|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The consensus was "delete, because the article lacks reliable sources, and pretty much everything about this case is unverified". However, the case in question was featured in the book "Confrontations" by Jacques Vallée. Unlike many ufologists, Jacques Vallée is a reputable scientist, and I think his books can be considered reliable sources. Even though he considers Latin American media "a notorious unreliable source" in his book, I'd say that two documentaries on this case ([1] & [2]), made by TV Globo in 1990 and 2004 respectively, are more or less reliable sources too. They also demonstrate a long-term popular interest in the case. Not sure if the other sources on this case (INFA & Revista Vigília) are reliable, but in my opinion the aforementioned ones are enough to establish the notability. I've talked to the closing administrator, and it turned out that he finds the case fascinating and would like to see the article recreated too, but he cannot do it without the community consent. Finstergeist (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band). |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 supposedly for not meeting any of the criteria in WP:BAND. The main source cited was an album review in a newspaper article in the Pittsburgh City Paper, which is independent, reliable, non-trivial, and not self-published. The crux of the deleting admin's argument is that this review constitutes "trivial" coverage because it appears in a "local-interest paper, hardly regional or national coverage" and is "brief" in his opinion. WP:BAND defines "trivial coverage" as: "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories". An album review is not listed anywhere under WP:BAND's definition of "trivial coverage", nor does it say the source must be "regional or national" or of a certain length. The page clearly meets Critera #1 and does not violate any of the criteria on WP:Band. The deleting admin is simply ignoring WP:BAND and instead is fabricating his own erroneous criteria for band notability. Overturn. Wikitam331 (talk) 02:38, 26 June 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 article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 despite the fact that the very first word of the very title, and, from what I can remember, the content of the article, indicated that the subject received a knighthood, a clear indication of importance/significance. I would also point out that speedy deletion had been contested in good faith by an established editor who was not the creator of the article. The deleting admin gave a shockingly clueless response to my questioning of his action, so we have to discuss this here. Overturn. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 June 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. |
Virtually unsourced, unencyclopedic, almost ridiculous failure of notability guidelines wrongly closed as "No Consensus" (i.e. de facto Keep) just 12 hours after debate was extended to achieve consensus. Asking not for deletion but rather for the debate to be reopened for seven days to achieve consensus. Request made of closing administrator to reopen debate was declined, per [3]. Carrite (talk) 00:21, 23 June 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. |
Since the deletion Halogen Software has made a number of advancements, including becoming a public company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (one of the few tech companies in Canada on the exchange). I work at Halogen Software, but having this page restored is not part of my responsibilities at Halogen. I would like to work on redoing the page so that it meets Wikipedia's standards because I believe that a public company like Halogen should have a page on Wikipedia. The administrator that deleted the page has taken a break from Wikipedia - I have tried to comment and post on his page but received no response. Mikeypotter (talk) 19:48, 21 June 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. |
Category A7 - reason given why the article may be of scientific or engineering importance as it is a new design of aircraft. The reason given that it it "promotion" is ambiguous since the article was not written in a promoting style. All home built aircraft sites could be regarded as "promotion" and people wanting to know about home built aircraft deserve to know about this project. MikeDutton (talk) 14:22, 20 June 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 page is sort of tricky. I'm not exactly endorsing its recreation, but I do think that this needs to have a second look taken on it. The long story short here is that this entry was a branching off of Specific absorption rate. The editor, User:Mtpaley created the page, but not really the material. He put the article for AfD himself and another editor tagged the page as a speedy deletion via WP:G7. The page was deleted and another user sort of re-created the page, complaining that the previous deletion wasn't valid and somewhat arguing for its recreation. The re-creation wasn't actually a recreation of the material, so that deletion isn't really the one at question here. I don't know that the content (a listing of the SAR for various phones) really merits an entry, but this should probably be reviewed. It does bring up an interesting question: if someone creates an article and then promptly lists it for deletion but didn't create the content, should that be deleted via G7? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:41, 20 June 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm going to go with incubate. I agree that the close was within BWilkins' discretion and I think he deserves credit for being willing to make a difficult call. But the whole topic area is very complicated and difficult, and the more I look at it the more neutrality issues I see; our India-related coverage is chaotic and disorganised and an awful lot of it has been written by a fairly small number of people, many of whom have shown up in these debates. Although I see every evidence that those editors are writing in good faith, I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people. I think there may be appropriate content and sourcing that, with a little rewriting, could be incorporated into our existing coverage and I think it will all take longer than our customary seven days to assess in detail, so "incubate" looks correct to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Firstly, this was deleted under CSD F7 where the relevant policy states
On the face of it, the deletion meets the listed CSD process. The article was nominated for deletion as replaceable on 6 June and on the same day the listing was disputed with the claim:
The article wasn't deleted until 10 days later by an admin who was not previously involved in the article, thereby meeting the requirement to wait 2 days and that, if disputed, the file shouldn't be deleted by the same person tagging it. . So it does look that both policy and custom and practise support the admin reviewing the CSD request using their own judgement on whether or not to list the disputed replaceable file at FFD. None of the arguments around disputed replaceability being requiring listing at FFD really discussed this nuance and I think its fair to say that this argument pretty much amounts to arguing that by not listing, the closing admin incorrectly applied policy. This isn't consistent with the written CSD and the acknowledged practise reflected in the WT:CSD discussion. Based on that, my opinion is that we should not overturn and relist unless we find that the closing admin was manifestly wrong when they used their discretion to delete rather than list at FFD. I am not seeing any consensus to say that this was the case. The endorse side make a strong argument that this image is potentially replaceable and that the stated reasons given at the time of deletion for disputing this are extremely weak - a sprited defence of the irreplacibility of the image during the DRV has been overcome by the endorsing arguments. On that basis I find that the policy based arguments here are to endorse the deletion. This does go some way against general practise at DRV, which is to pretty much list anything at XfD if a decent argument against the deletion is put forward. Why am I not using my discretion as DRV closer to do that? Essentially, I don't see a credible argument to refute the argument that this file can potentially be replaced by a free image. |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion of this image as being replacable fair use ignited a debate on WT:NFCC that is turning into yet another war between those trying to uphold policy as such (like me; a certain editor only called me a deletionist because of my actions in another, very different NFCC 1 case, best described as being carrots to pineapples in comparison), free content purists, and deletionists. The deleting admin stated that "Fair use doesn't apply just because you find it hard to get a free photo. The bat still exists and a picture can be taken of it, therefore grabbing a non-free picture isn't legit." However, this seems to be a special case because this particular species has only really been caught on camera in this particular non-free image; we should just use common sense here and put this up for further discussion with third-parties who have better knowledge of our consensus in NFCC 1 cases. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Respect for Commercial Oppurtunities There is complete respect for commercial opportunities because the owner allows it to be on Google Earth and it is freely accessible online. Having it freely available on Wikipedia will not change a thing. Surfer43 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Possibly not quite as sorted as you think. :-) I wish to raise two points in answer. First, we do indeed have a rule that only allows a few dozen fair use images on the whole encyclopaedia---but we also have a meta-rule that governs our rules. From the start, I've been showing that this case is the poster child for a rule that stops you building an encyclopaedia. It's also a rule that's under RFC at the moment and from the beginning, I've been saying that the outcome of the RFC should prevail. These are not views that closers typically disregard, and although it's accepted that they don't always win either, I certainly do join issue with you about whether they should be ruled out completely! Second, your many excellent content contributions are welcomed and appreciated. However, the implication that they give you any moral authority to tell others how they should contribute to Wikipedia is denied. If I decide to improve that article, then I'll be the judge of what I should do to improve it.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 21 June 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The deletion discussion after being relisted was closed and kept because the closer felt there was "...consensus that the nomination has no merit", rather than closing the discussion on the merits of the arguments in the deletion discussion. Step 1 of Wikipedia:Drv#Steps to list a new deletion review was executed for clarification but was ignored. The main arguments for deletion of the page is:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
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. |
While I generally concur with the deletion rationale for this page, neither the first AfD (closed no consensus), nor the second show consensus that the article subject is 'low notability'. The majority of commenters on both the first and the second AfD voiced their support for keeping the page. In light of that, closing this AfD early as delete is inappropriate. I suggest it be relisted to get more input, to see if consensus exists for considering Jessica to meet the threshold for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. If the AfD had been allowed to run for its full duration I could see this action as appropriate. Instead it was closed after only 5 hours. I propose reopening this AfD and allowing it to run for its full duration. That MastCell closed the AfD with the comment "I expect this decision to be controversial and I expect that it will be submitted to deletion review", itself shows that this is clearly not an obvious case where the AfD can be closed early. Prodego talk 22:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Prodego talk 22:00, 12 June 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 following chart shows occurrences corresponding to various notability provisions.
RCraig09 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 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 really feel confused about why this article meets G11. This article only introduces the book neutrally, including its authors and editions. Although I only include an Amazon product page as a reference, this article shouldn't be speedily deleted at least so that it can be improved. In addition, this book is a notable C++ book and is cited by lots of papers. --HNAKXR (talk) 02:28, 8 June 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. |
My request to incubate the deleted article, so that I can improve it and potentially return it to mainspace, is being denied. Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (2nd nomination) for analysis and discussion with the deleting admin. Although this is listed as an AfD discussion, the admin has identified that WP:CSD#G4 is the applicable deletion guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 7 June 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. | ||
Significant change to popularity and accomplishments, re-worked to eliminate outside linking. She is featured on several of the Wikipedia pages for puppets and puppeteers but when mentioned can't be linked because page doesn't exist. Producerarose (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The Bleeckie page is finally ready to be resubmitted. The text is attached below. How do we go about doing this? 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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Without any valid reason my article has been deleted. The editor in question noticed that the article had been deleted in 2009. That is all and that he says is the reason for his deletion. But the article I wrote has solid references and there has occurred a lot in the life of the photographer Errol Sawyer. His photo book 'City Mosaic' was published. A. D. Coleman, first photo critic of the New York Times, wrote about this book: 'It comprises close to four decades’ worth of engagement with the classic mode of mainstream-modernist street photography. — Consistent in quality, in terms of both craft and content, it speaks in its own voice, aware of the tradition on which it builds but not noticeably beholden to any predecessor therein.' Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director, wrote the following review about Sawyer's work in 2012: 'Errol Sawyer is that rare thing today – a classical black and white photographer in the Henri Cartier-Bresson tradition, using the camera at its simplest and most challenging, as a trap for catching time. Looking at his pictures, I feel more fully in tune with living today, and my guess is that people in the future will continue to look at them, and by doing so, get a glimpse of what it was really like to be alive today.' On top of that the pictures of Errol Sawyer are present in many museum collections. It is very important to put the article back in wikipedia. Thank you for your accurate reading and objective review. Fred Bokker (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me, Mbinebri. Errol Sawyer qualifies for the following tags.
1. 1. Errol Sawyer received a grant from Stichting Sem Presser Archief, Amsterdam, Holland, for the publication of the book City Mosaic: http://www.sempresser.nl/stichting/projecten.html:
Sawyer’s work is represented in several notable collections of galleries or museums: La Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France, 1974 and 2001. 37 pictures. Quotation of Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director http://www.julianspalding.net/JS/Errol_Sawyer.html:
I am looking forward to see an honest review by the Wikipedia editors. Fred Bokker (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not about your ego or my ego but about the importance of an article of Errol Sawyer that can be read in English. Let's overcome prejudice and take an objective look at the article to see how it can be approved instead of excluding it forever, as you say. (which is blatant prejudice)
There must be another organ/board within Wikipedia that is overseeing this kind of talk an behavior.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |