|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I am requesting the deletion of List of state and local political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States be overturned. The reasons given for the original deletion by the nominating editor were; *Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source. The actual WP:BLP policy quote is, “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs IN THE ARTICLE – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” ALSO “All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person IN THE ARTICLE.” – Clearly these WP:BLP policies refer to using ‘multiple sources in the entire ARTICLE. A list however, has only one or two sentences per citation. I can find very other few articles that have multiple references per sentence and no other articles which consistently adhere to multiple sources per line. One sentence, one source, is de facto wiki policy, to which this article adheres. *Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." This list not only omits denials, but also omits acquittals, which is really unacceptable. - The nominating editor has not listed the offending allegation. I believe the single offending citation he refers to is a case in which the politician was accused, arrested, indicted and then resigned. He was then convicted. Years later, his case went to the Supreme Court where it was overturned. He is therefore innocent and yes, this one item should be removed from the list or kept with explanation. This is a case of a dated entry, not a cause for systemic deletion of the entire article. The presumption of innocence is so prevalent in the US that to re-iterate it time and time again for every citation in a list would unnecessarily expand length of the article. If necessary, a single sentence added to the lead paragraph would suffice. *Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. "Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association. -I couldn’t find this policy and don’t see how it applies as stated. This is a list of SCANDALS, not convictions. Further, every person listed has his own citation and his own reliably sourced reference. Guilt is never implied. *Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “state and local political scandals in the United States” are notable as a group. - This is an opinion by the nominating editor, not a statement of Wikipedia policy. WP:LISTN redirects to Wikipedia:Notability/Stand-alone lists, which states, “The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.” I would say that “lists”, “states”, “politicians” and “scandals” are all notable groups and have been treated in Wikipedia extensively. *The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time. - This is another opinion by the nominating editor. No Wiki policy is mentioned and I could find none at WP:BLP. An unintentional BLP violation deserves correction of the offending item, not deletion of the entire article. Further, I would ask what Wiki article is NOT affected by time? Are old articles worse than new ones? Are old subjects less important than current ones? This editor is grabbing for it. *The main aim here is apparently to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted. - Another opinion. Again no Wiki policy is mentioned. This article only reports that the politician was charged, indicted and arrested, ousted or resigned. The definition of a scandal is “an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.” Given the number of Wiki articles about Benghazi, Whitewater, Lewinsky etc, this list is certainly within Wikipedia guidelines.
I quote WP:BLP/People who are relatively unknown, “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. “ – And that is exactly what has been done. According to the eligibility criterion in the lead paragraph, only politicians, their appointees and staff may be included and only referenced information about each such person maybe been used. *WP:Recentism is violated (scandals from this millennium are given undue weight) - Huh? Scandals from this millennium are given more weight only because there are more of them. Does he really expect that scandals in the 13 colonies would equal those of the 21st century? Again I quote WP:Recentism, “Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.” This is not even close to a problem.
- Once again I quote from WP:Unencyclopedic/Just unencyclopedic, “Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself.” So the nominating editor is again referring to a policy of which there is no violation, as stated by the very policy to which he is referring.
|
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. |
After people recommended that Water to the Soul be deleted, I added a great deal of information to the article indicating that "Innocent Child" received substantial airplay, which I vaguely remember hearing back in the day. Only one comment, indicating that the album article DID INDEED go beyond a track listing, was instated AFTER the relisting. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (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 was an article about journalist Elizabeth Chambers that has been re-directed to her spouse. The AfD was based on the reason that the nom couldn't find coverage strictly about this topic. Not only was there no consensus to redirect to the topic’s spouse, but ‘’all’’ the abundance of coverage strictly about the topic, not the topic’s spouse, was found six days after the AfD began and one of the two "redirect" !votes occurred. [2][3][4][5][6][7] There was a strange straw man “WP:NOTINHERITED” argument when almost the entire article and the coverage of this person was strictly about her, not her husband. In the pre-redicted article here, as is typical in biographies, there is only a mention of the topic’s spouse buried down in the “personal life” section. AfD closer Black Kite stands by the closing. --Oakshade (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2015 (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 was the nom for this AfD. In closing it as no consensus, Ymblanter stated, To establish notability under WP:GNG requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic in detail. Each of those words has meaning. I don't believe there are any such sources for this subject, I said that clearly, I said that based on carefully reviewing every source offered, I still say that, and it looks to me like there are 7 others who agree with me and said the same thing based on the same careful review. Most of those arguing for keep have been canvassed off-wiki and not one argument for keep was policy-based. To the extent they even addressed policy, most argued either that we should bend the rules (e.g., to accept a primary source as evidence of notability because Dr. Dobbs printed it) or that we just shouldn't have these silly rules because this is really important stuff. I appreciate that this has been a contentious debate, but an AfD is not a vote and it does not help to close the debate with a blatant misrepresention of the participants' positions. When I approached Ymblanter on his talk page to suggest he should at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees there are sources lest it go to DRV, he accused me of blackmailing him.Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Added: Requesting that if the outcome is to endorse the no consensus, that the claim cited above stating that there is an agreement regarding the sources be struck from the closing remarks as clearly shown to be not true. If all of us !voting delete had agreed there were four sources supporting notability, I submit that every one of us would have !voted keep. Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:IMPORTANT. It appears that this criteria was lost when IMPORTANT was replaced by Notability. During our discussions on NIM the verifiability and reliability of the content in the article was conceded, but the focus of the people arguing for delete have stressed the lack of notability. I have presented evidence of notability by citing coverage in NEWSBLOGS and BLOGS by experts. Those sources I have cited previously clearly meet this criteria for Importance. Given that the content of the NIM Programming article is reliable, the hurdle that remains is Notability. The article meets that criteria based on the original definition of WP:IMPORTANCE and should not be deleted. The low importance tag should also be removed from the nim talk page. Itsmeront (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (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 disagree with the deletion process, the original G7 request was false, and I also believe the person in question from a neutral standpoint exceeds the requirements for Wikipedia notability I find the discussion on Grace Sai's page most uncomfortable. A G7 request was issued by User:JohnCD but he is not the main author (I do not know what he added at all, to be honest) which started a process of deletion just days after the article was reviewed and accepted. Grace Sai is a very notable person in Southeast Asia and has numerous articles written about the two companies she has founded in Indonesia and Singapore. She has been mentioned as one of the top 50 voices in social entrepreneurship globally in a referenced Guardian article and has been profiled in Singapore newspapers and appeared on radio, TV, TedX and spoken at universities across the world. The ensuing discussion had many people stating false accusations, e.g. that most references were written by herself (one was wrongly categorized as such, but fixed later) and one claimed that the company she founded was a part of a university, which is false, and therefore questioned how real her entrepreneurial success was. I like the crowdsourcing aspects, but the deletion process is not working properly. Furthermore, as the author, I was not given the option to keep a copy of the article, and it is now completely gone. I would like the Admins to review the original article and the ensuing discussions. Tobiastan (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2015 (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. |
Overwhelming consensus to delete. Not a single person, over two AfDs arguing to keep the page in mainspace. Even if you discount the editors who were allegedly canvased there is still a consensus to delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2015 (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 was no consensus to keep. Afd is not a vote. It's meant to be decided on the strength of policy based arguments, not on a head count or a willingness to lie about sources. All the keep opinions were very weak or straight out lies. Davey2010 - "meh keep". VMS Mosaic - WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Sunil - WP:OTHERSTUFF and a lie about independent reliable sources. Jonathan - a meaningless comment about good reference/content ratio. Sunil then goes on to lie again about sources. No one who said there was coverage in independent reliable sources was able to identify any truthfully. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2015 (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. |
Improper non-admin closure per WP:NACD "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." This AfD is full of non-policy based keep rationales as a result of improper canvassing, a fact which Valoem gave no indication that he considered. Given the timeline of his edits (including closing another AfD just 11 minutes before), and given that the length of the AfD, it is hard to believe that Valoem had enough time to examine the votes and conclude about which made actual arguments based on policy as well as take into account the proven WP:MEATPUPPET issue in that AfD (stealth canvassing and vote stacking). ― Padenton|✉ 01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Padenton I believe you are violating assume good faith here, possibly from a previous disagreement. I am not an administrator so a DRV is not necessary you can simply revert it if you'd like I told you so on my talk page. There was a clear lack of consensus, if any admin see any glaring issues with the close a revert is more than welcome. Valoem talk contrib 01:24, 21 April 2015 (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. |
Clonazolam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Flubromazolam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Deschloroetizolam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The pages for Clonazolam, Flubromazolam and Deschloroetizolam have recently been deleted for the lack of credible sources. Today a new study, "Characterization of the four designer benzodiazepines clonazolam, deschloroetizolam, flubromazolam, and meclonazepam, and identification of their in vitro metabolites" was published, I hope that counts and the wiki pages for these novel substances can be restored. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia so I hope I didn't completely mess up the format of this undeletion request :) Aethyta (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (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. |
Was deleted as G10, but no versions on the page actually meet G10. I discussed with the deleting admin, then he admitted to have failed to read the nomination as carefully as he should have and said that I could take this to DRV if I felt strongly that it should be undeleted, which is what I thought, so I decided to take this here. The deleted page is a non-disruptive April Fools' joke by the way. TL22 (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2015 (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. |
Andreas Lubitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The closing admin stated that consensus was to merge Andreas Lubitz into Germanwings Flight 9525, but that could not be farther from the truth. There was absolutely NO consensus to MERGE, and passionate and well reasoned arguments were given by both sides. This was a major incident, and Lubitz was the known perpetrator of it. According to Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines, when a major event occurs, and someone is a major part of it, a separate article is generally appropriate. (Not quoting verbatim) I assume good faith, but this does not represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2015 (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. |
Due to numerous BLP violations within the history, article should have been deleted followed by creation of the redirect. This seemed to be the consensus. Additionally, WP:A9 of A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver album would be in order. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:20, 18 April 2015 (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. |
Invalid WP:CSD#A9 deletions. Passion Conferences is the corresponding article. When the music credits "Passion Worship Band", it's not a particular group of singers, like, say, the Beatles or Metallica. Rather, it's just a compilation of tracks from whoever was singing at the Passion Conference that year. I don't have a strong opinion on whether each one of these CDs ought to have its own article (from looking at Passion_Conferences#Discography, maybe half of them do). But A9 isn't really a reason to delete them as there is an article - Passion Conferences - on the corresponding "band". I can tell you that this music is extremely popular within the evangelical Christian community and is overwhelmingly notable.[17] I looked, for example, and found a third party professional review of "Hymns Ancient and Modern" at [18]. In any event, whether we need to have articles on every single annual CD they put out every year, I don't think A9 is a reason to delete them. If the original CSD nominator or the deleting admin desires to delete these articles, they should be taken to AFD. --B (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (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. |
An administrator flagged it 10 minutes after i first put the article in place, article was not allowed to be completed and I feel he violated the G11 policy for speedy deletion, it should have at the least been set for deletion review, I have attempted to work with the deleting administrator but he is not answering my posts. The Rules for speedy deletion where not met under the Speedy deletion criteria. First The article had no self promoting material on the page, and under the specifics of G11 "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion" --Graphton (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies I was having the discussion with Rasel lio who initially tagged the page in my opinion incorrectly. Since the page was deleted I did not know how to locate who actually deleted the page, my points where clear on the articles talk page as it were, and I received no answer to those points either. --Graphton (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
As I stated in my initial response to the original admin was that the article was unfinished and this was not a candidate for speedy deletion, The Criteria plainly states "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." I admit plainly that there are issues with some of the content and I had originally addressed that I was correcting that, but once the page was deleted I could no longer make any changes. Unless i am misunderstanding something, is there a place to build an article before its published to the encyclopedia? --Graphton (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That is perfectly acceptable to me! thanks so much! As I am new to this I am still learning! I appreciate the dialog --Graphton (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2015 (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 closing admin stated that the consensus was "merge", but the short discussion that occurred showed a clear lack of consensus. Some editors, myself included, felt strongly that the article should remain stand alone. There did not seem to be any clear argument for merging, other than a lack of death and mayhem Juneau Mike (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Paging Rosiestep, the articles creator, to be a part of this discussion. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (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 new essay was not the same as the essay previously deleted. Some of the stark differences were demonstrated in a comparison table on the TP. The essay was still under discussion with an administrator [19], BDD. The new essay took on an entirely different approach, new title, and the only similarities were mentions of existing WP:PAG, not a cause for a speedy delete. Atsme☯Consult 16:17, 15 April 2015 (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. |
Death of Chris Currie was deleted today, a few hours after I created it. It is an article about the death over a decade ago of a man driving a car in New Zealand, who was killed by a teenager throwing stones at random cars. The explanation given was that "it is substantially the same as the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Currie", but note that that AFD was closed in January 2007. The two articles cannot have been "substantially" the same because the article I created today included discussion of the ongoing conversation around this death in New Zealand, where articles continue to appear discussing the stone-thrower as an unusually young defendant in a murder case, the case itself in the context of the ongoing problem of death and injuries caused by rocks thrown at random motor vehicles, ethnic tensions in New Zealand, and as an example of the general problem of and the problem of youth delinquency. (I happened on the topic precisely because it is still being discussed) It is also discussed on more random occasions, such as the retirement of the prosecuting attorney, but even this sort of mention speak to the fact that this death continues to be familiar to kiwis more than a decade after it occurred. I created the article in good faith, having seen many WP articles about individuals notable only for the memorable conditions in which they died. Not only can the old AFD not have reflected the fact that this case continued to receive notability validated by significant news coverage more than 10 years on. It was, in fact, not a very persuasive AFD. More editors wanted to keep the article than to delete it, there was little discussion of policy, and the objections were on the grounds that Currie himself was not notable - which he clearly was not: his death was. However, no editor proposed a title change to the Death of Chris Currie. I come to argue that an article on the Death of Chris Currie would pass WP:GNG due to extensive and ongoing extensive coverage in major sources. I asked the deleting editor to restore it and allow me to improve it. Then, if he still found it inadequate, to put it up for AFD and see how other editors viewed it, as a preferable alternative to taking it to this board. I edit AFD regularly, and it does not seem to me that the article was an appropriate candidate for SPEEDY deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (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. |
Hammarby IF back in Swedish Allsvenskan, which is a fully professional league. Nahir Besara played from start in the two opening games[21]. Shmayo (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (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. |
Deleted despite consensus to keep it 132.205.236.66 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2015 (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 have reflected on and considered this all week; I still feel this close should be reviewed here, and so for the first time in nearly a decade on Wikipedia, I'm bringing something to DRV. I believe there are two procedural reasons why this should not have been closed as a delete:
Overturn to no consensus or Overturn and relist Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
As I have said, I framed my nomination statement in such a way as to indicate (I hoped) that I was not planning to use this as a backdoor reopening of the TfD. While I grant that your intial response did, in fact, limit itself to addressing this issue, when I queried how the consensus was interpreted differently, you then began to bring up issues from the TfD in response. I would have been happy to keep the discussion within the scope of my original discussion; for you to turn the discussion that way and then accuse me of trying for a redo here, when I tried to signal that I was very aware this wasn't the place for that, is dismaying. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
So he said it before and said it afterwards—I can't see how that means he didn't carry that ambivalence through the TfD itself (but, OK, the closing admin didn't see it, but EoRdE6 was not the only one who expressed such sentiments). And as for EoRdE6, would he have said this if he wasn't ambivalent? (Compare Coretheapple's militance, noted by ATinySliver further down in this discussion). Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
By the numbers It has been suggested above that, in the absence of a prevailing policy-based argument on either side, a closing admin should just count up the numbers. While this seems to me to run contrary to WP:NOTAVOTE, I'm not going to contest that argument right now. But I did run through the discussion again with an eye for counting all the votes, and the score is (I may be a little off): 42 delete, 25 keep.I admit that's a clear majority for deletion, about 59%, but I just add that I've seen other XfDs closed as no consensus with what seemed to be wider margins for delete. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natter Social Network (2nd nomination) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||
From the closing admin's talk page:
Sources mentioned in the AfD:
Overturn and relist. Cunard (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2015 (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. |
Lyle Stevik is an unidentified body with no coverage in reliable sources other than databases of dead bodies. It was previously AFDed in January. The 2nd AFD which has recently closed as keep, I am looking to either flat out overturn and delete, or relist. If it is to relist, I hope User:BabbaQ, User:Ceradon and User:Davey2010 can better explain how they feel it meets "WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG". I have already notified the closing user, User:Spirit of Eagle. The only !voters in that discussion are the same ones in the original AFD, which User:Gourami Watcher, the article author pinged. The only additional vote was from User:Transylvanian Thunderbolt, who is more interested in having Wikipedia to promote the case than in Wikipedia itself. I believe closing the second nomination with no new voices, a "substantive procedural error", and I argue that any weight given to keep voting without reliable secondary sources to be in error too. I have significant concerns about Gourami Watcher's dead-persons passion project. I've also AFDed articles of his which (slightly better than Stevik) have only local newspaper sources, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempe Girl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pemiscot County Does. I am not appealing those, but believe these articles could do with much more oversight, I certainly don't want to see articles such as Stevik promoted on the main page. - hahnchen 20:30, 9 April 2015 (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 above article was deleted on October 8, 2014 by Joe Decker as WP:BIO1E in this AfD. I think WP:BLP1E does not applies in this case. In 2007, 8 years ago there was significant coverages in multiple RS about his returned of a missing $120,000. In 2012, he received the Securities and Exchange Commission maiden integrity award. In 2014, he received a National Award Member of the Order of the Federal Republic a well-known and significant award or honor decorated by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan making the subject of the article to meet WP:ANYBIO. I think the article is of enduring historical importance. I will be glad if the deletion can be reviewed. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£
|
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. |
Neucoin is a new crypto that has the proper backing to be considered a respectable altcoin and have it's own page. Upon a brief message with the admin who speedily deleted it I was told that he believed it to be another ponzi scheme not worth noting. But in truth all currency are ponzi schemes. Trusted currency come about through people giving them out and saying it's worth X and then said people governments minting more. I put up seven links which show that the coin isn't just another ponzi scheme. If need be I can remove the word successful, that was referring to the founders, and a few other words which are quite arguably defended in the articles. Crypto is a new age thing and I think it was deleted by an admin who doesn't realize cryptos potential. Darteous (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (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. |
Would you relist Wikipedia:CardFlex, Inc for further discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee360 (talk • contribs)
I would also like to address the reasons cited for its dismissal. 1. “An article…apparently created only to document a lawsuit brought by the FTC against it and other companies. While the incident itself might be notable, the company is not.” Why would a company want to publicize a lawsuit brought against it on one of the most popular websites online? This is certainly not the reason the company decided to create a Wikipedia entry. As for the company not being ‘notable’; as it states in the ‘keep’ post, it is a company with $4 billion in annual transactions, and one that is an innovator of patented automated equipment used in the merchant processing industry. If these achievements were not detailed as much as they could have been, it is only because we did not want to cross the line from objective information into marketing or promotion.
Lastly, the idea to create a CardFlex page for Wikipedia was inspired by the number of companies of all sizes and types already listed on the site. We cannot understand why CardFlex is being perhaps held to a higher standard than some other companies with entries now on Wikipedia. These include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberforth_Smaller_Companies_Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_Motors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabertooth_Games In the last example above, the company is now defunct, but its Wikipedia entry remains. There are many other examples that could be cited of companies that are arguably less notable than CardFlex. Given that reality, it is hard not to view this rejection as a result of the FTC action, and the bias of an editor. Please advise on how this decision may be appealed. """ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee360 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 April 2015 (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. | ||||
From the closing admin's talk page:
Sources mentioned in the AfD:
I discovered this AfD close after reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Ambrose (mentioned at WP:AN here), which I listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 2#Scott Ambrose. There was no consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina–Marshall football rivalry about whether Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs)'s sources were sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The sources were from three states in the United States: North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Dirtlawyer called these "local and regional sources"; Cbl62 (talk · contribs) called them "local sources". I agree with Dirtlawyer. Charleston Daily Mail is a Pulitzer Prize–winning paper that serves Charleston, West Virginia, the capital and largest city of the state. There was no consensus for deletion here. Overturn to no consensus or Overturn and relist. Cunard (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2015 (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. |
Convoy of Hope is a Notable faith-based nonprofit organization founded in 1994 and known for its international programs of feeding and otherwise helping poor people. I have a new article prepared to take the place of the one that was deleted. I have discussed this matter with the closing Admin, but he stated he will not open up the article for a new version, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2015 (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. |
Page was invalidly listed as WP:CSD#G6, a category which only applies to uncontested deletions for technical reasons (such as deleting a redirect with no history to make way for a page move). Motel (version 2) has multiple revisions of a 25 kilobyte article in the page history and, because it was moved to this odd name during a currently-active content dispute, is anything but uncontroversial. The discussion of its fate belongs in WP:AfD and company, not in speedy deletion, as it was put at this location deliberately to preserve the edit history. Controversial items don't belong in CSD#G6. K7L (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2015 (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. | ||
From the closing admin's talk page:
This articleWebCite from ABS-CBN, this articleWebCite from The Philippine Star provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. This means that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Of the four "delete" editors, two appear to be sockpuppets. See the comments here and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work. An SPI clerk wrote:A third "delete" editor, WalkingOnTheB (talk · contribs), has fewer than 15 edits and may be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. The editor's "delete" comment—"we aren't here to predict the future; right now he just isn't notable"—failed to address the sources provided. The fourth "delete" editor, Relentlessly (talk · contribs), had a reasonable argument about the sources but that position disagreed with four established "keep" editors who believed the sources were sufficient to establish notability. After weighing the numbers and arguments, I believe the consensus is to keep. Overturn to keep. Cunard (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2015 (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 initially created by unexperienced user who created the article without any reference and then it was proposed for deletion with a reason that it is too early to create an article for tjis film. Why too early? The film is scheduled for a release date of September 23, 2015. The trailer has already been released. I have created the whole article in my sandbox with quality references. Please review the matter and remove creation protection from that page. UBStalk 02:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |