|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
i think i got this right. it doesnt look like there was any consensus to delete the bumblefoot page, and the merge that was done removed almost all information. it also looks like the debate was confused as there were a lot of things being discussed and it was not clear what the feelings were. i think this should be undeleted or at least relisted and posted to the music deletion discussion page since i dont think any real consensus was reached. as far as i know this guy was famous before gnr and is very notable. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 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. |
I discovered the deletion when I searched WP for MogileFS after reading This cnet.co.uk article, which quotes last.fm's head of Web development about their use of MogileFS, That quote that in combination with comments during the deletion discussion suggest that MogileFS is notable and it was a bit hasty to delete the article. Thanks. 67.100.125.142 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 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. |
Endorse close and deletion The closing comments are exactly correct. The article was not reporting fact, but rather drawing conclusions and analyzing text. This is explicitly out of bounds for Wikipedia, as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No one opposing the deletion even attempted to show that it was anything other than OR and SYNTH, and arguments that the material already existed in other articles are irrelevant. If such is the case, they should be removed from those articles as well (see [3] and [4]). The answer to a violation of Wikipedia policies is not more violations in the same vein. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:24, 2 December 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. |
Overwhelming majority of keep not-votes on AfD. Keep voters gave actual policy reasons, while all delete votes were variants on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Closing admin seems to have acted in terrible faith to ignore the content of discussion and simply delete on his own prejudices. LotLE×talk 03:34, 30 November 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. |
This article was deleted with the reason "no sources and no notability". However, the corresponding article on zhwiki provides sources enough. Liangent (talk) 10:30, 27 November 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. |
this is a credible bio of armando gutierrez an important figure in hispanic politics Mrflpolitico (talk) 06:35, 27 November 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. |
Two decent sources presented in the AfD (the first two), and plenty of evidence of RS usage here. Not an especially well discussed AfD (a tad aggressive, actually) and virtually no discussion of the sources presented. I think a reaonable article,that far exceeds a dicdef can be made of a curious expression. Dweller (talk) 12:35, 26 November 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. |
SphereMania as a trademark holder is being misrepresented by this article 80.247.81.101 (talk) 10:58, 26 November 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. |
Since the article was deleted, more reliable reviews of the book have been found, making the book meet WP:BK#1. The closing administrator when approached about undeleting the page advised me that he felt it would be safer to seek a more binding decision via DRV. Malkinann (talk) 21:27, 25 November 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. |
More information present Hello, this would be my first time doing this so I really don't know much, but I would like to have a review on the deletion of the page, Black Veil Brides. I believe when the article was deleted, around September 2009, it was more appropriate as the band wasn't really known then, but I believe now this band is more known, especially after signing with Standby Records, with the news from the website's news section here: Standby Records signs Black Veil Brides, and their numerous YouTube videos, one of which can be seen here: Black Veil Brides "Knives and Pens" music video with over 2 million views at the time this appeal was made. I think this is subject enough to appeal the deletion of this page. cypherninja (talk) 19:46, 25 November 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. |
Administrator closed after only one day, based on the weight of older AFD for article years ago. I did discuss it on his talk page. [10] he suggesting a deletion review. Three AFD done in 2006, and one in 2007, should have no "weight" in deciding to ignore the proper process, and speedy close an AFD in November of 2009. Dream Focus 17:36, 25 November 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. |
This template was made to handle BLP concerns after discussions in May 2008 about how to handle the 900 Guantanamo detainees, many of whom had POV tags on their biographies because wayward editors would either write about the "terrorists faced a fair trial" or "poor innocents were raped by George Bush" (okay, not quite). So talking with Wikiproject:Templates, Wikiproject:Terrorism and a couple others, it was decided this made a compelling argument for WP:IAR, the official policy of If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It was proposed for deletion and closed as Keep in June (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_2#Template:CSRT-Yes), then renominated for deletion again in September and closed as "Substitute and Delete". However, the gargantuan task of deciding on proper wording, substituting it into all articles' prose, and somehow keeping it watchlisted to avoid partisan vandalism in the future was never tackled, never even started. So two months later, I spoke to the closing admin and he said "...If you would like to have the decision changed to "keep" since no consensus can be reached, then please feel free to start a thread at WP:DRV. I can see both sides of the argument (for and against deletion), and it won't bother me if my decision is overturned. Thank you for contacting me first, and let me know if this sounds like an acceptable resolution." I left similar messages for the other admins involved in the template's status, (User_talk:Nihonjoe#Template:CSRT-Yes and User_talk:JPG-GR/Archive_11#Template:CSRT-Yes), but neither of them responded in any fashion, or showed any continued interest. So on the advice of the closing administrator, I am moving this to DRV and requesting that the decision be changed to "keep" (to which he has no objection) to reflect the fact he (and we) now realise two months later that it is not possible to properly enact his original suggestion of Substitute and Delete, and in keeping with the earlier Keep decisions. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:17, 25 November 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. |
I first enquired with Admin RHaworth if the article 1E could be unprotected so that a new article could be created containing informative / non commercial information about the company 1E. I was not aware that as an employee of the company I was not allowed to create an information page, RHaworth informs me this is a CIO. I was attempting to create a company information page similar to Microsoft and BigFix for example. Please can my user page be undeleted and the 1E article be unprotected so that someone external to the company can create the article? Thank you Michellehazelton (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for tidying things up and pointing out where the article was moved to. As i'm sure you have gathered I am new to editing in wikipedia. You say you were nearly inclined to unprotect 1E. Apologies I am a little lost, are you going to unprotect 1E? Thanks from the humble newbie. 82.110.120.98 (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I will look into your suggestions. 82.110.120.98 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 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. |
At issue here are two questions: 1) In what circumstances, and on what grounds, can a local consensus at an AfD overrule a global consensus in the form of a guideline? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the local consensus at the AfD should prevail over the guideline, which was in this case WP:CLN, and I will not deny that this is an arguable case. But I think that if the guideline at issue was WP:N, it would have been enforced. 2) To what extent, if any, were the earlier contributions to this AfD refuted by the later ones? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the earlier contributions were not substantially refuted in later discussion, and I am curious to see whether DRV participants will agree. I want to say that I usually agree with Cirt's closures, and for such a prolific closer we see relatively little of him here; I raise this DRV in a spirit of respect for his many excellent closes.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:06, 24 November 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. |
One vote was cast to delete in what was a name change proposal. I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. But those that worked for Barnum are NOT overcategorized. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 24 November 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. |
I voted on this AfD and stated "weak keep" as a joke. This is irresponsible and I assume full responsibility for my bad judgement. The only other vote on there was a "delete". We never established the notability of this article (because it simply is not there). This article should have been deleted. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:38, 24 November 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. |
The deletion discussion took place in 2007 with the concern that he was a minor league wrestler that didn't pass WP:GNG. It was recreated several times, and I, myself, deleted the page in April 2008. It was later salted by Akradecki. However, it is November 2009 now, and I believe that he now passes WP:ATHLETE. He has made numerous pay-per-view appearances for Ring of Honor (arguably the number one independent professional wrestling promotion) and Dragon Gate USA, as well as several lesser known independent promotions where he also held titles. Within the former promotions, he has had championship matches for the ROH Tag Team Championship and will compete in a tournament at the end of this month to determine the fist holder of the DGUSA Open the Freedom Gate Championship. All of this, I believe, meets the People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport requirement. It could also meet the Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions requirement of WP:ENT, as professional wrestlers are really a combination of the two. I've made a very rough article at User:Nikki311/sandbox, but didn't want to move it to mainspace without permission from the salting admin. I tried to contact Akradecki about unsalting the page, but he/she has not be active for awhile and never replied to my comments. Nikki♥311 21:57, 23 November 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. | ||
I see 5 keep requests and 4 delete requests, yet the article was still removed. The delete requests were made by JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and Theserialcomma, plus Miami33139 who raised the AfD who are all clearly involved in a case against tothwolf, which is clearly a COI and does not assume good faith to those impartial to this case. If these were ignored, the article would have been kept. Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 23 November 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. |
The subject is an accomplished and well-cited journalist and tv personality. The article was completely rewritten since the first deletion to include legitimate references, yet I feel it was deleted because such differences were not noted by the deleting party Karpaydm (talk) 05:49, 23 November 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. |
Vijinfrugal (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Recently a wikipedia article with the title Urbanfrugalchic.com has been deleted by administrators. The reason they suggested was lack of notability.Actually the article was a description about two noted people Cynthia childs and Khristal Jones who run a corporation called Urbamfrugalchic media. They have a website blog with regular updates on various frugal living styles which is liked by many people.I made several discussions but the administrators denied the restoration of the article. I request to reconsider the decision and restore the article. The article is only for general publicity of the people behind it and not for any product or blog promotion. Vijinfrugal (talk) 15:34, 22 November 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. |
There were no !votes either way and per WP:RELIST such a discussion should either be relisted or kept as a no consensus result. When I raised the issue with the closing admin, he indicated that he felt the discussion was enough to form consensus, so we're here. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 22 November 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. |
I'm having a hard time understanding why this page was deleted. I didn't comment at the AFD myself, if only because when I looked at it, based on policy and knowing that it was thoroughly well-sourced, it was a clear WP:SNOW keep, but apparently the AFD was held open a few extra days just so a thin number of !votes could ve aquired to make it a delete, despite WP:NOT#Democracy. The closing admin admits as much during his explanation to another user for the delete[33]. It's fairly obviously notable; multiple articles show up mentioning the site on Google news in only the last month[34] Kendrick7talk 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the total vote count, I see an even split (sort of). There are four delete votes (JBsupreme, GlassCobra, Juliancolton, and Brandon) and four keep votes (AslamKarachiwala, Tim Vickers, Finell, and Northwestgnome), however I think it's important to note that one of the keep votes seems to be a single-purpose account (see Special:Contributions/AslamKarachiwala). While we can (and should) assume good faith regarding this account, I think it's fair to give its vote a bit less weight, which puts the argument slightly in favor of deletion. GlassCobra's vote in particular resonated with me when reading through the debate. There seem to be passing references to the product in the media, but very little independent pieces covering it. The notability issues combined with the slightly lean toward delete made me comfortable enough to close the debate as "delete."
Overturn to no consensus. That's what the discussion indicates and if anything the keep arguments are stronger. There was no consensus to delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 25 November 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. |
There exists a official chart, just look at the es.wiki Chile Top 20, so there's need to restore this category, also, A Little Less Conversation by Elvis Presley vs. JXL was the first #1 single. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 19:08, 21 November 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. |
The closing admin did not address the arguments for deletion. Rovea (talk) 16:24, 21 November 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. |
I think the administrator closing the debate and deleting the article interpreted the debate incorrectly - "The majority of editors in this discussion favoured keeping this article" but he argued they lacked a compelling rationale, relying mostly on WP:ITSNOTABLE. I dissagree and believe there was sufficient evidence to indicate the notability of the articles subject: Matthew Watson. The article included links to his large number of publications which are well cited.- his books published by leading academic publishers some of his articles in the leading journals in his area (IPE). Arguments for deletion also included substantial inaccuracies which were not addressed during the closure:
I think these arguments were wrong.
Support, even proposal, for deletion might well have been based on inaccurate information (the proposer for deletion thought he was not a professor and argued incorrectly against having Watson's professorship acknowledged) and deletion itself might have been based partly on this. The deleting administrator kindly restored the page to my user space where it has been worked on and in my view improved User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson with even more evidence of the notability of the subject being indicated. I would like this version restored to the main space if it is deemed OK. The deleting administrator has been contacted and the issue discussed at length but they still feel that there is insufficient evidence of notability. User talk:Skomorokh#Matthew Watson User talk:Skomorokh#User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson. Msrasnw (talk) 15:31, 21 November 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. |
Speedy deletion not warranted on a notability question BRG (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC) This page was tagged for speedy deletion and deleted before I even saw the message on my talk page that it wa tagged. Apparently the reason was a supposed non-notability, which would usually allow the courtesy of discussing it. The company has released a lot of albums which have been considered worthy of Wikipedia articles, and a cursory check of :What links here" would show that. So the notability question should not even have been raised. -- BRG (talk) 14:38, 21 November 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. |
Inappropriate, out of process deletion by Altenmann. The page was previously redirected as a likely search term. The deletion log claims it was an expired prod but it was not. Seems to be related to these AfD's the deleting admin just initiated: [41] [42] [43] [44]
|
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. |
Dorian Davis' Wikipedia article was deleted two years ago, and since he has gained more notability and I would like an opportunity to improve the article. I have collected some references. Feel free to review my contributions and user page. Dan LeveilleTALK 02:53, 20 November 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. |
Inappropriate THIRD Close while discussion was ongoing. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Endorse closure. This was a reasonable interpretation of the discussion at RFD, and within the closing admin's discretion. There has been no change in status, the argument in favor of the BLP violation was always based on opinions. Consensus has been to wait for the determination of the FBI or other investigating authorities. ~YellowFives 11:48, 27 November 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. |
Please consider restoring this page. It happened that the only article regarding this particular programming technique has been removed. This topic is not being covered in related wikipedia pages. It was useful despite the term wasn't widely known. We don't have better name anyway and this is alone is not good enough reason for deleting a useful article. Content of this article hasn't been transferred/migrated to Ajax article as it has been proposed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AJAST_(programming) Shouldn't we have more opinions for removing a page? I believe this one has been deleted too quick so it might be a good idea to give people enough time to object in order to prevent removing of something useful. Thanks. |
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 CfD was closed with "no consensus" for a second time. The original attempt to not merge these categoires has failed, ie that they are routinely removed from the parent category in favor of the -only category which one of one core arguments for the first CfD. On addition, while discussing this CfD efforts independent of this CfD were also in heavily support in WT:VG at removing -only games from list pages because of its trivial nature and imo none of those people, for whatever reason, participated in this discussion, but rather instread only those who were on one side, save Miremare who had previously supported their merger. I therefore believe the interests of keeping the seperate -only categorizations goes against the more general consensus of the community as a non-trivial aspect. 陣内Jinnai 22:35, 19 November 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. |
AfD was closed as no consensus, defaulting to delete. I don't believe there is consensus for such a close. Closing admin politely directed me here[51]. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 19 November 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. |
Some of the world's foremost veterinary and animal science experts have helped establish Pet Tao Pet Foods and their products. The Chi Institute and Dr. Huisheng Xie from China have been instrumental in the formation of Pet-Tao Pet Foods, which combines both Western and Eastern veterinary and medical science principles. The company is helping animals live healthier, longer lives. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, an objective response. Amazing. First, I am experienced editor- more than two years on wiki. No one mentioned the article sentence which is not neutral, which I would have immediately taken out, and which should not have been in the original article. SMarshall, that is the only sentence like that; it was an oversight and should not be there. You make it sound like the article had other biased sentences. The only thing I have gotten is hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article. They are not following wikipedia policy (deletion policy; see below), and who have been hostile to this page. There 67 pet food brands who have pages on wikipedia. Pet-Tao Pet Foods is more notable and noteworthy than many of the brands. Pet-Tao is innovative and actually revolutionary. I have no connection to this company. The company is helping animals live longer, healthier lives. Just like the other 66 pet food brands who have pages on Wikipedia, Pet-Tao deserves to have a page. I have fully followed all policies and the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia policy, mission and purpose. I have repeatedly been attacked, and my work has repeatedly been attacked against Wikipedia policy, which explicitly states there should be 7 days of discussion about article deletion, followed by a ruling about the article based on a consensus. This policy has not been followed, and I request that it is followed in this case. I also request that those who belligerent and hostile tone down their attacks and focus on the issue at hand. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
To Tan, I apologize for any negativity. It was not directed at you. This situation is unfair and unjust. I feel strongly I am in the right. I now realize there are a small group of volunteers who make it their mission to 'win at all costs' rather than deal with the issues at hand. Life is too short to waste it on these people. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
For the record, in this discussion, there are two editors against, one for, one who has presented for and against statements (SMarshall), and one administrator involved. Of the two editors against, one almost makes no sense. Some others have come in late to endorse without being a part of the discussion. SMarshall brought up the only legitimate issue, which was agreed with and which can be easily corrected (neutrality). I wish you all the best. Please forgive me for any statements that have come across as negative. To all of you, best wishes and blessings. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you're classifying my arguments as "making almost no sense," but what I was trying to get at is that blatant advertising (which I what I deemed the cache version of this article) is not allowable. Blatant advertising is a condition for speedy deletion. Speedily deleted articles do not need to be discussed before being deleted--that is well established. I endorsed the deletion of this article because I thought it met the criteria for speedy deletion (blatant advertising). There could be 1,000 articles about pet food companies, and still it would not make any difference, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are discussing this article, not any others. In short, I based my endorsement of this deletion entirely on policy (as always) rather than gut feelings or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me, it wasn't just "one sentence" that I considered advertising--much of it was, in my opinion. Hopefully, in writing this response, I am not showing "hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article" --I always try to assume good faith, I hope other editors do, too. I'm merely trying to do what I think is best for the project, holding policies in consideration and as my foundation. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 20:16, 19 November 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. |
I dispute the closing admin's claim of consensus to merge. He himself states that the difference between the support for keep vs. that for merge was marginal. Therefore it is my view that the correct closure would be no consensus. I believe this dispute to be significant because as a result of his actions the article has an afd-merge tag on it stating that the afd said to merge. Yet the lack of consensus requires further discussion - which he himself states; the tag undermines that further discussion by presenting the proposal to merge as a fait-accomplis. I don't have the authority to remove such a tag, and he refuses to do so. He suggests I list the matter here. Therefore I propose that the so-called result be overturned and changed to no consensus. Newman Luke (talk)
|
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. |
These were speedy deleted even though it didn't meet any speedy criteria. It was admitted by the deleting admin that he deleted them per his own belief of what should be speedy deleted or not. I would like these to be restored and taken to AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 19 November 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. |
Speedily deleted with the reason stated: "This page is a copyright violation--as a letter from him personally, it is not a work of the US government, and it is far too long to be a fair use quotation" the page is not copyright violation: only the complete text of the letter is. Therefore the reason of CSD is invalid. The article, however brief, must be judged by its own merits: the letter gained much publicity and certainly a notable one among other Reagan's correspondence, since it declares a major change in his life. At worst, its content may be merged somewhere. Please see also the discussion about an attempted deletion of the photocopy of the letter in commons for further considerations. - Altenmann >t 00:32, 19 November 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. |
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate page since the interpretation of the closer at AfD was merge but I think it was interpreted incorrectly so in case this is the correct venue I'm posting it here. I tried to ask the closer his/her rationale but my question sat on his/her page for a week with no response and then was automatically archived. My interpretation of the discussion was that verifiability was the main criterion for consensus. I was the only one in the entire discussion to cite a reliable verifiable source in support of a position, my claim being that siling labuyo is distinct from Thai pepper. Because of this I feel merge was the wrong conclusion and "keep as is" the correct one. However the person who nominated for deletion and made only claims by assertion throughout took the close and decision to merge as leave to merge the contents into a new article Bird's eye chili. I think the resulting article is factually incorrect and the concern seems shared by others. I would reverse the merge or at least restore the siling labuyo article as it was to correct this but it would seem as if I'm going against an admin's decision and proper due process if I did so. I'm seeking permission to restore the article as it was or at least advice on the proper course of action. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 18:22, 18 November 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. |
This article is about an annual concert held in Sydney NS. When preparing the article, I made sure to peruse other similar articles such as that for Celtic Colours, Evolve Festival, North by Northeast, and more. The article is written to not be spam/advertising and to be informative about the event. The article was proposed for speedy deletion under the terms that it was spam. I posted a reply on the talk page outlining why I believe this not to be and citing the other entries above. The response I received was: ':Where were the verifiable references from reliable sources? Not everything cool is notable! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)'. Under the deletion guidelines, it shows notability as a non-criteria for speedy deletion. 5. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant. I believe the article should be reinstated. Only hours old, the article had a solid foundation. More sources have been quotes on the talk page for deleting admin, indicating further edits that were intended to be made. I don't believe the regional nature of the article lends itself to a notability deletion, nor does the nature of the article constitute spam or blatant advertising any more than any article on a specific event. 24.138.39.1 (talk) 08:38, 18 November 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. |
Although being relisted twice, there has been very little discussion. The article however has three external links that provide significant coverage. The rationales put forwared as delete are in my opinion rather meager: one is more of a tirade against using Wikipedia for advertising purposes rather then judging this articles merits, another calls for speedy deletion. The article was originally proposed for deletion (PROD), but this was challenged by another editor. For convenience, the external links were: Easy Projects .NET: Does It Live Up to Its Name? - WebWorkerDaily, Get Industrial Strength Project Management Online - BNET Business Hacks and Review - A Girl's Guide to Project Management Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:42, 18 November 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. |
I have a perfected article for Cortney Tidwell, however I cannot add because the page is now protected by deleting admin. This admin is out to get me, my most-current article is in wiki format, notable and does not advertise (the reasons why Cortney Tidwell pages were deleted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncerlan (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 November 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. |
I'm a bit baffled by the deletion of the Rampage Trio (Band) page, simply because I cannot find an associated reason or administrator. I also do not see, in my Oaken13 section, that I ever created a page (no creation history), yet the Rampage Trio page has existed for quite some time. I also cannot find any evidence in the deletion log. I have searched using multiple case formatting, and just performed a general search and looked through numerous pages, all to no avail. Any ideas? This seems like a larger administrative issue than just a simple deletion. Oaken13 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 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. |
Hello, Please, accept my apology for disturbing you but more than a week ago one of my articles has been deleted by the user called Renata3. Under the deletion it's been stated as "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: total advertising". By the user Protonk (On "request undelition" page) I have been told that "In order to meet our inclusion criteria, a subject must be covered in significant detail by multiple reliable sources". Since I wrote this article I wasn't trying to advertise anything. Whole time I was concerned that this article would have to meet the Wikipedia guidance, including the inclusion criteria In this article I have provided a short biography about the radio and tv personality, outlined as Wikipedia:Notability (people). I read the list of what classifies as a people and there I'd found exact criteria that would subscribe to my article as "Creative professionals - journalist, entertainers". Speaking about a subject who suppose to be covered by multiple reliable sources, there are many independent public media sources that clearly states about the identity and status of the subject from my article. Most of these sources are in native Lithuanian language, whatsoever, most of it can simply be translated into English. Please, find the links bellow.
And there are many other independent sources, entertainment awards that the name of Eimantas Paltarackas appears on it. Currently, the person that I wrote this article about is working in United Kingdom, into the broadcasting industry. Including British Broadcasting Corporation, well known as a BBC. However, legally I don't have the approval to provide you yet with the information about this work with the BBC as it is the upcoming tv show project. Time by time he does cooperate with various Lithuanian media too.
Thank you so much for taking your time on this matter, deep down I really hope that you can help me. Regards, Sean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Todd Lewis (talk • contribs)
I am deleting admin. I deleted the article not only because I believe it does not meet notablity requirement, but also because it was writen as an advertisement & personal website/essay. I do not have time to investigate. I am traveling and my Internet time is limited to 15 minute count-down in an Internet cafe. I will have Internet access starting Monday. Gotta run, sorry. Renata (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello again and thank you all for taking your time on my issue. Whatsoever, will you excuse me people but then what exactly is the notability? Well as one of you mentioned the Baltic radio network and numbers (119) why nobody really checked the numbers of the sources that I'd provided above? I believe that these numbers could prove you the notability that we are missing here. Please note that for obvious reasons I did not used the Baltic radio network as an independent source of notability at all. I am not sure about this but I might guess that the deletion admin Renata3 is Lithuanian, if so then maybe you could tell how big or independent the sources are (provided above). I would think if in my article I'd used part of the ongoing work for the Baltic radio network, and if that's called as an advert then it can be simply removed from the article. It's internet project, so I agree that it's not the best source. I can swear that I have got no intention to advertise any websites as the deletion admin has stated, I am sorry for this misunderstanding. Again, I apologise but I really believe about the notability of the subject and I don't know how else I can prove you that. Maybe I just expected your advice and help on how I should correctly rewrite this deleted article so it won't sound as an advert. |
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. | ||
These two pages were deleted last Thursday night in a speedy deletion. I am asking for deletion review for multiple reasons. First, the reason the admin chose to delete it was because of unambiguous advertising. I'd argue as both these pages were bios that that was definitely not the case. "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." These didn't even have a company or product as the subject but a PERSON. Because both people had worked for the same companies at one point or another does not mean that the pages were in any way promoting any of those companies. They were well written and objective articles which I worked with administrators on to be sure the content was appropriate and did not violate any terms and lived up to notability standards. Secondly, all this happened after another user attempted to out my username with information that would make it seem as if I have a COI problem in writing these pages. I did what wikipedia said to do and neither confirmed nor denied the information and asked for help. The admin that was supposedly coming to help me in this case decided both pages should merely be deleted. They were deleted in succession so quickly I would argue that with the extent of the information posted on them the admin probably did not have much time to read either and, as further discussion on said admin's talk page shows they did very much believe the information the other user posted. so, my argument, besides the fact that both pages are well written, informative, improve wikipedia and add useful content is that the admin merely chose a random reason to delete the pages because he believed information that was put up by another user who harassed me and for some reason felt that the pages were then advertising. I appreciate your time in looking at this. All relevant discussion can be found on my talk page and the talk page for User: Toddst1 and the talk pages of the two deleted articles. Thanks for your time. Rpelton (talk) 19:17, 16 November 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. |
Speedily deleted per ((db-banned)) despite removal of template at least once prior to ultimate insertion leading to speedy deletion. This goes against the policy articulated at Wikipedia:Deletion#Speedy deletion under "Renominations". I am not suggesting the pages be kept in the long term, but that it is totally inappropriate for such pages to be deleted without an AfD discussion or a centralized policy discussion given that there was not unanimity for speedy deletion. Requesting (possibly temporary) restore and list outcome only. Nomination also includes:
|
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. |
Download.com's editors have given the software five stars (see [60]), thus it is notable and should not be deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 09:10, 15 November 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. |
Page was first deleted by Juliancolton after an expired WP:PROD. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) chose to unilaterally recreate the deleted page. It was nominated for AfD by Crusio, and I closed that as delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal)). Instead of first contacting the deleting admin, or starting the deletion review process, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) again acted unilaterally, to restore the deleted page. I deleted it due to G4. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has chosen instead of engaging in polite dialogue, or partaking in proper site process, to issue threats [64], so this now comes here. Thank you for your time.Cirt (talk) 06:11, 15 November 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. |
COI Prmwp (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I created and posted this page containing my own BLP biography. There may or may not be COI, but I believe that article qualifies for inclusion under Wikipedia notability guidelines. COI. Virtually all the listings of living people that I have consulted show some degree of participation--inclusion or exclusion of material--by the subject. Wikipedia guidelines say that this is "strongly discouraged", but it is not absolutely prohibited. This is a normative policy statement that seems to be almost totally disregarded in practice. From my personal empirical observation, it is simply not true in reality. For example, a short search among my colleagues showed 4 husband-wife couples and one father-son couplet
Notability Notability guidelines for academics state the following. "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria...
--Prmwp (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
S. Marshall. I thought that I had sourced everything. Could you please give me an example? Would a footnote be sufficient? Thanks. --Prmwp (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on a revised version located at user:prmwp. In response to comments before the page was deleted from the main space, I had been making some of the revisions that you suggested. I'm sure there should be more. I'd be grateful for your help and suggestions there, should you find time. Thanks very much.--Prmwp (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
--Prmwp (talk) 23:09, 13 November 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. |
This file was deleted in November 2007, out-of-process with no deletion discussion. It's needed now for criticism of the 2009 fundraising campaign (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever, discussion on the Village Pump, and more). *** Crotalus *** 17:13, 13 November 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. |
On the 19th November 2008, I missed a deletion discussion on my EmoTrance article hence it was deleted. Please could I have this reviewed, since the technique is starting to gain support in schools [65] here in the UK. Thanks, Alex Charles Kent (talk) 14:41, 13 November 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. |
On the 4th of October I deleted the article under speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G11 (advertising) following the recommendation to do so in the AfD. On the 10th of November I deleted it again when it was recreated (it appeared on my watchlist) as both a recreation (WP:CSD#G4) and as still meeting WP:CSD#G11 criteria. Johnwiki2008 (talk · contribs) asked me on my talk page to investigate this. I explained my reasoning and that I didn't have time to investigate further just then, suggesting they take it here if he wanted to take it further. They replied on my talk page telling me that it was unnacceptable for me to delete without taking the time to review it (missing the point of my message) and telling me he had set up and "investigation log" at User:Johnwiki2008#"Imonggo deletions" Investigation Log. I still haven't got time to investigate it further at the moment (it will probably be tomorrow at the earliest before I do) so I'm bringing it here on their behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
For more information and the current status, please click here
|
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. |
At my talk page (User_talk:Kevin#WP:Articles_for_deletion.2FYaakov_Teitel), an editor has disagreed with my closing of this AfD, and i have been unsuccessful in my attempt to explain it to his/her satisfaction. while I obviously stand behind my close, the editors concern is legitimate and warrants further examination. Kevin (talk) 00:42, 13 November 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. |
Fred, the admin deleted by asking me to go through the deletion review for recreating this article. I think Fred and Spaceman Spiff are justified in their act of asking me to go thru the deletiion reveiw. I am trying to create an article for the first time on Wikipedia, which I love as an encyclopedia which provides info about many reknwon persons across the world. I tried to build an article about V.V.L.N.Sastry, a well known Financial Analyst, Economist and also An Acadamecian. But I came to know that the article earlier went trhough AFD, But I would like to request the administrators to restore the previous version, which I could go thru the Google Search and I am willing to add more credible resources to that to establish credibility. As Fred pointed out for showcasing the reviews of magzines, I am willing to provide the resources from magzines which donot have any websites, but I can upload those PDF's by scanning the relevant portions and very well establish the notability of V.V.L.N.Sastry. Hence request you to restore the article.Venkateshinida (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with all the editors of wikipedia for their great contributions in adhering to the standards in makinig wikipedia a reliable source of information for people across the world. But my humble request to the respected editors of wikipedia is that, across the globe, unlike in developed countries, everything is not available to establish notability of a person through web based sources. In a country like India for commercial reasons, noted magzines donot maintain websites as it may hurt their commercial sales. But those magzines covered as independent third parties, which can establish the notability of V.V.L.N.Sastry. I am sure that, given the chance, I can establish his notability. Yesterday, while i was trying to recreate the page which was incomplete, in talk page, I could see the comments of Fred and Spaceman Spiff and I felt that it is better to approach through Deletion Review as advised by Spaceman Spiff and Fred. I turly believe What they said is correct and right way to go about the recreation of the article. At the same time I request the editors to give me some space and time to recreate this article. To prove notability, I could scan the coverages and can upload the same or send the same to the editors, so that they can judge the quality of the article and take an informed decision at the best.Venkateshinida (talk) 17:57, 13 November 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. |
It appears that the admins who deleted this article didn't realise what Sniff Petrol was all about. It's written by some of the most prominent motoring journalists in the UK, many of whom are closely linked to the hugely popular Top Gear BBC program, and is one of the most popular satirical motoring sites on the web. JN5556649 (talk)
|
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. |
Jane Burgermeister videos and articles are currently a lot (approx millions of times, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU viewed 227853 times, which is one out of many). She seems to have a lot of influence of public health, with her positions on H1N1 vaccination. Neutral Wiki information is required to establish the facts about her. Pc4235 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 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. |
Please consider the Shop.Com entry for undeletion. A dialogue was started with administrator Cirt and concerns were addressed. Multiple references from legitimate third-party news sources were also added to support the notability of Shop.Com. Per the administrator’s request, a draft article was moved to userspace; available at the user page of Bpops721. Bpops721 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 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. |
Recently, Cyde deleted a number of cross-namespace redirects, citing Wikipedia:CSD#R2. But these redirects are OK per CDS R2: Redirects from the article namespace, to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. I believe that the redirects should be undeleted. Note also that at least the titular deleted redirect has 5000 visits per month. Nikola (talk) 17:16, 10 November 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. |
Undeletion request per the recommendation of Xymmax, the administrator that deleted the page originally, as the process has been met with little consensus or discussion fleshing out the issues fully. For ease of reference, I'll provide a synopsis of the process to date:
Please excuse any errors in my posting :) and thank you for your time. Cronides2 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 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. |
This was deleted as A7 - temporary undeletion requested. I am wanting to see if I can resurrect the article. I don't know anything about the condition of the article; if the undeleting administrator thinks it is a hopeless case, do not bother. — This, that, and the other [talk] 06:31, 9 November 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. |
Please Consider "Alvin Fields" for Un-Deletion Thanks for the information Robert. Rhasheene (talk) 02:39, 9 November 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. |
First realize we are talking about an article about a pornographic film actress, I grant that is a low priority in the overall scheme of things. Many people will not put their reputations forward to back this subject matter. Don't let the general subject cloud the discussion. And don't start using the name of Wikipedia for your censorship campaign. The original article was posted by someone else, years ago. It was as well researched as an article in this subject as can probably exist. There was a round of editing that added referenced articles two years ago. It has been largely in this state, unbothered, since. It is one of better articles in its niche List of Asian pornographic actors, it is now one of the few missing articles in that niche. The actress retired four years ago, so it is unlikely the subject will advance. Considering the number of Wikipedia articles that will never advance, that's not a valid excuse for deletion. The accusation of the person making the deletion originally was that the article failed to meet the WP:PROD for WP:PORNBIO but failed to observe that she has won awards and was a featured covergirl in magazines in that niche, has been nominated for a major award in the list, and has appeared in mainstream media (the movie 8mm (film) and a Notorious BIG music video). Close enough on two a certainty on a third point and clearly a trend showing notoriety. Also noted is her significant role working with quite notable Max Hardcore as one of his under-aged looking adult performers on multiple occasions. And while this is not deemed a suitable argument in these circles, its superior credentials compared to many on the above mentioned list. I also added the points that she is listed in all three top listing services in the genre IMDB, IAFD and AFDB, with 152 films to her credit in a 9 year career. None of these points were apparently brought to the attention of the administrator who blindly deleted it in a horde of other deletions he regularly makes. I am witholding a much longer rant itemizing the unfairness of this deletion process. I was sure this deletion was done in error. Apparently not. I created a new user name in order to post in this stigma-laden genre. I found the original article archived on sites that mirror wikipedia content, added to it and reposted it. That article came under attack for copyright violations (even though it was copied from the original wikipedia article. It got a speedy deletion without any consideration. I doubt anybody even looked at the discussion page. And the original discussion was so effectively deleted that I can find no record of any serious discussion before it was deleted. --OsamaPJ (talk) 10:53, 8 November 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. |
Can we open this page up for submission again? I've created a legitimate article and would like to post it on the wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maynard_321/The_404_Podcast --Maynard 321 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 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. |
This article had sources that are solely about the subject in Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times and the Halifax Daily News. The primary argument for deletion was that even though the letter of WP:N was met, he isn't "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". As those newspapers did find him to meet that critera I don't believe it is our role to dispute their evaluation. Other !votes to delete were IARs arguments or were delete per arguments citing an IAR !vote. I'd be fine with deleting via IAR were the !vote clearly in favor of deletion. However, the count was 6 to keep and 7 to delete (including the nom who went with "Totally NN individual" as the entire deletion rationale) and the keep !votes made it clear that they believed the sourcing was sufficient. I believe this should have been a no consensus close. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 7 November 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. |
These pages were deleted by Hu12 (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD G11, after CSOWind (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for spamming. The articles, however, do not appear to be blatantly promotional, but generally descriptive of the softwares. Especially given the no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw Project, I believe that there is a substantial chance that the articles will be kept at AfD. DRVs brought by CSOWind evading their yesterday were speedy closed by JzG (talk · contribs) despite DGG's and my !votes to overturn. After discussing this with JzG I was minded to let things stay as they are for a while, but apparently those deletions are now used to justify deleting an article that has already survived an AfD. Therefore, as I consider the deletions here to be improper under G11, I ask that they be overturned and send to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 7 November 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. |
No consensus, closed as keep. A few days ago on DRV several of this companies products were all deleted as it was shown that the pages were made in an orchestrated campaign to spam Wikipedia. While they were at DRV, this was at AfD. In the interests of WP:RBI, I think as a unique case this AfD closure should have been no consensus, delete. (I have not notified the closing admin, but I will. I find no fault with their rationale.) Useful discussion to read User_talk:JzG#ConceptDraw_DRVs. - Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 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. |
This picture was deleted and transferred on Commons because it met the license requirements. However, the subject is a copyrighted building (the Center of New Industries and Technologies) in La Défense, near Paris. French law doesn't recognize freedom of panorama, so this picture cannot stay on Commons. As I believe the English-speaking Wikipedia accepts pictures like this one, I ask for its undeletion here, so that I can delete it on Commons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, Im stupid, I didn't understand what this was about. So the image cant survice on Commons and the file name given doesn't link to any history here so what file is it you want undeleted here? Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 7 November 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. |
Why was it deleted there on Dub Police the new page was nothing like the old page?(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbriandubsteper (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 November 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. |
I believe the closing admin erred in closing the discussion as "moot" (keep) on the grounds that the pages were user-blanked prior to the end of the MfD. Rough consensus of the discussion was to delete all nominated pages. The policy basis of the delete arguments was that articles in userspace with no reasonable chance in mainspace in the foreseeable future constituted a violation of WP:UP#COPIES, "User space should not [...] indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST. Discussed with admin at [84] [85] Gigs (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
IFF the pages are re-established, you might have an issue. Precedent is that blanking makes deletion moot. Collect (talk) 14:16, 6 November 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. |
|
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 on Michael Ruppert was deleted this past March. Now a documentary about him, Collapse has been released which has a Wikipedia page. Ruppert and the film are getting significant media coverage. It would be strange to argue that a biopic documentary is notable while the subject is not. I personally came to Wikipedia after reading a news article and watching the trailer in order to find out more about this man. I left a message on MBisanz's talk page, and he referred me here. Pisomojado (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, restore. Hopefully MBisanz will short circuit this AfD, although I imagine he's busy at present. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done |
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 would like a Deletion Review for the article entitled TOTSO. The basis for my request is that :
Principal findings of the review The principal findings of the review were:
My own research My research started at the website of "SABRE (The Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts)".. The society is a web-based debating forum that has 1514 members. A search of the website revealed that the word TOTSO is mentioned 1664 times on its discussion forums. The society’s FAQ page is located in Chris Marshall’s own website and is maintained by him (Follow the Road FAQ link on the SABRE page). I therefore deduce that one cannot say for sure that Chris Marshall coined the word TOTSO, only that he catalogued it. Moreover, the fact that SABRE has endorsed Marshall’s website as its FAQ is an implicit peer review for whoever coined it. It should be noted that Marshall’s website is references 160 times within Wikipedia on other topics related to British roads. One must therefore discount the first two findings. If one looks up TOTSO in the "CBRD Dictionary". (Marshall’s website) one will see – A situation where a continuous route number departs from the mainline of the road ahead. Totso is an acronym for 'Turn Off To Stay On', since this is what you have to do at one. For example ... . The through road at the junction does not retain one number. This demonstrates that a TOTSO is a feature of route numbering, not of civil engineering construction. The deletion review article failed to pick this up. As a result, one should discount the third finding of the review. Conclusions Given that the review failed to assess the article properly, the speedy deletion was improperly carried out. While there are comments about a TOTSO being a neologism, the fact that it was used five times elsewhere in Wikipedia suggests that this particular view should be open to debate. I therefore ask that the article be reinstated, and its continued presence in Wikipedia be properly debated. Martinvl (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Nominator: I gave two reasons for reinstatement:
This is an argument for common sense over strict legality. Which do you want?Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Nominator (again) user:Tim Song wrote “The fact that DOT did not recognize this term is evidence that it is not notable”. Tim, you are dealing with the British Government. (BTW it is DfT, not DOT). Until 1984 the British Government refused to acknowledge the existence of MI5 or MI6 even though they were the paymasters and every taxi driver in London knew where their headquarters were. They only acknowledged MI5's and MI6's existence when they passed legislation to prevent a repeat of the Spycatcher affair. IMHO, one of the reasons that the DfT have not published an official term for what "UK road geeks" call a TOTSO is to divert attention away from their policy of "building motorways by stealth" – a highly controversial topic within the United Kingdom (see NIMBY – does that have a place Wikipedia?). S Marshall suggested that I was not familiar with the object of Wikipedia. My response is that I am working on a number of British road articles and I was planning to use the term in a few places. I was also planning to expand the TOTSO article to show why TOTSOs come into being (route renumbering being one such cause) using Junction 18 of the M60 as a case study (complete with diagram showing a “Before” and “After” situation). Such an article would have the same relevance as NIMBY. Martinvl (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
My research has one purpose and one purpose only – to cross-check Julian’s findings. Entering “Chris Marshall TOTSO” into Google and exploring the first site that comes up is hardly “research”, especially when the next step is to follow the link “Where do I start?” Maybe I should have rephrased my statement as “When I was cross-checking Julian’s findings …”. The expansion of the term was part of my plan, together with identifying which user communities used it and which, (such as DfT) did not see the need for it. Martinvl (talk) 16:12, 6 November 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. |
Speedy deleted in July 2009 despite the article having been around for over two years, 19 mainspace incoming links, and I would have thought that stating that it was one of the companies that became Macmillan Publishing was sufficient notability. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:59, 5 November 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. |
restore as contested prod. --Ktotam (talk) 11:11, 5 November 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. |
<Not G11> This article was deleted earlier but then improved and returned to mainspace by closing admin. I thought that it means that now the article meets all Wiki requirements. It wasn't changed from that time, but now it was deleted again by Hu12, also he blocked my account (because of COI which I didn't try to hide - just look at my nickname!) and all accounts of my colleagues as sock puppets (VPN Internet and single IP for 50 workers). Two days ago the ConceptDraw PROJECT article again (third time) was remained in the mainspace because of its notability and neutrality but today it gets speedy and again from Hu12. So I think that now it's a persecution. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 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. |
<Not G11> The article was in the mainspace quite a long time. It was written in neutral tone without any estimations or epithets and had lots of reliable references from different sources (magazines and blogs). Deleted during campaign against Computer Systems Odessa from Hu12. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 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. |
<Not G11> The article was in the mainspace quite a long time. It was written in neutral tone without any estimations or epithets and had lots of reliable references from different sources (magazines and blogs). Deleted during campaign against Computer Systems Odessa from Hu12. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 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. |
Page about a recent murder of a young girl. Several editors contributed to the article, and I do not think it should be deleted without discussion. In fact, I do not see any alternatives to an AfD for this article, as PROD was contested (twice), and CSD specifically prohibits deletion under WP:NOT. I appealed to the deleting admin here (their reply here). decltype (talk) 06:55, 5 November 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. | |
Disambiguation page unfairly deleted by
How this constitutes an attack page I will ever know. Nothing was in the page that can not be found here: [86] [87]
Comment: He deleted the page, less then 10 minutes after I created it. Can't I make 2 edits before a page is considered for deletion? --Ted87 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 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. |
I believe that there was sufficient oddity surrounding the nomination and the way the debate was pursued, and the odd result ("no consensus - default to delete" - as far as I know unprescedented) that the result should be modified to a more regular "no consensus" so that improvement work that was already underway on the article and making significant progress can be continued. A follow up AfD with less drama could easily be carried out if that improvement work proves to be insufficient. I have made this request previously to the closing editor and they have declined, so I bring it here. Artw (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: With all the "endorse but restore" and the "overturn and keep deleted" comments, I can't help but realize this DRV is turning into a second AfD. Editors aren't here to say whether the article should be kept or deleted but whether they endorse the closer's verdict or want it overturned. Geez, people! :) --Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
|
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 marked on the article as I was posting it that I had only begun, and by the time I was finished making dinner for my son a bot had identified it as being someone who was insufficiently significant, and the editor had come through and deleted it (about two hours). The editor is no longer on site. When I talked to him at the time, he said that the person didn't even have a web page. The artist died in 1990, so clearly that was a strange criterion for judging social importance. The significance is that the artist was feminist artist of the 1970's, who died at the age of 53 as the president-elect of the National Women's Caucus for Art [88]. She was profiled in "Exposures: Women and their Art" [89] She also had shows and awards, etc. Kitode (talk) 21:46, 4 November 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. |
I believe User:NuclearWarfare prematurely deleted this established article, which had been posted for nearly a year, without establishing clear consensus. I and other users had repeatedly added legitimate sources, Field's published books, etc. to show notability, yet most of these were deleted by other users for no clear reason. Then someone nominated the article for deletion with only 5 or 6 people voting (4-2 or something), and because most of sources were deleted by then, User:NuclearWarfare decided to delete the article within a week, even though only 6 people had voted. A simple Google search of Fields yields dozens of sources, clearly confirming his notability as one of the world's premier youth ministry experts, authors (he has over 50 published books), and consultants. I did discuss the situation with User:NuclearWarfare prior to appealing his decision here. Flavius Constantine (talk) 18:12, 4 November 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. |
This file was a screenshot from a 60 minutes broadcast. During that 60 minutes segment CBS broadcast clips from several videotapes. One videotape was taken by GIs who had destroyed and captured a compound used by militants. Another videotape, the one this image was taken from, was found in the rubble of the destroyed compound. The clips from this tape showed the construction and placement of IEDs. At the time I uploaded this image I did not realize that the CBS logo was itself copyright, and should be blacked out from otherwise free images we upload. At the time I uploaded the image I did not realize that Afghanistan had no domestic copyright law, and was not a signatory to any international copyright law. If I had known that I would have uploaded this image directly to the commons. This image was speedy deleted by an administrator who did not take any steps to inform anyone that the image had been deleted. When asking about this image I suggested to the deleting administrator that the logo itself was an insufficient reason to delete the image, when blacking out the CBS logo from this otherwise PD image was so trivial. The deleting administrator has made several inconsistent claims about their deletion. They have claimed it made invalid use of Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions. They have also claimed it made invalid use of Commons:Template:Archive-Mujahideen. I requested the deleting administrator tell me what text I had supplied for the image when I first uploaded it. You can see our discussion here. What I would like would be for the image, and its revision history, to be restored long enough to review whether it really should be copied to the commons under Template:PD-Afghanistan. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 4 November 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. |
Head count rather than an examination of the arguments. This diff also seems to have messed up the primary keep argument, which meant the closing admin might have missed it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 4 November 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. |
Improper speedy delete. This and another page, Testing Recall About Strange Happenings, were zapped today through improper A7ing. A7 is to be used for "an organization... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Game Show Congress is the industry/fan trade show, and A7'ing it is like A7'ing E3 or Comic-Con or SIGGRAPH. TRASH is one of the four major national quiz bowl organizations, along with CBCI, NAQT, and ACF (see, for example, Chapter 3 of Ken Jennings's book Brainiac). As best I can tell, User:TenPoundHammer decided to wipe both of these notable organizations from the encyclopedia today, and was aided by administrator User:Jéské Couriano. In the case of the latter article, TenPoundHammer posted the speedy nom notification to my talk page on the latter article at 15:21, and I promptly placed a ((hangon)) tag sometime before the article was deleted at by Jéské Couriano at 16:00. In the case of the Game Show Congress article, TenPoundHammer nominated the article for deletion at 16:02, Jéské Couriano deleted it at 16:03, and by 16:06 TenPoundHammer removed the deletion notification from the article's creator's talk page. [90] Speedy deletions are supposed to be speedy, but this is a subversion of the process, especially when both articles clearly indicated the importance of their subjects. Even if either article had sourcing problems, poor sourcing does not make for a prima facie case of A7 deletion (see above). I made attempts to resolve the issue with the administrator Jéské Couriano, but was unsuccessful. I contend that the subjects are notable, but that is not the instant issue here. The issue is whether the articles were properly deleted by A7 and whether they deserve to be discussed in an AfD. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 04:31, 4 November 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. |
The band meets the criteria for notability. 1. The band had been covered in numerous print and online media including newspapers and magazines. 4. The band received notable coverage as part of the 2005 Rise of the Fall/Zippo Hot Tour with The All-American Rejects, The Academy Is..., and Rooney. 9. The band won the 2005 Zippo Hot Tour music competition as well as the 2007 Rockline Great American Band Song Contest. 10. The band had its single "Don't Lie Down" included on the HBO TV series Dane Cook's Tourgasm. The song was also included on the CD soundtrack. The band also had the songs "The World is You" and "Appreciated" including in the 2004 film Cruel Intentions 3. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 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. |
There were far too few editor involved in the afd. Emulator notability can be confusing at times due to the lack of "reliable" sources. However, sources such as emulation zone, emulatorpro, and VG Network are reliable in this area. This was not taken into consideration. Also the creator of the page was not informed of this AfD which means I was not able to defend my article. Overturn and relist this subject AfD need to have direct input from people who are members of the video game project. Finally this emulator was among the first emulators and is apart of N64 emulation history. This emulator is no less notable than Mupen64, Project 64, and Ultrahle. Please relist Valoem talk 20:22, 3 November 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. |
Subject is notable per [97] and [98] Subject is a defeated candidate for a congressional primary and I would like to recover the deleted content before re-creating article. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 3 November 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. |
please undelete ban_hammer. new information has come to light. banhammer is a physical object, not simply a neologism. photograph uploaded on wikimedia, linked and displayed on main article, recently hit boingboing, referenced in the article.
|
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. |
Templates detailing the team that won the World Club challenge.Lando09 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 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. |
Former professional rugby player.Lando09 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 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. |
I edited the article to include more prominent information related to the artist, and deleted information that was not referenced on other Wikipedia articles (i.e. "non-notable" producers, and songwriters). Also removed the list of influences as it is debatable if this is relevant to an article about a developing artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewsilb (talk • contribs)
|
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 restored and userfied following a request at WP:REFUND, the author wishes it returned to the article namespace, and the deleting administrator requests community review. Please judge the userspace draft at User:Elk Salmon/Quiet Internet Pager. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:43, 3 November 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. |
International rugby player.Lando09 (talk) 12:15, 2 November 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. |
International rugby player.Lando09 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Lando09 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 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. |
More sources were added to the article after most votes were made, there was not one unreliable source in the article when it was deleted. One keep vote was changed to delete even though it mentioned the attacks in general have been covered in sources. James4750 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 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. |
In my opinion, this article should be deleted based upon its merits. I believe that the close was flawed because many of the keep votes did not comment on its merits but were rather distracted by the EEML case. I don't see the point of waiting until after the EEML case closes; it's not like the problems caused by it are magically going to disappear. Again, this is based on the merits of the page, which should be distracted by the EEML case. Furtheremore, many of the keep votes were not very credible (ie politically motivated, canvassed off-wiki, or whatever the real reason is; per Jehochman). The consensus among the valid votes seems to be that while sources exist, they are insufficient to establish notability. Note: The page was created by the subject. Triplestop x3 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Endorse per Stifle and S Marshall. There is no rush here and there is no policy or consensus to delete questionably notable articles. Disclaimer: I !voted to keep (for now) in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If someone becomes a fan and wishes to get information on this poet there will be none available on wikipedia because someone feels he is of "questionable notability". How do you define "notability". Notability can not be defined. Does the article tell facts or does it lie? If it is all lies it is useless and should be deleted. If it has facts and is poorly written it should be rewritten eventually by someone with writing skills. You guys take this site way too seriously since it's widely considered by professionals to be a joke and is not a viable method of citation for any professional seeking to quote or use a source. For example most papers using this site as a reference get an F. This site is maybe meant as something else but what it IS is a site which provides cursory or in-depth information about all things. It is an information database not an encyclopedia despite what some may think. I apologize for the bluntness but maybe it's time you guys focused a little more on acutal matters of importance. Sitting here disussing whether this (and hundreds of other) articles should be kept is ridiculous ESPECIALLY since the arguments for deletion or preservation are 90% based on arbitrary, impossible to define criteria. Make it legible and make sure it's fact (something wikipedia fails at often) this should be your goal. Facts are misrepresented while you guys argue about the importance of this Richard Tylman...come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.119.75 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |