The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This did not even get to go to Articles for deletion, and was clearly notable - the source had been established. It was not advertising, or spam. Should be re-listed at AfD. Redisnow2 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 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. |
Article was a stub deleted without allowing the article time to progress. Subject is notable as Ariana Grande's boyfriend. Redisnow2 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 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 believe that I am currently doing a lot of research online for this and I also note that I have added a new source that seems to be ignored in discussions. I believe that the article is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:09, 29 June 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 WP:CSD#G11'ed last night. It's an article that has been there for some time, on a company that makes well-known products within its little field. It's not Ford or Apple, but nor is it G11 material. I don't know how long the G11 had been there, or if it was posted by the deleting admin, but it was on my watchlist and I never saw it light up until the deletion. I would request restoration so that I can take a look at it, and probably neutrally AfD it so that we can have some visible consensus-based choice over deletion. This morning it has been recreated from scratch as a tiny stub. That's a GF action but a bit silly overall. If we regard this as a suitable topic, we ought to at least recover the large article first. It seems that article has now been half-AfDed by another new editor who is having trouble navigating deletion processes. I've not raised this with the deleting admin as, since it was recreated, I can no longer see who that was. If anyone can see who, please let them know. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I'd be grateful if you could do that. It's an important subject which needs to be covered.Rathfelder (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
deleted with no discussion, as advertising, which I would like to contest - or improve to meet the objection. Certainly not intended to be advertising. Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 28 June 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 recreated after deletion and tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted content). However, the current version incluedes several sources not present in the deleted version nor discussed in the AfD. Since the main AfD concern was notability and lack of sources, I felt this was not simialr enough for a G4 speedy. I therefore moved this to Draft temporarily and am now listing it here for discussion on whether to permit recreaion of the current draft version.The deletion close was correct on the evidence then at hand, but might not be correct on the current version. DES (talk) 20:58, 27 June 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. |
Notable person, artist 41.143.65.169 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 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 AfD was open for just a few hours before it was suddenly closed and salted. G4 does not apply as the article contained new information, and the speedy delete close of this AfD was improper as the discussion had not been given the chance to run its course. Independent and significant articles about the subject (such as DailyMail) demonstrating GNG were argued - with many more certainly to come. No counter argument was put forward to suggest that the DailyMail article was not significant and independent. Also, JohnCD notified all previous AfD contributors,[1] but, because of the speedy close, they did not have a chance to contribute to the discussion. In the same spirit of notification, all contributors to the article (deleted history included) should have likewise been notified. The article has been viewed over 7,800 times over the past 30 days.[2] That represents a lot of interested users who are being disappointed when they do not find a stand-alone article on the subject of their interest. Given the high level of interest in the subject, and the vast amount of information available about him, there should be no reasonable doubt that a good article can be written. Dolovis (talk) 02:13, 25 June 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 was merged to List of Resident Evil characters per AFD. However, years later, some disagreed (or a sockpuppet) disagreed. Does the consensus change, even when no substantial improvements were made? --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsa Specialised Vehicles]]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no discussion at all or feedback/opportunity provided on what needed to be addressed even with a second revised version of the above page. The detailed content in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Corsa_Specialised_Vehicles (which contained verifiable/genuine/reliable automotive and company register sources) appears to have been ignored in toto. No replies from either the speedy deletion nominator (Nicky_mathew) or the deletor (RHaworth) who (scandalously?) proclaims on his homepage that he bites/targets "newbies" and may have a habit of deleting pages without explanation? Surely that in itself lacks collegiality? Corsa Specialised Vehicles (CSV) is (and definitely has been between 1994 and 2007) a bona fide independent Australian manufacturer in the same mold as the Australian Holden Special Vehicles (HSV) and Tickford Vehicle Engineering or American AC Cobra or German Mercedes-AMG and it is bewildering that the aforementioned people with no apparent automotive knowledge or local (Australian) knowledge can determine a lack of notoriety, even in the face of the scanned articles placed on the talk page. If other specific issues were at fault, why did neither extend a helping hand and point these out? Again, where is the collegiality? Also, why is this topic protrected from creation now? No opportunity was also ever given to involve any wiki users that are part of the Australian automotive community, responsible for the type of article deleted here. Key points:
Apologies if any of this is wrong - I am a newbie. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Aside from another thanks to those of you above that have taken the time to have their say on this (I appreciate those additional sources), still waiting for the page to be re-published. Concerning my claim of a lack of motoring knowledge on the deletor's part, it was based on noticing no automotive input in their contributions list. Be that as it may, happy to retract that comment once the deleted page is republished and perhaps the deletor providing input on any necessary partial rewrite. It is not easy being a newbie sometimes. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:24, 22 June 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. |
<Relist>
Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 02:29, 20 June 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 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 added an additional 19 sources with many more to come. The closure was proper at the time, but the subject has garnered significant attention from mainstream secondary sources since. This topic was subject to AfD in 2010 prior to the HBO show and this in universe topic is more prominent than ever. I am requesting allow recreation with no bias against relisting. Here is the version I've worked on User:Valoem/Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire. Valoem talk contrib 23:32, 16 June 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 previously deleted on marginal lines that it wasn't meeting WP:GNG (although there were many, they weren't national or international. Now there are handsome amount of national and international article on the subject which is enough to qualify WP:GNG as of now. 123.201.79.2 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 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. |
Contesting G4 Speedy Delete. Bio article was properly re-created with new information after the hockey player had played professionally in a
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Brittany Petros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Petros Brittany Petros should be deleted as it only includes resources from imdb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Movie_Database Another reason to delete her wikipedia article is she has notability on tv or in movies for many years now, other imdb i really cant find any updated on Brittany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelig16 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I tried to create a page for Brian Peppers. It was protected and I was unable. This is a popular and important deceased person who has significant coverage in various publications. I tried to nominate it for deletion review in 2007 and my request was denied. It has been a long time so I am hoping bias here has decreased. Please allow creation of this important article. Thank you for consideration of this matter. Pilotbob (talk) 03:51, 11 June 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 discussion was closed as "redirect", but I do not believe that was representative of the discussion - there was a clear consensus in favor of "deletion". The discussion had 7 !votes in favor of deletion, all based off of relevant policy/guidelines/essays regarding lists. Its an unsourced list, not likely to be documented as a primary topic of discussion by third party sources, and not especially a likely search term. There were only 2 !votes for redirect, and neither gave any rationale for their stance. (One just said it should happen, and one was the article creator, merely saying he'd rather not have his work deleted.) The closer, MelanieN proceeded to close it as a redirect anyways, and when I asked her about it, she stated that she personally "always leans toward redirect if there is a plausible target". While that is a fine stance for a participant in a discussion, it is not an appropriate action as a close for a discussion that did not contain a consensus for such an action. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 9 June 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. |
You can see here http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Deepcentral article at the moment of it's deletion in February 2014. Quote: ″The band spent 7 weeks at the top of the Romanian Top 100 in the period March to May that year,[2][3] with a total of 17 weeks in the Top 10. As a result, Deepcentral was nominated to MTV Europe Music Award for Best Romanian Act″ IMHO this page can be deleted only via discussion, not PROD and not speedy. XXN, 12:02, 8 June 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. |
Significance was credibly provided. Speedy deletion criterion not fulfilled. Perform a proper deletion discussion, if needed. Person is the lyricist of Lady Divine from The Divine Lady and several others. Authority control identifiers (ISNI, VIAF) were present. Eldizzino (talk) 03:31, 8 June 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 article was closed as delete in February with all of 3 delete votes. Gary is a notable basketball player that played at New Mexico and is now playing professionally. I brought the issue up with User:Joe Decker and he gave me the standard "sorry I'm not going to recreate this consensus was reached blah blah." I then provided several sources, and he hasn't responded in several days. If I recall the article was fairly well written and well sourced, though it may have been light on sources to prove his notability. In any case I believe there are plenty of sources out there to establish that Gary is notable. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:35, 7 June 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. |
Please see the discussion on my talk page here. I closed the deletion discussion on this individual on 30 May as delete based on the fact that although there was a technical joint/partial Grammy award as a producer on an album that won Grammy Award for Best New Age Album the subject undoubtedly failed the GNG. As this is a BLP and since WP:ANYBIO was in tension with WP:N and the WP:GNG I closed in favour of delete based on the view that (especially in the case of a BLP) a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion (which there wasn't) to give favour to the SNG over N. Given the challenge to this interpretation, I agreed to list this here for a view on whether or not it was in my discretion as closing admin to close that way. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 7 June 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. |
Black Kite gave a G10 justification for the list article after it came up at BLPN. The subject matter is easily sourced across both journalism and academia. I think this is a willful misread of G10, especially in light of the deleting admin asserting that their most important justification for deletion was that they don't want Wikipedia "hosting unpleasant misogyny". While better sources need to be found for the article I see nothing about the subject matter that is inherently G10. This is a substantive subject, easily sourced, that is not itself a copyvio. This should go to AfD, not be, to borrow the deleting admin's term, "nuked" because they don't like it. GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC) GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 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. |
1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is an article about the armed conflicts “behind” the war zone in the 3nd Army and 4rd Army operational areas in Anatolia between the Ottoman military and special units against the Armenian militia – historically the Armenian fedayi – of the Armenian national movement. Ottoman army at this period was five main campaigns: the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, the Mesopotamian Campaign, the Caucasus Campaign, the Persian Campaign, and the final stages of Gallipoli Campaign and two minor campaigns, wikipedia do not have an article for armed conflicts behind these Campaigns. There are many historians that study Ottoman history, and all of them recognize the armed struggle Armenians against Ottomans including 1915 conflicts behind the war zone. However there a small group of historians that specialize the year “1915.” The article is based on their published research. Admin presented deletion summary on 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire as (a) the neutral point of view policy, the (b) content forking guideline and (b) undue weight. (a) the neutral point of view policy. I believe the article currently deleted had a strict “intellectual standard.” Removal of a published content from these authors bring interesting positions on application of verifiability on wikipedia. The main idea behind this position in the deletion process was represented by [|this remark]. In the discussions, credibility of [Erikson] [| Reynolds] and [| McMeekin] questioned and these authors were libeled as Genocide deniers. The deletion of this article is a removal of the content contributed through these publications. The Scientific misconduct is very important issue and there are very clear rules for ethical behavior and performing historical research. There is no judicial decisions or retractions on these publications. Deletion of the content represented by these historians based on alleged “Genocide-deniers” argument is very polemic in the absence of these evidence. Enforcing a decision to delete a content of these authors based on the label Category:Armenian Genocide deniers by wiki participants rather than the source is problematic. The existence of such a category in the absence of judicial decision is also problematic. The article also includes information from Taner Akçam and Donald Bloxham to every fact presented. (b) content forking guideline During discussions participants stated: The content being part of a military campaign Caucasian Campaign. The position is clarified with the re-write including a summary table showing the insurgency locations beyond the Caucasian campaign. The second position was article should be merged with Genocide Article. Academic study of this period includes both “Genocide” and “insurgency of 1915.” They do not negate each other. Insurgency of 1915 is not antithesis of Genocide in the literature. Insurgency of 1915, which is armed conflicts behind the war zone inside the Ottoman empire is no original research or synthesis, or part of other conflicts occurred during the period. The editors which hold the position “delete” rejected the merging based on the idea that armed conflict waged was not part of Genocide by building the link to Jewish fighters. The decision that insurgency in 1915 is a Point of view (POV) forks is controversial. It is obvious that 1915 is very special year. But hardly unique article. First point. Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920 (1915 is included) represented in Wikipedia. Armed activities, insurgency, of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during 1914-1918 (1915 is included) also exists. The leaders of insurgent activities have their own pages which their activities in 1915 exists. These articles are not perceived as POV fork of Armenian Genocide. The article 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is unique because collects all information distributed among many articles for the year 1915. It is 35 pages. It also included information missing from the wikipedia. Second point: Armenian Genocide is a complex issue and not limited to “insurgency in 1915.” Template:Armenian Genocide Armenian Genocide have sections mentioning the “insurgency in 1915,” but Article is not limited with this concept, such as all the articles in the Template Armenian Genocide. Equating 1915 insurgency to Armenian Genocide is problematic. Caucuses Campaign (limited with the war zone) already includes all the major elements (April 24, Tehcir Law, deportations, Civilian casualties, etc) in this armed conflict. Are we to delete the Caucuses Campaign (war zone) like 1915 insurgency (behind the war zone)? I believe such a decision is arbitrary. Point three: There was no single objection voiced in the deletion discussions for the facts presented in the article. Article contains all the positions, which one user pledged to remove the positions which makes the article NPOV (this). (c) undue weight: viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. procedurally wrong decision: I believe this “deletion” process does require a strict “intellectual standards,” because a) the content falls into a long lasting controversial topic between Armenian and Turkish editors. b) the voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, rather than the arguments related with the content (the issues regarding Stealth canvassing, sock puppets and other issues reported to Admin [this]) c) there is a clear Wikipedia policy that these [deletion] processes is not decided on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Controversial topics, if substantiated (verifiability), should not be deleted by voting. Failing to enforce WP:Verifiability created a POV sensitization process across many articles. In fact, the removal of 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is created an extremest position (| this link] on the armed conflicts at Middle Eastern theatre of World War I) which same authors also | pledged to remove Armenian national movement and removal of conflicts in [1916, 1917, 1918 from history of ottoman empire during WWI], [| Removal of Armenian national movement from defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire], initiate removal of Resistance during 14-18 (this [32]). If Wikipedia enforces the idea that there is "No" Armenian-Ottoman conflicts behind the war-zone in 1915, the removal of armed conflicts involved Armenian national movement (many articles, many years) would be expected. I ask the reversal of the deletion, based on “intellectual standards.” Thank you. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Okurogluselo: Really I cannot believe that such a content deleted in wiki. Did everybody lose the sanity? Or is everybody poisoned by fanatics, who cannot bear any reality they dont like? This is an encyclopedia. Nobody denies civil Armenians deported and killed in masses, bu also nobody could deny that Armenians had been armed and fought against Turkish Army or police forces, beginning from 1860. During 1915, well equipped by Russia, about 25.000 Armenians attacked to Ottoman forces, and also to Turkish villages which supplied support and privates to the army. The enrolled Armenian men increased and it was a civil war obviously. And the real scene was World War I. Who can deny a civil war occurred? These all were real, and yes, of course we can cite tens of reliable references including German and Russian army logs. Such attemps to erase the facts from wikipedia are censorship, nothing other than this. I offer to change the headline of the article or writing it from beginning. How about, "Civil War in Eastern Anatolia in WWI"? We may not use the date 1915 at the headline or the term insurgency. Also the article may contain Assyrian armed rebellion during the same period, and nearly in the same region. Assyrians approve they attacked to the Turkish Army, however they claimed it was a reaction. Then they have their own claims about Assyrian Genocide. In fact some Armenians confirm that thay fought against the empire, however like Assyrians, they assume it was self defense. The article I propose may include all the aspects claimed by sides. Okurogluselo : Blah 18:12, 4 June 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. |
Archive.is was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is in September 2013. A list of Archive.is–related discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 14#Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Two RfCs are Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Because the topic has been contentious, I am bringing this to DRV for community review of new sources that did not exist when the AfD took place. Here are three reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Archive.is:
Archive.is also received some coverage in two journal articles:
The current name of the archiving service is Archive.is, not Archive.today. See the May 3, 2015, blog post http://blog.archive.is/post/118010496181/why-did-you-change-the-url-back-from-archive-todayWebCite. Allow recreation; move User:Lexein/archive.today to Archive.is.Cunard (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |