|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Quadell closed this discussion by saying that it had resulted in the decision to change the way the image was used. Exactly one person took this position, while numerous people opposed. Yes, we're not a democracy, but when something like eight or nine people argue a good-faith position and one argues the opposite good-faith decision, it's not possible for the one person to be the community consensus and for the all-but-one to be in opposition to consensus — this goes far beyond the situation envisioned in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Quadell's closing statement is quite obviously an argument why he thinks it doesn't belong, and not a summary of the discussion; the members of the community who participated all-but-one agreed that this image's uses were acceptable. If "consensus" means "one person's opinion trumps everyone else's", FFD becomes simply a place where we post un-defeatable requests for deletion. Let me close with a reminder that this kind of supervote close was the basis for SchuminWeb's arbitration case, because he was closing FFDs in favor of tiny minorities; I'm not suggesting that we take any other kind of dispute resolution (regardless of how this DRV goes), but simply reminding Quadell that pretending that all-but-one people can disagree with consensus has been deemed a thoroughly unacceptable decision in the very recent past. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
This incident has been massively covered in the Norwegian press (see here if you understand Norwegian, there are approx. 10 articles in VG about the case, and it has also been covered by the Wall Street Journal ([8]). I guess that means that he passes the GNG and this article should be undeleted. Kebabipita (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
It's a Redirect and because we have some people who can't read that she has played 4 times for arsenal and won the FA cup or get the notion that it's a redirect we're here. So full view because 4 games for arsenal, fa cup winner, significant coverage from her Olympic role. I understand that she was redirected for not being notable for her Olympic stuff that's ridiculous when we have Olympic flamelighter who are notable for nothing else with an article. 92.22.95.103 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]"" Check for all four no reason for article not to be there. 92.18.33.11 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was adequately sourced with secondary sources but unfortunately deleted as created by a banned user. I want to further improve the page so i'm requesting a review and userfication.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFruitarian (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was created to describe the works of the design duo gregoysung since their efforts started in 2005. The change of the description of the main page to be "gregorysung, the stylized name of the award-winning Italian, South Korean, American design duo, working out of Milan, Seoul, Chicago, and New York and comprised of designer, engineer and professor Gregory Polletta and designer, artist and professor Sung Jang." should be a better representation of the designer and the use of the photo here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_of_gregorysung.jpg should also be a better representation. All links, details contained within, photo's except of the one referneced above are all correct and accurate to the work of the designer. We hope the page can be edited to include the above description and the page can be returned based on the substantial work of the duo. Eastwestdesign (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
gregorysung not "Gregory Sung" is a (design) artist or brand? perhaps, composed of two designers with one 11 character name and they have been doing this since 2005 - well documented in blog postings, articles written, interviews, google images, galleries where gregorysung works have been shown. ok, it shouldn't have been done, that's very clear now, understood, but what other option was there? 20 days ago a request was made and details sent to info-en"wikimedia.ord detailing a keynote speech to be made at the Reesh Festival of Creativity Sept 2013 and that is why the edit was made to show the full distinction: an 8 year journey to create gregorysung and now to let the bird soar as two wings connected to one body so as to be discussed openly at the conference on literally how to create out of nothing, something. only 1 month ago was the seperated image of gregorysung made public after amost 8yrs for the DIP'N by Guzzini and e-my http://www.e-my.com/gregorysung product and so now it's time to adjust whatever is necessary on wikipedia and make it clear to show gregory and sung's schooling and where they lecture and are lectured to show the separation. the photos on wikicommons do show this so teh seperated image should be acceptable or if this isn't, a new page with the Guzzini e-my image is good and the page can be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorysung(artist) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorysung(designer) as this should be easy to create yes? seems the original page will be destroyed? if not can the original wikipage 11 character page name stay if possible. since it's very important to save a lot of time and pain, can someone copy the original page code to the new page so it can be fully edited to remove the not-allowed gregorysung as one person language so it can be submitted easily? also on the current comment page there is some brutal language can that be edited so as to not offend anyone from the royal family of the Reesh Festival of Creativity when they look at the current page? the changes be necessary for the new page are very straight forward to implement as ALL the data on gregorsung's works, projects, etc., are very clear. just need to clear up the 1st section and detail sung as a professor in korea and chicago and gregory in milan, rome, paris and londn per their linked in profiles. after each having a +15yr career and spending the last 8yrs to create gregorysung the team of gregory and sung should not be penalized for the creation of gregorysung and miss this very important honor to deliver the keynote of "what is creativity" at this prestigious conference. User:talk:Creativeupholder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
1) a person 2) an artist (the preference) 3) As something else All data is sourced correctly and references were listed in the article because the full articles could not be scanned in to wikicommons to be shown and/or references on some occasions were in the ongoing wordpress blog of the websites of the magazines where they are stored were not allowed. almost all of the articples mentioned are full articles and interviews but should they all be left out? it was explicit that they be put in so that gregorysung was considered noteable as it wasn't 1st deemed that gregorysung was noteable. re: the photo being a merge, that is fine. can the image from the guzzini emy website be used showing both parties? the whole point gregorysung is the merging of the two and has been for 8yrs. that was the point and the design exercise to create one person one design voice. and yes, combined they have been professors at as many schools as verified by their linked in profiles and recomendations. Sung currently lectures at the Art Institute currently and Gregory is currently at ENPC Paris. The exact breakdown of all universities lectures, courses given (if requested) and schools and experiences attended will be listed in career section of the article. Starting over is fine. Can the name of the new article be "Design Duo gregorysung" and can it have a pointer or redirect from the old article to clear up any confusion? The formatting and gathering of all the data for the article took 7 months. It would very much apprecited if it can be made a working draft please so that everything can be cleaned up easily for the design conference taking place in 1 month where the keynote will take place. ALL the data is correct, the only issue is to clearly make the identificaiton of gregorysung as two parties clear which will be done in the top summary section and in the "Career" heading. it would be very helpful if it can be made a working draft under the title suggested creativeupholder ( talk ) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
For the record, you should only be using one account to make your posts in this discussion, creativeupholder aka eastwestdesign. Otherwise it could be construed as an attempt to deceive. DS (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC) this is very clear and your direction is understood. simply, there is no "tale" here as 2 designers came together created a moniker like prince (but that wasn't allowed the page as an artist a person was created and incorrecly as such as pointed out by the admins) regardless the duo of gregorysung has been designing for 8yrs, designed and launched many products had interviews, won awards, that's all. no one knew how to create the article as a person, etc because doing it the way prince did it was not allowed. in the new artcile the phrase "the duo" will be used in place of "gregorysung" used in the original text and gregory and sungs schooling and where they lecture will be seperated. all works, articles, etc. are the same there is no difference. it should be cleared up before the keynote at the design conference so there are no further misunderstandings if that is ok. can a working template from the original data please be created? it will greatly speed up removing any and all confusion creativeupholder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC) can someone please create the article as an artist with the title Design Duo gregorysung and just let me know so I can get right to replacing gregorysung to "the duo" and adding in the respective schools they attended and where they taught. i don't want to do this improperly and be thrown back here to waste anyone elses time, just want to get this done properly. as for eastwestdesign, that person was booted and I was asked to solve the problem so I've taken over to get this done if that is ok. creativeupholder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
if gregorysung was noteable then the 1st article would have never been approved. if it pleases the wikipedia team, the mention of mr polletta and mr jang can be in one line and everywhere else the name of gregorysung will be replaced with "the duo", unless it is necessary to list all their schooling, universities lectured at, etc. or it can be left it out, however together they are clearly experts in their fields of design and new product development. again, the work of gregorysung speaks for itself. the projects of gregorysung produced by major manufacturers and works published in numerous international publications and through interviews speaks for itself just like a song or a painting and the same is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_%26_Erwan_Bouroullec also everyone is connected to someone somehow and i feel that their work is worthy enough. if there are some other criteria then please advise. if the individuals careers of mr jang and mr polletta are not good enough, even though they are substantial then the work of gregorysung is. again, the work speaks and has spoken for itself for 8yrs and viewed as worthy by an international audience already. still however no one has specified: is gregorysung: 1) a person 2) an artist (the preference) 3) As something else as the article cannot be created without this. what is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_%26_Erwan_Bouroullec considered in wikipedia? and yes Theroadislong the road is long, it has been traveled for 8yrs and that is why the 1st article was created and approved over 7 months with all due respect for all those who already approved it for the work itself and the collective +15yr experiences of the duo . creativeupholder (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
all data has been concatinated and fully simplifeid I will use same as the broullec brothers for a page entitled "design Duo gregorysung": gregorysung is the name for the italian/american and korean/american gregory polletta and sung jang (b.1971 and 1977) design duo. In 2009 the the duo's "Pianoforte" line won the the Best of Elle Decor design award [1] and was included in the Roche Bobois Paris design collection as well as being included in the Best of Architectial Digest AD Collector Europe [2] and later the duo won a Design Duo Award - TL Magazine, Netherlands [3] for the Pour Celain series. The duo has used a combined image for the designer's photo since inception and signs works with the gregorysung name as a single word entirely in lowercase, attributing this to the relationship between parent manufacturer and child who in fact can create a parent protector.[6] Both have each given full semeser, undergraduate, master and MBA/PhD classes internationally in New Product Development: Innovation & Renovation, Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship for New Product development: ENPC/Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees PhD/MBA program at France's oldest enginering school; Design for New Product Development: Parsons School of Design, Paris and Hochschule Luzern Lucerne School of Art & Design - Polletta plus Spatial Concepts, Product Aesthetics: Sookmyung University, Seoul; and Digital Moddeling Fabrication, RRendering and Visualization: Art Institute of Chicago - Jang. Polletta is a member of the London Speakers Bureau and American Program Bureau The duo works internationally for clients and has completed projects for Roche Bobois, Christina Grahales Galleries, Guzzini E-my, Louis Vuitton, Appropriate Technology Collaborative, Philips De Pury, etc. and thier work has been described as "embodi[ing] beauty and the dilemma of duality that confronts issues between form and function in art and design" [3] while "creat[ing] alternatives for product development and aestetic direction that might have not been possible" [4] noted Sung Jang by "focus[ing] on what is considered impossible and then work[ing] to make it real, instead of only looking to what is 'acceptable' design", Gregory Polletta noted [5]
[1] Best of Elle Decor, Elle Decor Magazine, 2009 [2] Best of Architectial Digest AD Collector Europe 2010 [3] Design Duo Award - TL Magazine, Netherlands 2010 [4] Planes Trains and Automobies - 360 Magazine pages 240-244" Issue #10 Fall 2007, Beruit Lebahanon [5] &life Magazine - Dukkan Communication and Publishing, 2006 Istanbul, Turkey [6] gregorysung - website, about us: www.gregrysung.com/aboutus.html
Company's website: www.gregorysung.com cristina grajales galleries: www.cristinagrajalesinc.com/artists/gregorysung the only image will be that of pianoforte unless others are allowed. the only question is this a person, artist or other? creativeupholder (talk) Creativeupholder (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Creativeupholder (talk) Creativeupholder (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
[12:29] == #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned [12:30] Can't use this command in this window Please forgive my discomfort here. An article was written, it was accepted, it was deined, it was accepted, 3 people re-wrote it and now we are here. The article on gregorysung contains ALL the necessary 3rd party verified references a new article was started "Design Duo gregorysung" was started and banned and now we are at the same place again. A new article has been created by some folks who are in the design industry in Milan. Hopefully they won't get banned as well. Creativeupholder (talk)Creativeupholder (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
and again this makes no sense. So how is a design duo of 8yrs with published and produced international products a hoax? So no one will be given a chance to edit based on admin suggestions? article submissions will be deleted straight away? Seems so. This seems inconsistent with Wiki's policy and gestappo in tactic. The format of this article was copied exactly from the broullec brothers and philip starck articles. The tone is the same, factual and with many external citations. What part of the following is considered spam or advertising? It looks like this article is being banned to be clear. If someone would please just cut out what is considered "spam or advertising, I think this can be easily solved no? With 13 references to verrified external 3rd party sources there should be no issue. If this is considered spam or advertising then clearly marcel wanders, philip stark and the broullec brothers and any other person on wikipedia should also be removed as well. without the ability to be reviewed by multiple individuals, edit over time and fix errors and then submit, this is starting to look like descrimination of a noteable design team.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I was trying to create a page titled Leo Xu Projects, which is a contemporary art gallery based in Shanghai. Yet I was notified that the page was repeatedly recreated and was therefore deleted. I do not understand what happened to the page and I believe that the gallery is definitely worth an entry. The founder Leo Xu was nominated by the extremely prestigious media ARTINFO among the The 30-and-Under Crowd: The Art World's Most Influential Young Figures. See http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/810445/the-30-and-under-crowd-the-art-worlds-most-influential-young The gallery has also participated in a number of major international art fairs, including Frieze New York and Art Basel HK. I do not understand why I am not able to create an entry on Leo Xu Projects. Is there any specific problem that causes the entry to be repeatedly deleted? Hoping to hear from you soon, Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artloverfromshanghai (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
First of all I discussed the deletion with the administrator who deleted it. In the end we agreed to put that into the DRV. The article was deleted for the reason "non-notable tournament for non-notable teams". Both accusations I think are wrong. The tournament has been the biggest non-FIFA football tournament in 2013 and had 6 teams, which is nearly as many as a World Cup usually has. Many of the matches have been broadcasted live by the Tamil Eelam team and the Raetia team and there where around 5 million visitors in peak. In my eyes that could be called important. Maybe more important than most non-FIFA World Cups have been. Besides that the tournament was covered by Tamil media around the globe (about 20 newspaper articles), by the Isle of Man media (radio stations and 2 pages in every newspaper). Even the Isle of Man Parliament officially invited to that tournament. The second point is the non-notability of the teams. I would like to see any argue why they are ? I mean we are speaking about national teams of non-FIFA nations or regions or ethnics. On Wikipedia there are roughly estimated 200 articles about non-FIFA football, non-FIFA teams, non-FIFA World Cups and so on. So in fact the community seems to agree that non-FIFA football is not "non-notable". If so, the teams competing there are not non-notable, too. Tamil Eelam, Occitania and Raetia all played World Cups before. Alderney plays at the Muratti Vase each year (which is also a wiki-covered event) and Sealand is a member of the NF-Board and will most likely play at the next VIVA World Cup, too. The only team, which might be non-notable is St Johns, who are a Isle of Man first league club "only". DJLiesel (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment First of all to the GiantSnowman: You are calling a nationless minority and an INTERnational tournament nationalistic ? That is so ridiculous. Callin an event which is covered in >20 countries a local one is really pointless, too. I am sorry that the Tonga national press did not report about it. You could easily delete the Superbowl for the same reason. It is just mentioned in thousands of 'local' news and of course just as a routine. But I see how wiki works now. I am just one of millions of people interested in this article and you are the admin, so just do what you want to do and keep ignoring all my references or just call them rubbish or nationalistic. I am really honestly very disappointed that wikipedia is run this way. And Dear Mr Lenahan, you are right, the deletion discussion was unanimous. But honestly, I did not even see that there was a discussion and probably there are not many non-FIFA followers active wiki editors. But I really feel that I am just loosing my time discussing here. Do whatever you think is right, because in the end wikipedia is obviously created for their editors only and not for everbody. The 'free' in 'free' encyclopedia is not that meaningful. Last thing: If you delete that I highly recommend to delete all other non-FIFA football articles and all national league articles lower than league 2. Besides you should think about deleting all national teams that are ranked below 100 in FIFA maybe ? Have fun and thanks for letting me waste 2 nights study all the rules if they are not taken into account in the end... DJLiesel (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Addition I finally found the article of one of the biggest Russian sports media: [9] References
|
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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Reached out to administrator Ryan Postlewaithe several times over three weeks but have received no reply. The page was deleted based on "notability" but I can't see how it violates any of the stated guidelines. Those guidelines state the following: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or worthy of notice. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. [The listing includes "Organizations & Companies.") The only other criterion stated is that it must have a reliable third-party source, and one of the posters acknowledges that Stax is listed in the Business Week standard company overview (we have plenty of others; FYI, the company website is www.stax.com). For the record, Stax has been in business for nearly 20 years, serves Fortune 500 companies, as well as 14 of the largest private equity firms in the world. When you boil down the guidelines, you qualify as "notable" as long as you're a company (which we are) and you're verifiable (which we are). In the end, the deletion seems to be based on the individuals' personal view of what's notable (and, again, the guidelines specifically state "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." So what basis is left? If someone could point out any other specific guideline that was violate, we would be happy to fix it. I appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2013
If the deletion is evidently correct, would you mind telling me what guideline the page violates? jks825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
These last few comments were a lot more specific and helpful. They provide much clearer guidance on what needs to be fixed. Thank you. Jks825 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
also
Soft redirects inappropriately deleted as WP:CSD#A3 "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting ..." WP:Soft redirect#Deletion are to be treated as would any other redirect. Some of the article had RfD discussions going when the speedy delete occurred. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 21 Discussed this with deleting admin, comments on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Pages with just a Soft Redirect to External Websites. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Plip! I know common sense isn't always common but get real, this is obviously a wildly inappropriate use of soft redirects. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm confused by the closing decision here, which was to delete the article on the grounds of lack of notability and reliable sources. If User:Seduisant/SandboxDec is a correct copy of the article, then I see numerous secondary sources which serve to establish notability. Dec is the primary subject of a chapter in a 1994 book by Donna Kossy, a recognized authority on eccentric individuals. The publisher is independent of the author, and both the publisher and author are independent of the subject. Dec is also the subject of a 1999 biographical stage play which was reviewed at least four times in the New York press, including The Village Voice. Dec's work has been published by Robert Crumb, and reviewed or examined in The Big Takeover and the official journal of the AIGA. I think that any two of these alone would be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The article does indeed depend too much on primary and non-reliable sources, and this is perhaps why the reliable ones were overlooked by the closing administrator. (Note that, if the decision is overturned, it would definitely be possible to pare down the article such that it covers only those aspects of the man's life and work which have attracted sufficient scholarly and press coverage.) Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. | |||
There seems to be a willingness at AfD to discuss and even delete articles whose redirects IMO would be routinely kept at RfD. This AfD is a case in point. The alternatives to deletion were not considered in the nomination and not mentioned in the closing. The response from the closing admin included an unqualified statement that "Notability is a reason for deletion", which IMO is at the core of the problem here. This is almost a policy and evidence-free discussion. I did a search for "Wikipedia:" and "WP:" and found only one policy mentioned, in which the mention itself was speculation as to what another editor meant. Only one editor has presented enough evidence about the sources to allow for the possibility of repeatable results. I made an argument for wrong venue, but I did not cite WP:ATD. I opened a discussion with the closing admin at [User talk:Secret#AfD closed as delete], and noted that there is no possible theoretical delete result, even with a raw !vote count. The raw !vote is 4 delete and 5 don't delete. The response is that there is a "clear" consensus here. Unscintillating (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
This file is a critical element of a Featured article. Its Fair Use status was unchallenged at FAC in December 2012. No rationale provided for deletion. No consensus to delete. This should not have been closed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was speedied twice so I would want to bring it here for discussion. Certainly not a hoax, and while for the subsequent recreation the quoted source was not the best this event has caused quite a stir in Taiwan: many high ranking army officials have been charged, and the scandal has reached to the extent the Defence Minister has tendered his resignation (but declined by the president). Chinese sources indicate that there's more than it meets the eye - too early to say that this article is not notable. Also consider the amount of content on the chinese version. Definitely not a speedy case.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I want to start by stating that this is my 1st time trying to contribute on this site & I find it extremely difficult & time consuming to navigate or work out how and where to post anything. I did attempt to post an article of interest concerning sunglasses for sport. I am the designer of a purpose built product and I had taken a copy of a blog from a website to post here. I did put in references to the blog site, as I believed was required. Following my post I received a warning & I was listed as some sort of vandal. There was no discussion on or explanation put forward to me. I do believe that being branded as some sort of divisive terrorist is highly over reactive. The least I would have expected is to initially inform me of any suspected misgiving & allow me to reply. Please check the below details & consider the above towards taking me off of your black listing. Additionally, I checked out some of your other listings which appear to have links & direct connection to commercial interests & they appear to have been perfectly acceptable, i.e. a previous comment from a manufacturer entitled "Plastic Sunglasses"?
The reviewer responsible simply went to the extreme of posting me into the some User Reported list as follows: •GTSUN (talk • contribs • deleted • filter log • SUL • google) • (block • soft • promo • cause • bot • hard • spam • vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. User was promoting a website with a similar name [1] . Hot Stop talk-contribs06:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTSUN (talk • contribs)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
He is now playing with Persib Bandung in the highest professional league in Indonesia the Indonesia Super League. He have already played competitively since 2010 and also for several matches this year. Here are some sources 1 2 3 (mostly in Indonesian). MbahGondrong (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
If these are only reasons you can find for not making an article, then I
|
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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Although there was a consensus during the AfD for the article in question, I believe that if due diligence was carried out, in accordance with deletion policy, that the AfD would not have began in the first place. I would have contested the AfD while it was active, but unfortunately real life (including work) got in the way. The reasoning for the AfD was WP:PERSISTENCE, however if we look at WP:EVENT & WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, I believe that I can show that it meets notability as required by WP:EVENT. The event which is the subject of the article in question occurred in March of 2013, significant coverage was received by the event from multiple non-primary reliable sources, including internationally, thus the event meet notability as required by WP:GNG. Even after the first month passed, significant coverage was received by the event including by NBC News, ABC News, and the Associated Press. As I stated at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Murder of Shaima Alawadi, the last major coverage of the event occurred in January 2013, and the possible reason why no further coverage has occurred since then, is cause the next hearing regarding this case doesn't occur until 25 JUL 2013. And since notability does not degrade even if the event doesn't receive as much significant coverage as time passes, it has no effect on level of notability that the subject has already received. The closing Admin, has contacted me on my talk page, and has suggested I open this review rather than the request for undeletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
I don't know why the page was deleted previously, but now there are more than enough sources for a full article: [21] I would like to write the article but it is protected and only administrators can reinstate it. Thanks. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
(1) The deleting admin wrote "Yogesh Khandke comment about the sourcing is rebutted successfully." I don't see how they were rebutted successfully. (2) I asked closing admin for clarification as step 1 of review procedure. He has not provided it so far.diff (3) My arguemnts are as follows: My comments in support of notability have been: The subject is notable:
In my opinion the closure is an error of judgment and needs review. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
I've been forced to come here because my request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 91#File:Outlook Express XP Icon.png was first denied and then ignored, and the deleting administrator seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia. This image is the icon of the last version of the program, the one included in Windows XP. The icon currently at Outlook Express is that of an older version. Precedent (other articles include up-to-date icons) and consistency (with the screenshot currently at the article, which is that of the last version) dictate that the icon currently at the article should be replaced with this one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
I've been forced to come here because my request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 91#File:Windows Mail logo.png was basically ignored, and the deleting administrator seems to have left Wikipedia. This image was deleted due to a lack of licensing information, but I can provide this information along with a fair use rationale for the article Windows Mail, which does not currently have the icon of the program. (Note that the licensing information is quite obvious in this case, given that it's the icon of a program.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
This discussion was closed as "no consensus" on 4 July 2013. The discussion began on 27 June 2013. The matter was discussed for seven (7) days before closure. The discussion should be re-opened so consensus might be reached on the issue of whether the article subject is notable under GNG. I believe that there was consensus that the article subject was mentioned in several reliable sources, but consensus needs to be attempted as to whether these mentions were significant per GNG. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
In the time since this page was deleted and salted, the company has had a fair amount of coverage regarding a study they did on WordPress. After talking with the deleting admin about unsalting the page title, I was referred to make a case here. Neo12345292 (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Neo12345292 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed as no consensus, but from this vantagepoint there does not appear to be any establishment of notability or reliable third party sources in which to base an article. In quick discussion with the closing admin, considerable weight was given to one keep argument that was based on also-poor sources based on an argument that we should keep the article to help keep tabs on a specific point of view. Clearly, I disagree or I would not be here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
A while back the Red Cord Records page was deleted based on no source or good sources. I have physical credited magazines that have discussed the label or a band in-depth. What do I need to do to get the page undeleted or have a discussion about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeJohnson12345 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
I feel this page was deleted too quickly. I saw it was discussed for deletion so I started editing and verifying a lot of the content. I corrected a lot of the things that were mentioned in the discussion for deletion, spending hours to add multiple sources. I came back a few days later to continue working on the article and it was gone. I would have been happy to discuss how to further improve the page - maybe a point or two could have been omitted and the language could have been improved too. But I don't understand how this could have been accused of being purely promotional when the page also included controversies and such. I have looked up the page because I'm a student at the Technical University of Vienna and I took several lectures with professor Poledna and professor Kopetz who are both founding members of this company and acknowledged in their field. I found the page to be informative. In addition, I have just seen last week that TTTech has won an export price by the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber so it is indeed a well known corporation here. I know you're not supposed to compare but I can't help thinking TTTech has partnerships with Audi, Boeing, Airbus etc. and if I look up those company pages they are no different from this one so in that context the deletion really seemed too fast to me. I have since continued working on the article - it is now in my sandbox. I have talked to the admin who closed the article and was redirected here. I hope for this deletion to be reconsidered so the article can be re-written and further improved. Sathescha (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2013 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
This Afd was closed by someone who is not an admin( just stating fact, not taking issue with that person). There are concerns with the keep rationales which ultimately has lead school article to be kept. None of the rationales are showing any sort of notability at all, the comments are all aimed at "We keep all high school articles" Which I believe is in contravention of WP:ORG which states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists". The other thing being linked and conveniently ignored where it suits is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) which further states "However, this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically" Either way I don't believe that policy is being followed or are there valid rationales on why this school is notable. I have not raised this issue on the talkpage because as stated the closer is not an administrator. I have not notified anyone of the discussion because I largely think that what they will say is irrelevant to a reviewing admin. If anyone feels differently please notify whoever you think should be. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*Endorse closure . The precedents documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS are those on which articles on mainstream high schools are almost always closed at AfD. That page may be an essay, but it expresses no opinion - simply summarises AfD outcomes. Hell In A Bucket is fully aware that numerous RfC over the years to either overturn this precedent or to turn it into an official guideline have always ended without consensus either way. The precedent is upheld by hundreds, possibly thousands of AfD closures, and the fact that educational institutions are exempt from CSD-A7 also gives a kick start to notability for schools. Whezther the closer is an admin or not, this closure falls within WP:CLOSEAFD, and Hell In A Bucket does not appear to have attempted a discussion with User:Czar, the closer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |