|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
I would like to see the entire notes on this page that were removed. I would like to know where the rest of the notes here are. There are notes from this and the actual page missing. I'm new to this so please forgive me but, does this constitute some kind of vandalism? I , like I said am new , so please bear with me. But I want to see the pages that were deleted here. They would be from December 23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 2008. I would also like to know why these new pages are here, but all of a sudden the other pages are missing.76.94.31.7 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 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. |
Requester was yet another block-evading sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99, main contributor to this debate in favour of undeletion is the IP which turns out to be the same user. There is no way we can trust anybody on this until we are sure we have got rid of this vanity spammer. Wait some time and then let one of the good-faith users bring a fresh DRV which shows what has changed in the real world since the last of the many deletions. If we ever do have an article on this person, the multiply-blocked sockpuppeteer must be topic-banned (indeed, arguably is already sitebanned due to serial abuse of multiple accounts and block evasion). Guy (Help!) 10:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Matt Lee(guitar player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AFD 1 |AFD 2 | DRV 1 | DRV 2 | DRV 3| Userfied version| history) See also: NOTE: This DRV was added by Bill Blake990 per lifebaka++'s comment to Joeyboyee at DRV 3 which said, in part, that when the article had been userfied and worked on to "bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it. If consensus is that it no longer has the issues laid out in the 2nd AfD above, it'll get moved back into the mainspace." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
oops....talk notes on the Matt Lee(guitar player) page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.31.7 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
oooppssss, I meant that Matt Lee's name is on the show Biography's credits for guitar. Mike thompson played piano on that show.76.94.31.7 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, the userfied versions are both revised. The old versions had an attrition of notability,according to prior critique, but the new versions are including, what we hope to be enough additional info to pass inspection this time. That's what they admins asked for last time around , from what I've been told.76.94.31.7 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You can see the credit there. There is also a bio on Denny Freeman that shows his notability as well. Here's the A&E link for the Connie Francis Biography episode too. http://www.bobbydarin.net/bdcf.html 76.94.31.7 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: this admin took the Matt Lee page down without looking. The Matt Lee(Musician deluxe)was deleted because another admin undid a speedy delete and moved it like this link shows to the site without qualifier or Matt Lee. :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3AMatt+Lee(musician+deluxe)> It was deleted after it was approved by another admin.76.94.31.7 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3AMatt+Lee(musician+deluxe) RE: above just click on the logs and you'll see what I'm talking about. That will give you the forensics I have for now. Thanks.76.94.31.7 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
I would like to see the entire notes on this page that were removed. I would like to know where the rest of the notes here are. There are notes from this and the actual page missing. I'm new to this so please forgive me but, does this constitute some kind of vandalism? I , like I said am new , so please bear with me. But I want to see the pages that were deleted here. They would be from December 23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 2008. I would also like to know why these new pages are here, but all of a sudden the other pages are missing.76.94.31.7 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll see a big difference there, if you read it through. Promise. 76.94.31.7 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.31.7 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2009 (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. |
Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Matt Lee(musician deluxe)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
|
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. |
Christian Forums is an online discussion forum that had its own page, such as Literotica, Something Awful, and many other BBSs, some of which have few or no external citations. However, while CF's page was deleted, these pages remain open. I am confused as to the inconsistency here. Unless every one of these pages is deleted as well, I contend that for consistency's sake, Christian Forums be revived. And on that note, originally I was informed that to avoid deletion, reliable, third-party sources were needed. I did this. Only one of the sources was protested, and I was not given enough time to give my side of the story. In fact, the CF page was hastily deleted without any kind of discussion that I was made aware of. One other point--without getting too much into the details, Christian Forums is notorious for its strife and politics, and I honestly wonder whether that is spilling onto wikipedia, in the form of shutting down the page so that others will not know about it. After all, why would the Literotica--a site with soft-core porn on it--page be allowed to stand, while the relatively benign Christian Forums is not? toll_booth (talk) 02:04, 30 December 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. |
BrokeNCYDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2) | (AfD3) The original article was Speedy'd 7 times. The page was then recreated with "references." These references turned out to be nothing more than myspace, youtube, and blog links. The two Afds failed due to no-consensus as one user would come on and say keep, provide the same links, and other users who would not pay close attention would just agree and take that users word for it. Searching has found no valid sources that can withstand WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HooperBandP (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 December 2008
|
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. |
HomeSeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The initial page looks like blatent advertising, but I did not get the chance to fill it out with much of the additional information I needed to make a good case for it to stay before it was SPEEDILY removed. HomeSeer is unique in many ways in home automation - they are the leaders of their category, just like X-10 is, and there are many other companies listed because of their uniqueness or contributions to the field. Examples include X-10, Z-Wave (Zensys), Insteon (SmartHome) and several others. I tried to present the information in a factual (e.g. non advertising) way but as I was gathering my thoughts and working on it over time, I could not leave the article in perfect condition each time I get done editing it. I request that it be un-deleted and if necessary, put in a non-active state so that I can at least work on it until such time as I would like to make my case to instate the article again. The person who requested that it be speedily removed does not have an active email address so I could not contact that person via email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTinker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 December 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. |
AfDs & DRVs for this article and related pages:
Clarification This review hinges on the fact that the redlinked article space is protected from creation. __meco (talk) 09:58, 30 December 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. |
I don't see why a screen shot should not be included in the article.It'd be rather useful as a visual equivalent of the text about the mud wrestling.Rumble Roses is one of the few,if not the only game which features mud wrestling, so a screenshot would'nt be too unnecessary. Other articles of video games have screenshots too, and as Rumble_Roses currently has no screenshots, the usage is justified. Roaring Siren (talk) 11:15, 29 December 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. |
Clearly merge into BitTorrent (protocol) or at least keep, closing as "no consensus" with out a reason after an overwhelming amount of keep/merge comments is WTF material. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 29 December 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. |
Speedy Delete Ronhjones (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Can we please undelete? May have looked like a copy of a web site, because it was - and I own the web site - you may check the headers of all the web pages they will have the second meta tag as <meta name="author" content="Dr. Ron Jones">.
|
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. |
Soramimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Page was deleted even though AfD resulted in no true consensus (and KEEPs actually outnumbered DELETEs on the AfD page). The deletion itself was performed carelessly, leaving broken links and references in multiple articles, especially Mondegreen, which ended up referring to "soramimi" without ever really defining what it is, instead linking to the Soramimi article, which was redirected to Mondegreen, creating recursive links. The page should be restored at least temporarily so that necessary information can be copied into Mondegreen. Perhaps the decision should be changed to "Merge into Mondegreen#Examples in languages other than English". NetRolller 3D 15:12, 26 December 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. |
My World, My Way (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Wrongfully deleted per WP:CRYSTAL at AfD, despite the game coming out 6 months ago. The article was a few lines of unsourced plot information. After deletion I recreated the article from scratch using the proper MoS with sources, game-play and reception info and etc but it was deleted shortly thereafter via CSD when I went to bed. Undelete that version. Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:02, 26 December 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. |
Christian Schoyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Undeletion and unprotection for the page Christian Schoyen. Previous entries made the page appear to be spam or advertising related. I have written a new biography with proper citations and references to the person's book and film work, w/ a short objective biography has been written and is in complete accordance w/ all of wikipedia's rules and regulations. It shows him as a notable figure and is befitting a wikipedia page. I have no received any word from the deleted administrator which is why i bring this up to you. Spyglassent (talk) 22:05, 25 December 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. |
Christopher. Nudds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) A decent article on a notable person. Unfortunately, several inferior creations of said article at Christopher Nudds, which were previously and rightly deleted, have prompted administrators to prohibit recreation of the page. Thus my article, which is valid and deserving of a place on this site, was deleted as a prohibited recreation. I would like to request that this decision be overturned, that my article be recreated and allowed to be moved to an appropriate title Nuddsy (talk) 15:48, 24 December 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. |
Johanna Jussinniemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) the same info is on the Swedish Wikipedia and that's enough in there, yet it is not enough for the English one? And Puma is Sweden's best current porn export so I think she deserves a place in Wikipedia.
Need more? Norum (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Norum (talk) 15:09, 27 December 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. |
Eustacius de Yerburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This page was speedy deleted without much discussion on the advice of User:Agricolae who has already been approached by another user for rather aggressive behavior towards geneaology articles (see [17]). As far as the reason for this article being deleted, Agricolae claimed it was an unsupported myth article and was non-notable. Nothing can be further from the truth as this person in the article is the founder of two major Enlish noble lines (Deramore and Alvingham) and there is a large amount of material regarding him at the College of Arms in England. He is further more mentioned on the obit page of William P. Yarborough which is an offical government site run by Arlington National Cemetary. [18]. I'll be the first to admit the article need simprovement but here on Wikipedia we should improve weak articles, not just delete them out of hand. Please undelete. OberRanks (talk) 12:57, 23 December 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. |
Hemant Punoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This article was not eligible for A7 deletion. The subject of the article is the captain of the American U19 cricket team, which is a claim for notability if ever I've heard of one. In addition to this, there are numerous sources for this person, including the BBC, Rediff, and others that were cited in the article. The nominator made a note to consult WP:CRIC in the deletion summary, which leads to a Wikiproject notability guideline that as far as I can tell has not been endorsed by the community at large. I contend that he might not meet WP:ATHLETE, but I think he clearly meets the GNG by virtue of the news coverage he has received. In any case, failing to meet a notability guideline is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. I note that I have not yet attempted to discuss with the deleting admin, as they have a notice on their talkpage that they are on Wikibreak, and they have not edited for several days. I will however leave a note on their talk page directing them to this talk page in case they return. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 23 December 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. |
The first image, File:Roubini_photo.jpg, was deleted on 12/20/08 - Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 14. The replacement image (Roubini1) was tagged deletion per WP:CSD (TW)) by Admin Peripitus. This image was used to replace a stated fair use image (Roubini_photo) based on a publicity photo from his consulting service web site. Since that was rejected, this latest image was taken from a TV screen shot. It is being rejected again without any logical reason, as it seems to meet all criteria for the fair use license used. Reason cited by admin Skier Dude for first image used (emphasis added):
The first image was therefore deleted because it was possible to get someone to find out where he frequents and take a photo. The alternative was to get him to sign an OTRS. This is setting an unreasonable standard, if not practical "impossibility" which seems to be unproductive. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The suggested alternative of trying to understand, much less explain the OTRS with its myriad of legalistic acronyms, definitons, and massive page links is beyond my abilities - I've tried. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 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. |
My earlier image, LumetPortrait1.jpg, was deleted on 12/21/08 with the reasons stated in quoteblock below. There were more back-and-forth discussions about this on the page below with another admin. After it was deleted, instead of putting to a "Review", I tried to find another image that would again fit all fair use criteria, I uploaded and placed the new image (in heading) on the bio's infobox. This too was immediately removed by the same admin, Peripitus, by pointing to his previous reasons (below). It has as of this time not been deleted but he removed it from the article and I assume it will also be deleted soon. The first image was from a web page used for clear publicity. I believe it even stated on the image information that it was from their posted Press Release. Yet the only reasons continually given for disallowing both images' fair use was that it was "replaceable" by a free image, even though nothing equivalent is available. Admin Peripitus suggests finding a Wikipedian to just go to a film shoot and snap a photo, and therefore it is indeed replaceable, especially since he is a "public" person. This is an 84-year old movie director, not a "public person." In the alternative, he questions the usefullness of an image of the person for his bio, demanding I explain how the "image significantly increase reader's understanding." This is/was, the only portrait of this person and was for his infobox, and it was expected that I explain why his picture is "useful." I assumed it was the job of admins to assist editors, not the opposite. The most recent image removed was from a clearly marked "Press Release" page. The demands made by the removing admin are essentially impossible to meet by any reasonable standard and strike me as an abuse of discretion. I am trying to improve a number of Wiki bios by finding useable and allowable images, especially when availabe as "Non-free promotional". But it is becoming impossible. Any feedback would be welcome. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 13
My undertanding from Wikipedia:Administrators: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools." Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:20, 23 December 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. |
No joy at all from the deleting administrator after 5 days, even though xe has been active in that time. I asked, but there was only silence. An article whose first sentence gave a reasonably coherent explanation of the subject was in no way patent nonsense. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 23 December 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. |
JLS (X Factor Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) JLS is a boyband that finished 2nd in the music competiton, The X Factor (UK). After a discussion, comprimising of three editors, their page was redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5). A week later, Eoghan Quigg, who finished third in the same competition (lower than JLS), had his page considered for deletion. The result was keep.
UNREMOVE REDIRECT Can i add other second placed finalists were signed and as it was announced they had been signed, there articles were created not releasing a single yet so why should JLS be treated any differently? I say its because Eoghan fans want to have something to look at to see whats going on with his career, and JLS fans will want to see the same. I say unremove this redirect. I'm also going to add that two members of the band were famous before being on the show (TV) Marvin was in a band that created one album and 4 singles and was a regular actor on Holby City. And Ortise was on fun song factory as a regular.86.168.5.166 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 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. |
User talk:Smee (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) User talk:Smeelgova (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) On November 3, 2007, Durova deleted User talk:Smee and User talk:Smeelgova [21] [22], shortly before resigning her administrative privileges. On September 22, 2007, Cirt commenced editing [23], without disclosing that Smee and Smeelgova were his prior accounts -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_openly_discuss_Cirt.27s_past_identity. Recently, Durova introduced evidence in a current arbitration case regarding Cirt's interactions with Jossi, dating back to 2006, when Cirt was editing as Smeelgova. Thus, in addition to the generally objectionable nature of removing significant portions of the talk page history of a user actively editing Wikipedia, these particular talk page deletions hinder the formulation of a response to Durova's own evidence. John254 19:52, 22 December 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. |
Category:Accidental killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) I believe the nominator read consensus when there wasn't. The discussion was split with three for deletion (note that the nominator !voted twice), one clear-cut keep and one comment indicating the category should be kept under a different name. The WP:BLP concerns raised in the nomination are inaccurate, because as long as the accidental death is courced it does not violate the policy any more than any other controversial fact. I believe the CFD should be overturned to no consensus and relisted for rename consideration. Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 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. |
article is NOT advertising Rstephe (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Program For the Future (http://programforthefuture.org was/is not a commercial activity. It is an annual conference and competition to develop collective intelligence tools. All entries are licensed under Creative Commons (CC:BY), the project was organized over the past six months by 8 core planning volunteers (non-paid), the conference realized no profit, and it was supported by additional non-paid volunteers during the event. (Core volunteers: Mei Lin Fung, Eileen Clegg, Valerie Landau, Joel Orr, Rob Stephenson, Sam Hahn, Darla Hewett, and Bob Ketner) The motivation of the organizers is to keep Doug Engelbart's vision, philosophy, and roadmap alive to inspire a new generation of innovators and collaborators. Assertions of "blatant advertising" are conclusions not supported by attempts to contact the organizers or attendees. Please re-instate the page and allow it to evolve. We have requested reinstatement by section administrator Dayewalker, who replied: "This is actually a matter to take to WP:DRV, a post here won't get the deletion overturned. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)" Thank you - Sam Hahn and Rob Stephenson (two of the eight organizers)
|
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. |
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) It is very unwise to close a WP:FRINGE AFD earlier than it should be; of course there's going to be a flood of "Keep, it's notable" because of people wanting their pet theory on Wikipedia. At the very least, this should've run for the full five days. Sceptre (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Endorse closure- Give me a break. The snow was at least a foot deep in that AFD. There was no chance consensus would have changed. And for the record, even though I didn't vote, i would have vote keep. I think the theories are crap, but they're notable enough to have an article on them. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:57, 21 December 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. |
Image was deleted as a result of this PUI Discussion. As the image discussion was closed by the administrator without consensus, I am seeking a wider forum to discuss the free status of this image (I have of course discussed this with the closing administrator). The image in question (for those without access to deleted revisions) is a box of Ex-Lax. The packaging design is extremely simple and non-creative, consisting of nothing but black text on a blue and white background with two red stripes. I feel that this falls under ((PD-textlogo)) (see also Commons licensing guidelines governing products of daily use with a simple design). Furthermore, even if there is sufficient creative intent to attract copyright, ((PD-pre1978)) would apply because there is no copyright notice on the work which was published before 1978. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:19, 21 December 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. |
Ulteo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The only reason I could find for this article's recent deletion was that I had recreated a previously deleted article. Now, while I can certainly understand the rationale of CSD:G4, I don't think it really applies here. As I see it, the main reason for having G4 is to prevent the same user from recreating the same page many times and having to wait through the whole AfD process multiple times, not to delete an article written by a user who wasn't even onWiki during the inital deletion debate.
|
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. |
Doe Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) I feel that this article was deleted rather too speedily based on the grounds of negativity. I spent a considerable amount of time on it, ensuring that the comments made on Doe Run's operations in Peru and the USA were correctly sourced. I would like this article to be reviewed, and, if endorsed, I will merge it with the article on Doe Run Company. I have politely requested the copy from the editor but as yet this has been unforthcoming. Ivankinsman (talk) 11:07, 21 December 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. |
This article was tagged for speedy deletion and promptly deleted without discussion or review. I believe was wrongly placed for speedy deletion and promptly deleted. BlueOregon is an often cited political news blog, used in numerous articles on Oregon politics and elected officials. This is the reason I created the pages, so that it can be the initial page used in numerous citation tags on Oregon elected official and candidate articles. Lestatdelc (talk) 07:34, 21 December 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. |
I think the IFD closer disregarded policy. Other images that were in the IFD and being included in this request are:
I have discussed this with the closing admin. Rockfang (talk) 01:11, 21 December 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. |
Please advise how to undelete BaldwinBros.jpg and my accompanying notes. I thought that I had indicated that this was Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License like my other recent image contributions, but if not, please let me know how to fix this. The Admin who deleted this image (East718) says on his talk page: I am inactive due to health reasons; if you have an urgent inquiry, it's best that you contact another administrator. George Church (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alec_Baldwin_by_David_Shankbone.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beaufelton.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Baldwin_at_the_60th_Academy_Awards_cropped.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Baldwin_LF.jpg George Church (talk) 17:51, 21 December 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. |
Jdimytai Damour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The AfD for this article was pretty divided, without any clear consensus, but it was nevertheless closed as delete. I think the subject is quite notable based on extensive press coverage: Google News currently gives me 3,627 results. (The deleted version of the article can be seen here in my userspace.) Everyking (talk) 07:15, 20 December 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. |
No clear keep for this AfD. At best, no consensus, and likely could/should have been relisted. Attempt to discuss with closing admin resulted in him telling me his views of WP:N and that he ignored both deletes as he felt that "Opinions that are contrary to policy are ignored" in AfD (nevermind that WP:N isn't a policy), despite both deletes clearing noting that they did NOT feel that Weidenbaum meet WP:N. He also incorrectly presumed that my nomination "stems from an apparent misunderstanding of the notability guideline precendence" which it does not. None of the keep votes provided actual sources showing significant coverage of Weidenbaum beyond his name being mentioned in various Viz press releases, etc. Request AfD be reopened or closing summary reevaluated as no consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:30, 20 December 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. |
Hello, I created the article These Are Powers, which was speedy deleted soon afterwards. I know quiet some about the rules on what's relevant and I think this was done a bit too fast. T.A.P. is relevant because it has a neutral bio on allmusic.com (or VH1.com), Dead Oceans is a famous label also hosting The Dirty Projectors, The band recently toured through Europe and also performed at SXSW, Pat Noecker was before in Liars (band), the band produced 2 albums, 3rd one coming out in feb., their 2nd album is being reviewed on Pitchfork Media as a 7.2. I did quiet some research after this band on the internet to compile this article, because I knew so little about their background, so I would like to have it back. In case you are not familiar with noise rock, the band is comparable with bands like Neptune (band), Experimental Dental, No Age Health (band), Pre (band) and other similar bands from NYC for instance the bands mentioned in Todd P's article. It's from that particular scene and not very much more unknown than all the others mentioned there or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_rock#2000s. Hope to have given you some accurate refs to measure with. Can you trace these sources and give me your idea about this? Outdepth (talk) 22:21, 19 December 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. |
I strongly feel that this page should be kept! It was nominated for deletion early on when there wasn't many references etc so the page looked abit blank and users were saying Delete. But after it was cleaned up and made to look professional and had very detailed references, a few users demanded it was kept. Ben has his own page on IMDB and was a character on a television programme so I feel, as well as the other users who wanted it kept, it should stay. From looking at other articles that are nominated for deletion, this page is miles more notable from the others. Some just look boring and have no references whatsoever and yet are still being 'kept'. I strongly recommened this page is looked at again and then un-deleted. Thankyou x CrackersTeam (talk) 18:02, 19 December 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. |
Akiha_Tohno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Insufficient detail elsewhere There was a page on Akiha Tohno (from the Melty Blood spinoff of Tsukihime), but now that article is gone. The article now redirects to List of Tsukihime Characters. The page that existed before was of similar quality and detail to the page that currently exists for Shiki Tohno. I do not know who deleted the Akiha Tohno page or why. I have been unsuccessful in trying to figure this out. What I do know is that the page existed and now it doesn't. I can't even say how long ago it existed as it has been several months since I last looked it up. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Tempest (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2008
|
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. |
There is a lengthy discussion at the nomination, centring on WP:NFCC#8:"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The nominator and closer took a "developed" position on this, claiming that it means (though it clearly does not say) that only critical commentary on the specific work in question would satisfy this criterion. Several other editors took the "means what it actually says" position, also citing in support Wikipedia:Nfc#Images #8 which says: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Those arguing for deletion seemed to disregard this guideline altogether, and further to deny that there was any 'significant increase to readers' understanding' when reading the biography of a painter from seeing an image of their work, or that ommision of such a work was "detrimental". This argument was strongly disputed by editors from the field of the visual arts. There was a large degree of mutual incomprehension between the two groups; one group denying resolutely that an image without specific commentary "would significantly increase readers' understanding" at all, and the visual arts editors mostly flabbergasted by this line of argument. The same issues are raised at this nomination of a Rothko painting. In fact the Katherine Nash article was slightly edited in the course of the discussion, such that the nominator User:PhilKnight came back to say "the article now at least mentions the artwork in the main body of text, which largely overcomes the deletion reasoning". Nonetheless, he did not withdraw it, and the close was as delete regardless. See below for subsequent discussion between the closer and User:Ty. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 18 December 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. |
I came back to Wikipedia after years away to get 3 images deleted[36][37] that I said were my own but were actually not. The 3 copyvios were pictures of pictures and were all fuzzy and low resolution. All of my other images are obviously taken in real life, and you can can tell by the EXIF data. These pictures were all high quality and used in multiple articles. I was trying to make things right now by telling everyone exactly which pictures needed to be deleted. In his rage against me for my insulting of the admin community here [38], Bjweeks got carryed away and deleted every single image I ever uploaded[39]. 98.213.141.241 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If needed for verification, I have the originals (I have uploaded three here [40] ) and other pictures in the series.
|
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. |
Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
|
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. |
Publicity Stunt: The Art Of Noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Jklein212 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC) This page Publicity Stunt: The Art Of Noise was deleted stating that is was "spam." I spoke with RHworth: User_talk:Jklein212. I did post it wrong the first several times, even under the wrong title by accident at first. I am new to wikipedia so I apologize -- but I did read many articles about what to do and what not to do. I feel I followed these instructions closely. My page is about a book that has already received major news headlines to millions of readers, through notable sources, and is not by any means an "advertisement." I ask that you please reconsider this deletion and allow publicity stunt the art of noise to post as many people will find this article helpful. If I did something incorrectly, please either edit that part or delete that part or let me know how to fix it instead of deleting the entire page. As you can see, it has had major news coverage, as I said before, including AOL, The Insider, SOHH, BET, Essence magazine and the author his a very notable publicist within the music industry, as he also belongs to the Associated Press. jklein212 (Talk | 21:15, 17 December 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. |
User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) A page like there are many in Wikipedia, including the user spaces of the commenting users. It violates no policies. There was no consensus to delete, but an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not in the least agree with guido, but the deletion is a clear violation of NOT CENSORED. We follow NPOV about the outside world in article space, and in WP space that applies to views about us as well. DGG (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
See also:
|
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. |
Valid content about an independently verifiable organization. Other similar organizations have nearly identical pages that have not been subject to deletion. Attempts to communicate with the deleting admin have been unsuccessful. Direction on specific changes needed to avoid deletion are welcome. 216.81.78.246 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 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. |
Blue's News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2) Speedy Deletion under A7 not applicable. Bluesnews.com is a very notable PC-Gaming news website with accessible archives dating to 1996. 3rd party references are hard to find because of the common words used in its name. Searching for Blue's News (even in quotes) returns hundreds of thousands of unrelated results and searching for bluesnews.com returns hundreds of thousands of pages linking to Blue's News articles. Due to Blue's News' long history many 3rd party references are likely lost because they existed over 10 years ago. Blue's News is visited and commented on by many industry insiders (developers, producers, marketers, even CEOs) who are verified and given a special green nametag. An example of its prevalence in the PC Gaming industry can be seen in this Game Developer's Forum 2007 video (http://www.gamershell.com/download_19532.shtml) in Budapest where a Crytek representative mentions Blue's News by name (without prior explanation) at 13:44 (video is in Polish language until the end where English is used). The simple nature of Blue's News' design and function (which has barely changed in over 10 years) gives 3rd parties little to mention directly but this does not diminish the site's notability. The same reasons that have kept the Shacknews article from deletion twice can be used to defend Blue's News.
|
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. |
Benjamin M. Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD2) Clearly improper closure of this deletion discussion by User:Jayjg. This offsite copy of the article indicates that all aspects of it were well-sourced, to reliable mainstream media sources, so the claims of WP:BLP violation do not seem to be well founded. This discussion ran for only three days, and was closed by a user who has an extremely strong POV on this and related issues, and has been caught engaging in off-site canvassing. The article should be re-listed, run on AFD for a full five days, and the discussion should be closed by an administrator who has no history of POV-pushing on Middle East related issues. *** Crotalus *** 18:21, 15 December 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article was speedy deleted but Jovanovic is a former footballer who has played professionally in Portugal and SFR Yugoslavia [48]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The entire contents of the deleted article are as follows:
Milić Jovanović (born February 10, 1966 in Belgrade) is a retired Serbian former footballer who played as a goalkeeper.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. |
Hayley williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This page had a discussion back in 2006 that decided that the singer was not notable enough for an encyclopedia article in and of herself, and was thus merged into Paramore. The page is currently protected, meaning recreation is not possible at the moment. However, she has received an avalanche of media attention since then, and is deserving of her own article per WP:BIO.'\ At this point I am going to address the subject's notability completely on her own, ceding the logic that a member of a famous band is not worthy of an article. Evidence of notability:
To be honest, I've been a been surprised and disappointed that I have to bring what I believe to such an obvious case to deletion review and that it could not be settled via a reasoned talk with the protecting administrator. Many editors have attempted to create an article and have discussed its noteworthiness on the talk page, but appear to have been shut out, based on an allusive (and ironic) allusion to consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:01, 15 December 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. |
Sonnal Thaan Kathala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Sonnal Thaan Kathala (means in Tamil "is there love only if expressed[?]") was a 2001 movie produced by actor and producer T. Rajendar. This page got deleted because of vandalism by some editors who moved the page to Sonnal Thaan Karadiya . This was done jokingly because some fans fondly call T. Rajendar as Karadi (bear) because of his personality (Just as how Joseph Vijay is called Illayathalapathi, Ajith Kumar called Ultimate Star and Vadivelu called Vagai Puyal). This movie was not a boxoffice hit, but more of a moderate success. Being a flop does not mean that it is not notable. See Heaven's Gate (film) for a spectacular example. I can bet everybody in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka (as well as Tamils all over) know T. Rajendar and Sonnal Thaan Kathala. The movie was noted for its songs and rhymes by T. Rajendar. To check the authencity of this movie, please goto Google and type in "sonnal thaan kathala" and you'll see thousands of matching results. The main reason it got deleted wass because it was moved to the new page (Sonnal thaan karadiya) which is nonsense. Admin should have reverted to the original page, and removed all the vandalism in the page to bring it to its original, factual nature. Does vandalism warrant deletion? Hence I am here to request this page be restored to its factual content. Everybody here may be westerners, so if you don't know which is vandalism, just revert the page to Sonnal Thaan Kathala and restore its history and I will remove the vandalism. I have watched this movie so I know. Your coorperation is anticipated. Thank you. --118.100.5.238 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
WOW we got a TR fan here selvaraj!! Whys everyone always pickin on TR?? Lolz. You guys are playing with fire. Do you know the consequences if terror rajendran knows about this? please see this - his reaction to a reporter who asked him ‘why other peoples election campaign is always crowded while yours is not crowded’. I can translate some parts for our friends who don’t know tamil. He says ‘didnt you see the crowd in my campaign in Madurai yesterday? you are trying to suppress, oppress and depress the view of the tamilian. Can you prove i got no crowd?! Prove it! I will prove to you using my camera. I don’t buy my crowd with Rs 100 Biryani. My crowd are true supporters. Who ever who says I got no crowd is a blind idiot’.... and he goes on for another 3 minutes ballistic. Imagine if he knows wiki is deleting all his articles. wiki will be next target lolz. And pls don’t think this guy don’t know English. To you Americans or Europeans, try comparing yourself with the benchmark TR English. Okok. lets be serious. Everybody in Tamilnadu and lanka (because he openly support LTTE) know this joker. He is known in Andhra, karnataka and kerala also. Put all together is larger than USA population. Just google his name or his movie you will know how popular he is.--Bhostjuck (talk) 19:48, 17 December 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. |
RFSHQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Really Fun Stuff HeadQuarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The RFSHQ page was originally made in 2005 and deleted with good reason. Since then the website had received huge success, gaining an Alexa rank peaking close to 15,000. They were involved with the immensely popular Free Rider 2 Internet game, partners with a video group (Far From Subtle) after they split from a Viacom-owned website who are now one of the most subscribed on YouTube, and not to mention they shot and produced a short film for the Miniclip.com online community. They also released modifications for a computer game Robot Arena 2 that were the most downloaded mods for the game by a large margin. This was an automatic delete which is obscene and I feel that even though the website is closed the tens of thousands of visitors and fans to the former owners' new projects would be very much interested, along with anyone casually passing by their projects online. Please reconsider this deletion, thank you. The people behind RFSHQ today have done much hard work, and they deserve some form of archival for the future to see. Raptor3 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 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. |
she is listed in all the adult film databases http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=50438 http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=TrinityMorgana/gender=F/trinity-morgana.htm and has been in penthouse plus is a known actress name! I feel this was due to her religious choice or an disgruntled editor/admin and nothing more.I tried to contact deleteing admin but that admin admits to closing their talk page Billmathies (talk) 03:45, 14 December 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. |
Originally survived Deletion debate[65]. Recent DRV was invalid due to inappropriate canvassing on the Wikipedia IRC channel[IRC] Darth Judge (talk) 06:22, 13 December 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. |
I believe that the FindMyPair.com page is appropriate, as it is a valid entirely objective and informative article describing a company listed and recognized as a popular worldwide dating site. It was already approved and modified by an administrator prior to removal by another admin (orangemike) with whom i tried to resolve his issues but he did not help and rather offered frustrating and completely unprofessional reponses - frustrating me in return, and i believe that any problems with the FindMyPair.com page can and should be resolved by the community. Nevertheless, this FindMyPair page adds further depth to Wikipedia by providing readers with a biography of a popular company. The admin who deleted the page has a problem with the credibility of my references, but Modern Elet is a well-established Eastern European review company which does not currently have a website because when reviewing they work with popular established newspapers like 'Nepszabadsag'. With the deletion of FindMyPair.com all other dating site articles (eharmony, match.com etc.) should be deleted, because i honestly cannot find a legitimate explanation for how my article was any different from theirs. Please restore this page, as i tried very hard to make it professional and a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia for enhancing readers' knowledge about the online dating world. I can also find more references if necessary, but the ones i did use in my opinion should be credible enough (although not in the opinion of the admin who deleted the page, he clearly was not familiar enough with the reference to devalue its credibility as he so rudely did). Royalblue1 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 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. |
List of fictional governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This is a case where many of the delete arguments cited WP:NOT without explaining how that policy applied to this page. The closer on his talk page, also seemed to think WP:NOT applied but did not explain how, and also said that "sourcing issues" outweight the good-faith keep arguments, but as a list of fictional elements, all of them can be sourced to the work of fiction they appear in (and there was no evidence that any of the fictional governments in listed the article did not indicate a notable work of fiction in which it appeared). An extremely similar list, List of fictional military organizations, was closed as no consensus with nearly the exactly the same delete and keep arguments being made. This should also have been closed as no consensus, as per deletion policy and the deletion guide for administrators, which essentially says not to delete when there is no clear consensus to delete based in policy. DHowell (talk) 06:43, 12 December 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. |
List of longest-lasting empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This orignally seemed headed for a snowball delete, but I felt the delete arguments were flawed and gave my detailed keep rationale which I believe refuted the delete arguments. The admin originally closed this early just one minute after my argument, but he was kind enough to re-open to give my argument further consideration. After this, two more keep arguments were made and no further delete arguments. He then closed again as delete. On his talk page, he stated that he closed because the good-faith delete comments were "in greater quantity" and had "more support" but at the same time says he was not counting votes. Keep arguments were also made in good-faith and based in policy and guidelines, and not refuted by those arguing to delete, and no one argued to delete after the keep arguments were made, so this should have been closed as "no consensus". I'm certain the closer acted in good faith, but not properly in accordance with deletion policy and the deletion guide for administrators, which essentially says not to delete when there is no clear consensus to delete based in policy. DHowell (talk) 06:32, 12 December 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. |
Furtherfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) article rewritten to address the reasons for original deletion; the rewritten article is here. Frock (talk) 03:50, 12 December 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. |
Weak majority was for keep. Deletionists failed to convince me (and possibly others) that the subject is non-notable. Decision to delete seems informed more by vanity issues (subject is meat/sock puppeteering etc) rather than actual sourcing of notability, which should be the sole criteria. There are subjects less notable in wikipedia that have survived AfD where the majority were for delete. I think result should have been no consensus and that at least the closing admin was mistaken in ignoring majority opinion without explanation. Cerejota (talk) 06:43, 11 December 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. |
Has now played football professionally (http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=49805). Now meets point 1 of this criteria. CumbrianRam (talk) 01:11, 11 December 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. |
Rio (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) No References Hi. I would like to revert deletion of this article. The relevance of the band throughout my country is evident. If you can't find any references, I could provide them. Please let me know what more steps to follow in order to get the article back. Armando 200.37.120.18 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 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. |
No clear consensus to delete and, in fact, to me it looked like a clear no consensus as this former featured article had survived at least four AfDs prior. Not only does there seem to be an active number of editors working on the article but the main concern was sourcing which was directly addressed at the AfD as well. -- Banjeboi 17:40, 9 December 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. |
The article was deleted last month following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Castillion, because Daley Blind hadn't played an official match for Ajax yet. Daley Blind has made his debut in last Sunday's league match against FC Volendam, so he now meets WP:ATHLETE. Aecis·(away) talk 12:41, 9 December 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. |
Gear4music.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The page was deleted on 5th December 2008 and then again on December 8th 2008 after I had made several changes to the page to ensure it fitted the guidelines of Wikipedia more accurately. I have spoken with two administrators about the deletion and both have recommended me submitting the page to deletion review. As stated, I made changes to the page to ensure it was wholly neutral and objective. I do not believe that it is accurate to delete the page due to a lack of notability. Gear4music.com is very well known amongst UK (and some European based) musicians, and has a well regarded reputation locally. The company is a dealer for many very well known brands, and is one of only 12 UK dealers for Gibson guitars and one of only a handful in the UK for Fender guitars – these companies are the biggest worldwide guitar manufacturers. I believe that the company is notable in the music and musical instruments sector, and that its notability should not be in question simply because this sector does not have the mass appeal of companies retailing books, DVDs, clothes etc… I created the page in line with two pages from the same sector:
I feel that as these pages have not been deleted, a page on Gear4music.com is as viable as any other. Jmeager (talk) 11:38, 9 December 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. |
The Sports Development Foundation Scotland page has been deleted can you explain why this has happened and have it reinstated. I tried to read the copyright information with regard to the charities Logo and I am unaware of how to give copyright to have the logo displayed on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ballantine (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 December 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. |
User:Bjweeks deleted my personal image without an IFD or even a speedy. My image has been proposed for deletion before and survived the debate: [75] Having a signature in an image is not a reason for speedy deletion.-- --(U | T | C) 04:19, 9 December 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. |
SPoT Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Page was deleted on November 27, 2008 due to questioning of its notability. It is my feeling that the page in question was no less notable than that of any coffeehouse articles. Some examples: I believe the article should be reinstated because this company is well known to both locals and visitors, has been prominently featured in several newspaper articles, and has won several awards as "best coffee" in regional coffee contests. Being a top regional attraction for locals and tourist coffee lovers alike, an article should exist to inform people who are interested in its history, services, and future plans. The company is also expanding locations to areas outside Western New York, including Rochester and Toronto and soon to more locations around Canada and the United States (it was mentioned in the article that 37 new SPoT Coffee locations in the United States and Canada are planned to be in production by 2012.) I am working on an improved version of the original article in my sandbox: While the original may not have stated the exact reason for the article's notability and may have exhibited some qualities of advertising, I believe this improved article clearly states the notability of this company and why it is worthy to have an article in Wikipedia. --Megan Owczarzak (talk) 01:34, 9 December 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. |
Simon Chorley Art & Antiques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The firm represents the only example you have of a provincial auctioneer. The firm is of long standing and a leader in its field. The content was intended to reflect the same format as the International Auctioneers, ie Christies and Sothebys already listed and approved. I would like it reinstated therefore, after I have corrected any errors pointed out to me. I would like to see a temporary version of the article, which reflected a tremendous amount of effort, inorder to carry out those corrections as and when I receive the same. Thank you. TAS06 (talk) 13:33, 8 December 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. |
Qualification for tournament already started and tournament starts on July 2009 Chupu (talk) 08:05, 8 December 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. |
This game actually has gained enough visibility for clones to be produced, two of which have their own Wikipedia articles (XMoto and Bike or Die). I missed the original prod on account of being away, and did not contact the deleting administrator because he/she has a vacation message on the talk page. Eldar (talk) 22:32, 7 December 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. |
This image was the logo of WikiProject Xbox from February 2008 to April 15th 2008. Bringing this case to deletion review was supported by Penubag. We receive many complements about the logo when it was up. But then Anetode requested it for deletion. It was a 4 to 1 consensus when Lewis Collard! determined it as keep. but then Anetode requested it get re-opened and then it got deleted by Durin. Here is an example of what the logo looked like.[81] The 'X' in the background is a genetric X which is ineligible for copyright which was confirmed by Anetode.[82] The circles are also ineligible because according to is passage. Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo[83]. BW21.--BlackWatch21 21:48, 7 December 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. |
Often cited reliable source for other Wikipedia articles If you look more closely you will be able to confirm that it is the publisher of many of the reliable sources cited in many other Wikipedia articles. It is to be expected that cites to a publisher will be cites to its publications more than to the organization itself. I argue that cites to the publications of an organization count as cites to the organization for Wikipedia purposes. As for copyright violation, the Liberty Fund website only asserts a copyright on its print editions. For its online materials, as well as the website itself, it grants permission to copy for nonprofit purposes. See the following quote as an example:
Uncoverer (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I found evidence that FisherQueen agreed was what she was asking for. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncoverer#AfD_nomination_of_Liberty_Fund . I have removed the copyright violation and am now ready to re-create the article. Please unblock it. Uncoverer (talk) 01:29, 8 December 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. |
Fábio Pereira da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
Updating the situation. The long and short of it is that this is an article on a football/soccer player who plays for Manchester United, one of the biggest teams in the world, but has not yet made an appearance outside of a friendly due to injury. I have created a new article incorporating three references, thus satisfying WP:N. I point out that WP:ATHLETE, which is the guideline the article previously failed, notes that satisfying WP:N is also acceptable in lieu of WP:ATHLETE, so merely failing WP:ATHLETE is not sufficient for deletion when WP:N is satisfied, as it now is. I also point out that he competed for Brazil in the Under-17 World Cup, which satisfies the "people who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport" requirement of WP:ATHLETE. There is, in other words, no policy that this article comes close to failing, and it ought not be re-deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 7 December 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. |
ThatGuyWithTheGlasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2) (AfD3) Two AfD's rife with flimsy keep arguments and single purpose accounts were closed as no consensus, ignoring that the delete voters made better, policy based arguments. Article still lacks a single reliable source. Additionally, due to it being spaced differently, participants were apparently unaware of this old AfD on the same subject, which closed as a delete. The admin who closed the latest AfD has a fancy "wizard" on his talk page that tells you not to talk to him about his AfD closures and to bring it here (seriously), so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow you people take this way too seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.124.228 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 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. |
User:Akanemoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) I create this page. This page include many pages and revisions. I want to see the pages. please restorning. --Akanemoto (talk) 06:52, 6 December 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. |
Page was kept due to popular vote, not consensus. None of the arguments which countered the Keep votes were addressed, merely ignored. The discussion did not attract enough users for a consensus. I move to either overturn the decision or relist the article for deletion and expand the discussion. Closing admin has no talk page, merely a link to deletion review. ScienceApe (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
quite a few of the contributers who voted "Keep" were Jewish WTF!? Not only is this proposal for deletion absurd, but ScienceApe's standing is near zero if not less than zero after this statement. Close the deletion review already. Arguments for deleting the article mostly boil down to opposition to the theory (which I agree is pretty weak) rather than notability. CAVincent (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) - After cooling down, I realize I was overly sensitive here and owe ScienceApe an apology for the personal attack (re: his standing). I'd remove it, but then part of his response wouldn't make sense. CAVincent (talk) 03:44, 8 December 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. |
Scripps Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Page was deleted citing G11. It is my feeling that the page in question was no more advertising that that of any of our local competitors: Or, for that matter, any other article on Wikipedia about a healthcare organization. Original article was created by members of the community and should thus be reinstated. I also feel that the former Scripps Health page did a good job in representing our organization's dedication to our community, our mission and our deep history. Issue was discussed at length with responsible admin to no avail. Markle1111 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 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. |
Xdelta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) I'm asking to undelete article about Xdelta tool from http://xdelta.org or you can create new article. Reasons are simple:
In short I see no need to deny Wikipedia visitors from rights to have this knowledge. I can see some benefits from this article for everyone interested in delta compression topic. The only persons who will really benefit from this deletion are manufacturers of commercial tools with same functionality who are surely interested to hide such knowledge as far as possible. 91.78.236.168 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 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. |
Kink.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This article was deleted by User:Orangemike under CSD criterion A7: 'doesn't assert importance or significance'. I would argue that the previous article did that; here is a cached version of the deleted page: [94]. It includes in-depth references from reliable sources such as the New York Times[95], the San Francisco Chronicle[96], the Village Voice[97] and 7x7 Magazine[98]. This article would arguably have passed AFD, had it been submitted. It may be on a topic distasteful to some (the website is a publisher of fetish pornography), but it definitely meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Hollis Mason (talk) 04:22, 5 December 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. |
Argument by analogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (RfD) The redirect is destructive, since it implies that there is already an article for "argument by analogy" and thus decreases its chances of being created as a separate article. Argument by analogy and false analogy are not necessarily the same thing. The discussion page shows that another user has also been frustrated by the redirect, during his attempt to learn about argument by analogy. I argued to remove the redirect and found that "the result of the debate was Keep" because I stopped arguing and lost by default. B. Wind's "argument" ("we are left with two options: either deletion or keeping the redirect. Clearly the latter is the better option. . . there is no valid reason to delete the redirect right now") is merely an expression of opinion that cites no reasoning behind it, and Rossami's reply is actually an argument to keep the page history, but similarly makes no attempt to justify the opinion that the redirect should stay. Neither B. Wind nor Rossami say anything to refute my reasoning to remove the redirect Minaker (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that "the weight of the arguments favored keep" unless by "weight" you mean "number of"; as I have noted, most of the "arguments" in favor of keep were not arguments at all, just expressions of opinion not backed up by any attempt of justification. In any case, it's moot now, because there is now a section on argument by analogy! Not its own article, but its own section, sure enough! Thank you Suntag, honest to God, you're my hero of the day, I've been trying to get this topic recognition for too long now! Thanks, Suntag! a very happy Minaker (talk) 22:49, 4 December 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. |
The articles for The Mary Pearl Willis Foundation and Lela Howard restored to user:Dembravesfans, so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.Dembravesfans 19:22, 3 December 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. |
Jack Schaap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This page was deleted on April 18, 2007, almost two years ago, and salted from creation. I have now created a full length, non-stub, referenced, notability-establishing article in my sandbox here. I would like to have the page unprotected so I can move the article that is in my sandbox, as it is quite notable, into the Jack Schaap article. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 21:27, 3 December 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. |
|
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. |
Bad Faith & very Disparaging Nomination. Charges of "useless" & "unmaintainable list of indiscriminate information" were completely unfounded. Undue weight was given to "delete" (without reasonings) & "delete per nom" !votes. Lack of any reasoning has led to further discussions on closing admins Talk page Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:21, 3 December 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. |
(({no consensus))} Apovolot (talk) 04:21, 3 December 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. |
July 29 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Overturn: In this AfD, I believe there was a consensus to delete but the closing admin closed it with a no consensus because he said as we weren't trying to get the article deleted, but trying to reorganize it, so it wasn't deleted. I feel like this call was made in error and deleting the articles would be best way to "reorganize" as it is just a bunch of trivia. The closing admin also has to keep in mind that this nomination was in good faith, and I don't find it to be flawed in any way. I saw an article that could use deletion, and I used AfD. Simple as that.Tavix (talk) 00:11, 3 December 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. |
PART One of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Two of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Three of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Four of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Five of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Six of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Seven of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Eight of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Nine of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) These are very important topics related to the Constitution of India and I am requesting the Admins to restore them. Thank you.Sumanch (talk) 06:34, 3 December 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. |
majority of users seem to want this category page as a subcategory page for Category:African American sportspeople. The later cat page is incredibly long and subcategory page improves navigating. Moreover, there is Category:African American baseball players - it seems unfair to have one and not the other. The argument that African American baseball players of the first half of the 20th century have had historic significance but African American basketball players (like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Michael Jordan have not, apparently) seems rather too POV. There are others too in the same boat, one for each of the major sports Category:African American boxers, Category:African American professional wrestlers, Category:African American track and field athletes, Category:African American soccer players, Category:African American tennis players, Category:African American American football players, Category:African American Canadian football players (this last one was not even a recreation) all have been speedily deleted (almost as if to avoid discussion) despite their being able to be well-populated. I can see however with sports where there has been only one or two African American sportspeople, not wanting a subcat page (I don t know, like for dart players or nascar drivers or something). Mayumashu (talk) 20:50, 2 December 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. |
From my talk page:
As this image has already been deleted twice, I'm bringing it here as I do not see that the user's claim to ownership of a newspaper photo can be substantiated without further proof. If he is the owner of the image he would have the non-newspaper version, which could easily be uploaded in place of this. As the newspaper photo is cropped, there is no 'byline' to determine who or what entity is credited for the photo. A quick search of the Reno Gazette-Journal site did not yield any results. I don't feel that without further substantiation of the claim to ownership that the image should be restored. Skier Dude (talk) 19:46, 2 December 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. |
Requesting a history undeletion. Previously requested history-only undelete seems to be unfulfilled. Request was made a few months ago, but since a COI tag has been posted, the edit history of this article before its deletion is now very relevant Kei-clone (talk) 03:21, 2 December 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. |
Steve Dillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Premature. Not sufficient discussion. The AfD should have been re-listed to attract additional eyeballs and discussion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 2 December 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. |
Concerning the proposed deletion of Cost per Day. I have zero connection to this company and in no way was trying to promote their products or services. I am a surveyor of the Digital Signage industry as a whole and find their approach mathematical, analytical and scientific and I wanted to share that with others here on wikipedia, in a attempt to see if others would add their knowledge about the algorithmic formula they employ. Please restore. thank you. Joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrubenstein76 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 December 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. |
Apocrypha_Discordia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AFD2) Out of process closure by User:Aervanath (now an admin). The consensus was nowhere near what he did: restore the version that somehow was kept two years ago. Furthermore, the sources in the old AfD do not stand up to scrutiny as WP:RS, and the article lacks inline citations. I ask for the AfD to be reopened, because several editors !voted delete. Also, the relevant notability guideline, WP:BK, did not even exist in May 2006, so closing "per previous AfD" is just ignoring the community consensus that has emerged in this area in the mean time. Pcap ping 01:16, 1 December 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. |
Category:United States Senate candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) Category:United States House of Representatives candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) These two categories were deleted today based on a CFD from early 2007 - presumably after the 2006 elections were all squared away. There were very few articles about failed candidates which merited survival, so those articles probably were AFD'd and the categories were no longer needed. But as the 2008 election cycle approached, the categories were both created and well used. And now that the 2008 elections are over, there are several articles this time which will survive deletion. So the categories should survive, too. Frankly, I think a CFD discussion could have been merited instead of the speedily deletion today. In fact, there was a related CFR discussion which mentioned the Reps category here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 14.)) —Markles 00:28, 1 December 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. |
List of Universal Century technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The closing admin ignored the on going discussion and used his/her own view on the topic to close the AfD process. The admin also listed a secondary sources as primary based on lack of knowledge on the topic and possibly ABF on keepers. Extra sources are now also listed in talk page of AfD MythSearchertalk 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)