| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
ould consider good enough to show that the article is relevant. Otherwise we'll just go around in circles. If we don't want this thread to be full of people giving long explanations that don't meet the standard of evidence expected, and people responding with equally long explanations of why they don't think it's good enough, then we need to set the terms of the debate. So, two questions from me. ONE, what level of interest is needed for an article to be notable? (ie how many people need to be interested in it and how strongly?). TWO, what kind of evidence is needed to support either view (ie what would demonstrate that the level of interest is either too low or too high for the article to be notable?). Personally, I found the content of the article useful and will be saving a copy so I can read it after deletion! But I do recognise that wikipedia isn't just for me - it's a community resource and needs a community decision :) 212.250.154.206 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Skywalker Kush (talk) 05:52, 5 September 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 article was provided with a fair number of independent reliable sources, and Toradex has some media coverage's on magazines [1][2][3]. There was no proper consensus to delete. Suniltx (talk) 10:17, 31 August 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. |
Recommend that Administrators Allow Recreation; new information (including convincing external sources) have been identified in the deletion discussion. These new sources were debated by a small group of editors, however deletion was executed before further opinion could be gathered. This subject area is unique (as the terms of WP:PROF distinctly recognize), and therefore the expanded time which elapsed between the Article's AfD submission and active editorial discourse is natural & fully to be expected — the tags presented at the Article's heading were sufficient to notify Wikipedia readers of this ongoing review, throughout the discussion process. Recreation is both possible and reasonable in the case of this Article. UBI-et-ORBI (talk)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was being debated as valid. The editor who nominated it for deletion did not work to improve the article first, and contributors to the article contested that. Then the original editor who nominated it started working with another contributor to clean up the page after the deletion was contested, so that the page could be brought up to date and additional notable sources could be cited. I believe the page was deleted because it reached the 7-day period for review and the majority answers were Delete, but the Deletes were specified prior to the page receiving a clean-up. Per Wikipedia rules, an article that may be relevant and is just poorly written or cited should first have the opportunity to be updated before being nominated for deletion. You can see an active discussion (still ongoing) about the content of the page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neurosys_zero with the editor who originally nominated the page for deletion. Darren Schreiber (talk) 18:32, 29 August 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 hadn't realised that this category was being discussed, and I am quite surprised that it was included in the bundle of other categories to be deleted. The Order of the Netherlands Lion article says that it "could therefore be considered the Dutch equivalent of the Order of the Bath," and "since 1980 the Order has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature." I can only assume that this was included by mistake, since the subcats of Category:Order of Orange-Nassau were not nominated. I would also like Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion restored. There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 28 August 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. |
Has enough sources for inclusion, prematurely speedy-deleted Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:45, 26 August 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. |
Notability seems to have increased. Worth noting on Italian Wikipedia that an article creased in 2010 has been undeleted and is still up in 2015. The 2010 nomination problem was that it was not notable, and the 2012 deletions cited this reason as well. Since then, it has received some notable coverage. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Using 'news' I found it:
Part of the initial concern was that the article was created as an advertisement, I do not know how it originally looked, but it should be possible to recreate is as a kind of stub to simply mention how it is considered a notable file-sharing website. Ranze (talk) 05:59, 25 August 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. |
Hello together, so we are quite a big French fashion school called IFA Paris. Our entry existed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFA_Paris until about a week ago. You can check the talk and history page, but basically we did update some information, but it might have sounded too promotional for some people and we worked hard to reduce the promotions and edit the text as well as incorporate information only with trusted sources. We did have sources for everything we claimed, but they weren't good enough for some of the Wikipedia community. We were working on removing information and updating sources when all of a sudden the page was gone. FYI, the French and Chinese versions of the Wikipedia page still exist. We know there obviously is a conflict of interest, so please can someone write a neutral article on IFA Paris and reinstate this page? Thanks. Nikki38394724 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I have put a request where you said. Hope the format is ok there. Any idea on how long it usually takes until someone gets around to writing it? Thanks! Nikki38394724 (talk) 01:53, 26 August 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 achieved notability. Was accepted to the Main Space and then removed. It's now at Draft:Alex Gilbert. Please look at the sources on the page before commenting. It is clear that it is a notable article. It was even approved by a reviewer. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 04:26, 24 August 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 am here to request the undeletion of the article Checkmarx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmarx). It was previously deleted numerous times and then blocked from recreation. It was deleted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. You can refer to the previous link for the deletion discussions associated with the content. First, I am not receiving compensation to write this article. I read the guidelines on conflict of interest and want to make sure that is clear. I do have a connection with the company which is another reason I am here. I have created a draft in my sandbox that I would like reviewed and if appropriate, have the article unblocked and restored to the version I created. I believe it is non-promotional in tone and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. The reason I feel it warrants undeletion is because the last deletion was in 2013. Prior to that time, the company had little press that showed it to be notable. Unfortunately, it appears that people tried to create and cram the article into Wikipedia anyway. I cannot apologize for that as I was not associated with those creations. However, I would like to show you a few things that have made the company notable since its last deletion in 2013. Since 2013, the company has received a ton of press coverage in reliable sources, both in Hebrew and in English. They can be found through a quick Google search on Google News - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22checkmarx%22&tbm=nws The article in my sandbox can be edited to how you feel appropriate. I feel it is non promotional, but ask that you review and edit it if you feel it is not. I am just hoping for two things here. The first is that the draft be reviewed for its content and adjusted as you see fit for Wikipedia standards. The second is that it be undeleted and the draft in my sandbox be used as the article. I requested user MBisanz consider in deleting the article, but was told to come here because of the numerous previous deletions which I completely understand. Thank you for your consideration.--Weirdedsultry (talk) 22:36, 23 August 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. |
There is no clear consensus to delete. While this is not a vote-count, you had 8 editors arguing to keep and 6 arguing for deletion. The main argument given for deletion was WP:BLP1E, followed by not notable. On the keep side, you had editors who pointed at the essay WP:SOLDIER, but also pointed as sound policy reasons under notability that were not addressed nor considered by the closing admin. Sinclair is one of just a few generals who have been court-martialed in the last 60 years. There were reliable sources covering other portions of his life, as a battalion commander in combat, as a brigade commander in combat. These policy based arguments were not considered by the closing admin, even though they directly rebutted statements made by those arguing for deleting the article. Next, it is an improper analysis of BLP1E which requires all three of the criteria be met. Sinclair does not meet any of the criteria listed, he is covered by WP:RS outside of the one event, as a general, he is not a low-profile individual, and the event was both significant and Sinclair's role was significant. This should be overturned on policy grounds. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
comment - & here, just for the record, & the merry HELL of it, are some sources, to establish notability (he even has his own tag on the huffington post, AND stars and stripes). BY THE WAY he WAS a general (& yes, brigadier generals do "count"), subsequently demoted, so he DOES qualify for "notability" on that standard.
& here is the New York Times! ^__^ i know we dont like op-eds, but here is a good one, @ a reasonably notable discussion-site & here is the AP story she cited & here is a quote from AP "U.S. Army prosecutors offered the first details of a rare criminal case against a general" had enough yet? there's more: UPI
&, not that i like them, but the washington times is a major news outlet
NOW, is anyone seriously contesting the "notability" of the subject? because i can just keep going... Lx 121 (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
& since we are STILL going-all-around-the-mulberry-bush on this point, here are the & if you wade through all of that, then @ the end of the day you will find that yes virginia, in the united states army, a brigadier general IS a flag officer. also, that in british, they just call it a "brigadier", with no -"general". please can we declare that point to be settled now? Lx 121 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 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. |
It is an international male model. This article was excluded for rapid elimination, for not being a high-profile person. I know that in 2007 (when the page was deleted), there were so many outside sources about it. But today, after many years, you can do an article to reliable sources, it has profile in known fashion pages. My request is, if you can not restore the page, at least unprotect the item so it can be edited in the future. Thanks. Brenhunk (talk) 17:50, 22 August 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. |
Incorrect speedy deletion on grounds of recreation of previously deleted content. It's a different template that provides more than twice the features of the older template that used to be at that name (i.e. it is substantially different; this is especially salient in that the deletion of the old template was principally on the grounds of lack of utility in providing only two auto-fill features). This is a specific-source citation template, for one of the top-four, professionally edited sports journalism sources in cue sports. The newer template is comparable to the rest of the templates in that category. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:23, 21 August 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. |
Hi. User:Skier Dude deleted File:LifeIsGood.png, but appears not to be an admin (or even an active user) any more. I think that file may have a role to play in a historical context in article Life is Good Company, with a valid fair use rationale template. Please check on it and let me know. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:11, 20 August 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 deletetion reason is that it was deleted previously, but I created it with new content and added many reliable secondary sources. Please review and recreate the page Slowstars (talk) 14:51, 18 August 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:
List of sources in the AfD:
The discussion was relisted twice after my suggestion, and Prhartcom (talk · contribs) agreed, writing, "Article can coexist with a graphical password article." After re-reviewing the sources provided by Sadads again, I believe there is enough material for "Passmap" to be a standalone article. (Though it can certainly be mentioned in Rhododendrites (talk · contribs)'s draft at Draft:Graphical password about the broader topic.) I would like passmap to be restored, so I can remove all but the first two sentences and source them to http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513. There was clearly no consensus in the AfD. Two editors supported "keep and prune" (Cunard and Prhartcom), one editor supported "keep" (Sadads), and three editors supported deletion (Finlay McWalter, Eclipsed, and Rhododendrites). The "delete" editors did not advance arguments far better than the "keep" editors, so a "delete" conclusion is untenable with a split vote count. Overturn to no consensus. Cunard (talk) 19:01, 15 August 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. |
Not only did the deletion discussion of this template have no resulting consensus, this license is, from what I've seen, relatively uncommon - if it's (rarely) used on an image with no free alternative it may be useable alongside the ((Non-free with ND)) template. 201.53.49.33 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 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 don't believe consensus was reached. Both Delete votes made arguments that were disputed and some were addressed with additional sources and citations. As the AFD had already been relisted twice I believe that the deletion discussion should have been closed and the notice removed under no consensus. Sepharo (talk) 22:32, 14 August 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. |
Reached verdict for deletion, I have made a decision with other editors in regards to the notablity of the “footballer” Emil Tîmbur, I have found out that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL and fails to meet WP:GNG, Therefore, I'm seeking an attention from administrator to delete the article per as the decision was reached at Article for Deletion. --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 17:51, 14 August 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 won't discuss the arguments for either side of the deletion discussion here, simply the closure. On the AfD page, there were 7 !votes to delete (including the nom) and 7 to keep. 4 of the 7 "keep" !votes came from IPs and SPAs, whose first or second edit was to this AfD, and to an AfD for a similar article (that article was deleted for reasons identical to this one). The SPAs have made no other edits of any significance, and their reasoning is identical (in a couple of places, copy pasted). Anyone who knows anything about this area will recognize the quacking immediately. These should be rejected forthwith. That makes it 7 !votes to delete and 3 to keep. Of course AfD is not about raw !votes, but the closer has not given any indication as to why they consider the 3 keep !votes to weigh so heavily as to match the delete !votes. In discussion on their talk page, the closer appears to give non-zero weight to these socks (in my opinion, anything non-zero is too high for them). They don't consider the arguments of one group as more convincing than the other, which begs the question as to why the result of this AfD should not be "delete" since 7 is obviously much bigger than 3. Are we really going to allow these obvious socks/meats to subvert AfDs like this?
| |||
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. |
Before this deletion, I had plans to expand on this into an overview page with each or some cars splintered into its own article with the assistance of internet articles and old Radio Controlled Car Action scans I recently discovered on the internet, because that article exists and it is one of the best known R/C cars, I left it at that; this was before it got nominated for deletion. Because I do not keep tabs on what page is going to be deleted, I would not had been aware of this nominations. As for being not notable as mentioned in the nomination, I assume that this person have never touched a radio-controlled car, let alone visited a hobby shop; especially that it is one of the most famous models with multiple world championship wins amongst other championship wins and still counting. If anybody want to state that they can't find articles, I suggest you find them in the form of old magazine scans of RCCA where there is no shortage of articles about them. You can find there is no shortage of scanned magazine articles from old magazines on this link or does Wikipedia notability rules only applies to online notability? For starters, there is this, this, this and that. Donnie Park (talk) 13:19, 12 August 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. |
No reason nor need to delete the page. Taku (talk) 23:29, 8 August 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 page was deleted by administrator Peridon with the reasoning of "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" – despite the fact that two people, me and another editor, contested this speedy deletion on the talk page with arguments that he was a notable film critic for a notable entertainment website, IGN, and that that in itself made him notable for an article. Also, please note the article had two citations to reliable sources, categories, etc. It was a stub, but last time I checked just because something is a stub doesn't mean it's valid for deletion. The fact that he's a noted film critic for a notable website, IGN, and is the Executive Editor of its Movie Division, does "credibly indicate the importance or significance of [him]". Therefore, I'm contesting this speedy deletion as invalid. If anything, it should have gone through the Articles for deletion process first, as it was reliably sourced with two people making arguments about its notability on the talk page, which the administrator apparently didn't consider. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 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. | ||
Moultrie, GA µSA was kept in an RFD in 2010, but on 1 August 2013, Wizardman deleted it with the comment "what?" Last I checked, that's not a speedy critera. I came across this because a similar µSA was nominated: (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 8#Shelton, WA μSA). I was going to talk to Wizardman about it, but BU Rob13 had already posted on his talk page on July 25th with no response. Since it's been two weeks, I figured that is enough time to respond so I'm taking it here. -- Tavix (talk) 22:02, 8 August 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 Admin NawlinWiki speedily deleted this page, citing the A7 rule, which says that the organization being written about lacked notability. I contacted the admin on their talk page to try to address the issue, but I was unable to resolve it there. I think that the reason catchword is notable, is that it was one of the first companies in the naming industry and has had a ton of press that features them, some of which is actually only about catchword. Here is a list of all the articles that feature catchword: http://catchwordbranding.com/about/press/ and this one, by the Oakland Tribune exclusively focuses on them: http://catchwordbranding.com/coverage/CatchwordProfileOaklandTribune2004.pdf This very recent radio story is also about them: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/title-tk/ They appear on this list of notable naming companies on the product naming page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_naming#Notable_naming_companies Also, consider that there are other naming companies that have wiki pages, such as A Hundred Monkeys and Lexicon Branding. Jrendleman (talk) 21:48, 7 August 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. |
Throughout the years of editing this encyclopedia I have come to an understanding that my interpretation of our guidelines has been faithful to our fundamental goals. When it comes to this topic I was surprised to find that I may have made a mistake, but upon further review and research I stand by my original belief that there is a place for this topic here. A fundamental rule of this encyclopedia is that secondary sources establish notability, yet despite the plethora of sources extending over a 100 years, every close has been against retention. Instead of rehashing all prior arguments I asked for fellow editors to review the material in question. Let's move forward and find a home for this subject, this topic does not merely included men and women with mental health issues that lead to this state, but also includes those who mentally sound and desire sex, but are physically unable. The historic and academic nature of such topics are important when it comes to inclusion within any encyclopedia, this one being no different. The most recent discussion found here: Had a consensus to restore as involuntary sexual abstinence even from my opponents. The close should reflect consensus. Since this most recent close I've added six additional sources The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, The dynamics of growth in a finite world: A technical report on the global simulation model World 3, Aftermath of Peace: Psychological Essays, The Advocate, and Men's rights activists have missed the point of feminism entirely. The first sources is from The American Journal of Urology and Sexology published in 1916 which clearly distinguishes the difference between voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence therefore if this is a neologism it in one that has span a century. Nothing on this encyclopedia is final and that is the beauty of an encyclopedia that is organic, we can grow and correct our mistakes. Once again I ask to allow restoration and relist or restore as Involuntary sexual abstinence. Valoem talk contrib 09:03, 6 August 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. |
He's the co-founder of Big Idea Productions, the co-creator of VeggieTales, and covered in more sources than I can count. How did this get PRODed? Ruski22 (talk) 07:51, 5 August 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 recently discovered more notable references and request the opportunity to revise the article and work on it alongside another admin. --Thenforevernow (talk) 23:50, 4 August 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. |
Debate incorrectly closed as keep by Swarm. The actual outcome is clearly no consensus. The debate was relisted by JJMC89 due to the absence of a clear consensus for or against deletion, and no new comments were made after that occurred. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 4 August 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. |
Their have been new sources come to light in the last few years to make him a notable musician. The salted page needs to be desalted to make way for creation. The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |