 1% of all articles, and that's not to mention non-human genes. The structure, function snd other basic properties of all the human genes and many genes for many other species (especially 'model' species) is likely to be discovered in an attempt to understand the genome and what each gene does and these will undoubtly be published in peer-reviewed journals. To me this does not make an individual gene notable as even those in the field may pay it little attention to it. Therefore I think genes should only be included when they have wider notability for example mention in the popular press or non-trivial mention in the scientific literature beyond it's form and function, e.g. it's the target for a succesful drug and there are many studies on it as a drug target. Else I think we run the danger of wikipedia becoming a directory and duplicating the many scientific databases that already hold this data. I would argue that even if the gene meets general notabilty guidelines (which I don't think it does) this gene falls in to this category and so is un-notable." To me I think a precedent needs to start to be formed on this as this is clearly different to, to use John254's example, Technicolor (physics) as I doubt we could ever end up with 25,000 or more articles on different Physics's theories. This is not an attempt to be disruptive as John254 seems to think it is but rather an attempt to discuss what, in my opinion, is an important issue for wikipedia. Dpmuk (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
After discussion on the "pro se" page, administrator Arthur Rubin, agreed that I could quote both a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2007 quoting the U.S. code and a State of WI case that is quoted in the WI annotated constitution. Without any discussion, "Steven J. Anderson" removed these quotations. Before they were removed, Mr. Rubin helped me with a typo (I had inadvertently posted my tag line) so he obviously agreed that what I had posted was O.K. What Steven J. Anderson removed included: "The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 2007 that “there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 ("In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel)” WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (U.S. 05/21/2007)" His message was that I had a personal issue. I think that whether or not I have a personal interest is irrelevant to whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on self-representation and the U.S. code on self-representation can be quoted in an article on self-representation. Prior to my contributing to the article, what was posted was contrary to both the Supreme Court statement and the U.S. code. The article requests "This section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications." In the talk section, I provided links to three different publications of the Supreme Court ruling and a law review article about it. I also provided a link to the U.S. House of Representatives search function of the U.S. code showing the quote from the U.S. code that the Supreme Court quoted. And I provided quotes of 14 federal circuit court decisions since 2002 quoting the same portion of the U.S. code. I would also like to reinstall my quote from the Wisconsin court of appeals, which is quoted in the WI annotated constitution, and I would like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |