|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The page deletion resulted from factual inaccuracies in the deletion discussion. I reached out to the administrator who deleted the page, User:Sandstein, and was told that because I missed the deletion discussion, the facts basically don't matter. This seems very un-Wikipedia to me. I've highlighted and provided comments on the inaccuracies in the deletion review below. > "(note that his brother Jeremy Allaire, is notable as the inventor of ColdFusion but that's his brother, not himself)" This is the other way around. Joseph J Allaire was actually the inventor of ColdFusion rather than Jeremy Allaire (Jeremy provided input but otherwise didn't participate in the development of the product). Source: Data Intensive Computing for Biodiversity: "The first version of ColdFusion (then called Cold Fusion) was released in 1995, written almost entirely by one man, JJ Allaire. > "add a note on the brother's page about Joseph's minor involvement in his brother's enterprise -- sibling rivalry!!!" This is also incorrect. Joseph was the principal founder and leader of the company rather than Jeremy. He was both the developer of ColdFusion and founding CEO. After hiring an outside CEO Joseph continued as Chairman and Executive Vice President of Products. Jeremy was a critical part of the origin and evolution of the company but formally joined it about a year after its founding and subsequently held the positions of Director of Technology and Chief Technology Officer. You can verify much of this by reviewing the company's S1 filing with the SEC, just search for all instances of "Jeremy" and "Joseph" and note the accountings of role, etc. > "No notability outside being the ceo of Altaiere...he only additional thing this individual did is devised one of the minor components of what became the MS toolbar" This is also an incomplete account, and not just in the name of the company (Allaire). Joseph has developed a number of other highly successful software products:
Would it be possible to reinstate the page? 10mbt (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What are the next steps? Should I write a draft article? 10mbt (talk) 15:11, 1 November 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 is clearly notable and it has gone through many deletions etc. Has had multiple media coverage in NZ and Russia. And no it is not about a single event. The sources also cover his Non-Profit Organisation and Book. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:08, 29 October 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. |
Some IP user removed the image of the living person as replaceable. However, the person is a former child actor, and he has not been actively acting since he left one show. The photo was of an actor portraying a character on television at a very young age. Per WP:GUIDES, perhaps we can make an exception on WP:NFC#UUI; after all, it's a guideline, which can be treated with common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 October 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 appears that this was a sort of "under-the-radar AfD". The article has survived many attempts (I didn't even count) for deletion. It is very hard to believe the attempt would finally succeed without much fanfare. Some votes appear to suffer from COI: Angela has clear COI and there are some votes from those knowing her personally and are thus suspected of COI. I'm perfectly open to a new AfD but this one should be overturned. Taku (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
(Overturn this many repeated nomination for a deletion are an abuse of process. If one nominates an article enough times, the vvariability of aparitcipation here mean that it is almost certain to be deleted. The last time I saw an outrageous series of nomination like this was back in 2007, when the earlier series of nomination s came to a temporary halt. Certainly, our notability standards can change, but not to this extent. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 29 October 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 uninvolved in this discussion. Anyways, this AFD was closed as keep by a non-admin. However, I notice a few problems with this close: a) the discussion was only open for 3 days, instead of the usual 7; b) the discussion only had 5 !votes, two of which were for deletion; and c) the closing non-admin !voted in the discussion (as a keep), violating WP:NACD. I request that this AFD be relisted for a more clear consensus. Prhdbt [talk] 18:32, 24 October 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 is of a BLP, which, when published was in creation by User:AlwaysHappy by adding the ((increation)) tag, when it was deleted using Speedy Deletion by citing spam and insignificant. However, the person being dicussed abides by the notability guidelines of BLP, and had sufficient third-party references to prove the facts claims. It had more than 30 edits, edited by more than 5 distinct users/bots. The person is a public figure of Thane and Mulund cities (suburban areas of Mumbai, India). Relevant references were made while claiming his representation of notable college under Mumbai University. Moreover, the lead introduction was "Indian poet, writer and blogger". The article had over a dozen citations to validate itself and was patrolled too. I had put a ((stub)) tag, and some ((citation-needed)) tags for maintenance, which were rectified accordingly. So, in all, the article was notable and could have been improvised, and discussed on its talk page, before directly jumping for Speedy Deletion by a user who has been discredited in the past for hasty tags of Speedy Deletion. So, after futile debate with the administrator, I request here that the article be restored back, and instead of deletion, a maintenance tag be put on its top, upon restoration. AlicePeston (talk) 12:16, 24 October 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 is an article on Indian song from film Phantom (2015 film). First AfD was closed as "no consensus" by admin RoySmith on 6 September 2015, then nominator of AfD challenged outcome on RoySmith's talk page where RoySmith suggested him to "re-nominate it but read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion before that" which says AfD closed as "no consensus" should not relist at least for 2 months. Though Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion is just an essay and not proper Wikipedia policy still some essays can be well established norms specially when an admin suggesting it to read it. But still nominator re-nominated article on 6 October 2015, just one month after closure of 1st AfD. 2nd AfD actually had very less discussion/votes than 1st AfD and closed as "delete" by admin Sandstein. I am creator of that article but this "delete" closure was also challenged by very experienced User:Richhoncho. Read all discussion here. I had some big issues with nominator and some of voters on that AfD in past, I don't want to discuss that. Since first AfD I wanted to improve that article but I was blocked twice because of edit warring on that article with nominator, nominator himself was blocked once for that article for edit warring with me during first AfD. So because of my 2 blocks came from that article I felt discouraged and left editing that article and article remained quite underdeveloped. My only request is that restore the article as it was re-nominated within one month or at least allow me to recreate it.(Note: I have no complain regarding any admin or any other involved editor). --Human3015TALK 19:12, 23 October 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 in question is a non-notable neologism, synonymous with tu quoque, that doesn't have any treatment by reliable secondary sources as required by neologism rule and therefore was nominated for violating it. On AfD discussion I've also presented proof that Wiki is being used to promote and validate this new word. Here is another example where wiki is being used to promote and validate this neologism, this time by Washington Post [1] (the link was ironically provided by the editor who voted to "keep"). Article also includes synthesis that attempts to tie neologism with an idea that it represents, when the word itself is never even mentioned in a source. Neologism rule was specifically created for cases like this, but although article meets all the requirements for deletion it's been kept instead. During discussion nobody have had presented a counter-argument that article doesn't break the neologism policy. Instead, commentators simply reiterated that there are supposedly plenty of sources (nevermind that sources provided merely use the word, and such case is explicitly addressed in neologism rule as not sufficient; one of the sources doesn't even have the word anywhere at all). One of the editors suggested possibility of merging article with tu quoque. Then, editor Davey2010 closed discussion as "Keep", cause in his view consensus was to "obviously keep". I've messaged him that consensus should be based on arguments and no arguments that actually addressed violation of the rule were presented. After some contemplation he reopened discussion. The very next day two more "votes" to keep were cast with an empty reiteration of an "ample of reliable sources" and he closed discussion again as "an obvious keep", even though according to him, and I quote: "Admittingly the NEO side hasn't been address" [sic]. To me it seems as a clear misinterpretation of consensus in favor of keeping the article that violates rule sufficient for it's deletion. Niyaro (talk) 14:32, 23 October 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. |
Deleting admin seems to have formed their own view and deleted this article, despite opinions being almost equally divided. Points were raised by both sides. Per discussion here such divided opinions should be closed as no consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 10:37, 23 October 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 looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2013, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:240:C701:45F0:D4D0:C320:BB31:BF69 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 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 looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2013, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:240:C701:45F0:C5FB:43DC:C7BB:2DAF (talk) 11:34, 22 October 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 looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2011, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:240:C701:45F0:C5FB:43DC:C7BB:2DAF (talk) 11:26, 22 October 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 inappropriate closure because it was closed as keep by an editor who had advocated keep in the discussion. They claimed that opposers were wrong because the template now met WP:NAVBOX but it still only contains two links and the topic link, so I would have argued it fails the "rule of five" suggested at WP:NENAN. This supervote needs to be reverted. BethNaught (talk) 07:27, 20 October 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 page was deleted for being too promotional. I would like the opportunity to make the page neutral and more notable. Thanks. Martin Tide (talk) 13:53, 19 October 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. |
Unused local copies of files on Commons. The keep rationale by the closing administrator was that the files were tagged with the ((Keep local)) template. However, the only policy page that mentions this template is WP:CSD, which states that files tagged with this template are not eligible for speedy deletion under criteria F8. They are still eligible for deletion under other criteria. These files should have been deleted under under the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTWEBHOST, which says that files not in use will be deleted. Kelly hi! 08:39, 19 October 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 majority of votes were against deletion. As noted, this list is very helpful in promoting the show and would enhance Wikipedia by encouraging more Rhett and Link fans to come here. The admin has no right to ignore the votes or to destroy this work. The fact that most people find it helpful is a good reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.162 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 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. |
WP:ENTERTAINER requires an entertainer to have significant roles in multiple notable works to have an article. Nathan Norman satisfied this through his significant role (Lead guitarist) in the notable rock band Devo 2.0, and his significant role (Lead villain) in the notable movie 16 Stones. Administrator ignored this and deleted the article based on majority vote. The fact that Nathan Norman is now running for president may have convinced his opponents to bombard the discussion with delete votes. Giant Bernard (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Update: now it looks like some campaign opponent moved an article about a sea captain over the old one.--Giant Bernard (talk) 17:35, 15 October 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, the author of the draft, had access to the original sources at Global University that is found on the Malta website (http://www.globaluniversity.org.mt/homepage.htm). The Malta School is a satellite school of Global University and has access to the same materials as I did, but did not reference the original materials like I did in my draft. If I need to reference this website in my draft, I am more than willing. However, the original source of the information on that website is, in fact, the information that I am including in my proposed draft. Thank you for all your help! Jedisteve0001 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 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 have played for the Georgia national team, which makes him notable per WP:NFOOTY. Source. MbahGondrong (talk) 17:01, 12 October 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 interpretation of guidelines and consensus. There is no evidence that the IP votes are anything but genuine, and they comment directly on policy matters. The keep votes are simply cover ground that was covered in extensive discussions on the talk page and rejected. ゼーロ (talk) 12:19, 12 October 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. |
AfD outcome in 2012 was redirect to band's article. Standalone article has been repeatedly requested since then. There is now a sourced article at Draft:Liam Payne, which keeps getting denied at AfC. What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:48, 11 October 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. |
Apart from the nomination, there was only one comment. Both failed to consider WP:PROF; Siras won the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad award for his 2002 collection of poems, therefore passing this notability test. He is also notable for having a film made about his life, the ground-breaking court case in 2010 which was brought by Siras and has been a fundamental case study of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was recognized as a "literary genius" of Mirarathi poetry[18]. With the film being premiered in London this weekend, I was hoping to expand the article about the Professor. I would like to see the article undeleted so that reliable sources and material can be added, and at a time when it will be of most use to the general public for their education about the facts of the Professor's life, the legal case and the controversial circumstances of his death. It should be noted that the statement "he was a Gay and that's why he was suspended from his job of Professorship at the University" was used in the deletion discussion and went unchallenged. I would hope that if this goes to another deletion discussion it will be better moderated. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 11 October 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. |
IP comments were discounted. Additionally, it looked like there was about to be a no consensus. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I spoke to him now. The opinions seemed to be strong arguments for GNG. Being number one ranked in a weight division across various fighting federations seems to make someone noteworthy. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Undelete these individuals seem to gang attacking one person who has challenged a deletion. I believe this screams of cyber bullying and racism. This needs to be seriously addresses. 96.127.236.62 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 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. |
IP comments were discounted. Additionally, it looked like there was about to be a no consensus. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the discounting of IP edits. Also being recognized as a master makes someone noteworthy. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Undelete these individuals seem to gang attacking one person who has challenged a deletion. I believe this screams of cyber bullying and racism. This needs to be seriously addresses. 96.127.236.62 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 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 one but the nominator discussed this. Admin conducted a super vote instead in approving the discussion. Should be overturned and relisted with more time for actual discussion. 166.170.45.57 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 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 is not a catalog but a list and there are already lots of pages of lists that also have references like this one and are useful for Wikipedia users. If this page is finally removed more pages like this one will also need to be removed. Please, allow Wikipedia to be useful. Jsmithbetterwikipedia (talk) 10:22, 10 October 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 know why a well-known cover art is deleted other than allegedly violating WP:NFCC#8. The original album cover is deservingly used, but almost no one knew that the image existed. It was a reissue cover art, but that shouldn't make it merely decorative, should it? No one voted for or against this image because no one was aware of the FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 8 October 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhoom (album) was closed by a non-admin user as keep and they have now asked me to reach here. While all the 3 votes on the AfD did vote for keeping the article, I would like to point out that per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I feel that arguments made by keep voters were quite week and when re-questioned no replies were given yet by them. Hence requesting to relist or reconsider the closure.
|
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 is a question of a judgment call. On 6 October administrator Randykitty closed the Afd discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Peretti with a ruling of "no consensus". On its surface it looks like there was no consensus. Four editors had recommended deletion, and two editors had recommended keeping the article. However, deletion discussions are not a vote, and as Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. In this case the four who urged deletion based their argument on the lack of adequate coverage to meet the guidelines of WP:GNG, although only one of them specifically mentioned WP:GNG. The two editors who urged keeping the article did so on the basis "Seems notable to me, with 4 documentary films or series on UK national TV". Which may have been a reference to the guideline at Creative professionals #3. (I haven't been able to determine any other notability basis that that might be referring to, nor has Randykitty suggested any.) However, there is no evidence that Peretti's body of work meets the guideline requirement of In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. in fact, the opposite, as in searching for coverage perforce coverage of his work occurred. So the net result is that the arguments in support of deletion had a basis in the guidelines, with only one substantive article on Jacques Peretti being found, while the other arguments did not seem to be based on policy or guidelines, but to the extent we extend good faith, they failed. I contend that in closing, looking at strength of argument is essential. When I first saw the result, I thought that Randykitty might have been rushing when she/he made the closure and thus did not do an in depth analysis of the arguments, so I went and talked with Randykitty, but Randykitty assures me that enough time was taken. There do not seem to me to have been any policy arguments made during the Afd, but Randykitty indicates: The "keep" !votes argued that the "4 documentary films or series on UK national TV" indicate notability, which is a policy-based argument, I think. Randykitty indicated that the afd had run for long enough that closure was proper. I agree with that. My contention is that insuffient weight was given to the strength of arguments in rendering the closing judgment, and that assessing that weight is required. I did not participate in the Afd discussion and this is not my feelings regarding the correct interpretation of the debate. This has to do with whether the strength of arguments were assessed and the closing guidelines adhered to. Randykitty foreclosued further discussion and suggested that I take the matter here. If this is not the proper forum, please let me know. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 6 October 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. |
In September 2006 User:Ral315 deleted all Wikipedia:Deletion log archives (not the Wikipedia:Old deletion log though it seems) and replaced them with a notice saying they have been deleted for concerns of libelous edit summaries. While everything up to September 2003 has been restored, October 2003 onwerds is still deleted with the messages in place. Should October 2003 onwerds be undeleted with summaries removed for historical purpouses? 189.25.205.82 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 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 deleted based on only 5 votes, which basically stated that the company (HappyFunCorp) is not notable enough to deserve a page. Based on the Wikipedia guidelines, I believe HFC is more than deserving of a page, and they have received even more reliable 3rd party press since the page's deletion. I ask that the page be restored, new sources added and the language be reviewed to ensure it is not PR or publicity. Cheers! Also, please note I'm writing this for deletion review because the admin (User:Randykitty) who deleted this page says he won't be active on Wikipedia for a while. HappyFunCorp Imarapaholic (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you (User:RoySmith) and (User:Stifle). HappyFunCorp is mentioned in numerous publications, including Forbes, Inc., TechCrunch, FastCompany and BK Mag. Here are a few links to sources: http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/12/built-in-brooklyn-happyfuncorp/ - http://www.bkmag.com/2014/07/15/a-technology-academy-grows-in-brooklyn/ - http://www.fastcompany.com/3045128/passion-to-profit/this-web-development-shops-passion-project-injecting-your-company-culture- - http://www.forbes.com/sites/shanerobinson/2012/11/01/who-should-you-hire-to-build-your-web-startup-tips-for-non-technical-tech-entrepreneurs/.
Thank you (User:RoySmith for looking through the sources. Alas, if you have written off TechCrunch (a major news source for Tech SMBs) as a good source, then I'd have to agree with your notion that HappyFunCorp has not received enough coverage to warrant a page. As to the standards of WP:N to which you alluded to, I have read through the notability guidelines several times (see my user talk) and found nothing detailing such a "standard." HFC has more than 15 pieces of reliable third-party press - I have seen many pages with weaker sources and much more bias which have not been flagged. This company is notable, plus cool!, and as soon as they receive more press I will reach out again. Thank you very much for your help. |
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. |
(see below) Esquivalience t 20:08, 5 October 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 not duplicate article. It was subtopic (airstrikes) in a broader topic (intervention). It was created on 30 September, not as fork. Deleted by Materialscientist without correct discussion (only 1 hour after it was started on night), without merging etc. Please restore and send back to AfD for giving of arguments by another users. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 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 deleted (see here) because it failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, which the subject did at the time but now qualifies these requirements by having played in a professional match for his country's national team (see source here). Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:46, 4 October 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. |
Public domain status is unclear as it was seemingly produced by Sony and not fed govt but I don't see a problem with using at least a scaled down version of the doc with a claim of fair use. Assuming there is no free version available, it could be theoretically used that way. 189.25.205.82 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 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. |
Closed as speedy delete on the day of nomination, when multiple people said to keep it, and the closing admin did not provide the speedy deletion criteria she deleted it under, only saying "speedy", completely bypassing consensus. Please revert this bizarre close. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wnt and Gandydancer: Thought you'd like to know of this. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I readily admit I am not familiar with how wikipedia works in terms of getting things removed, but I just don't understand how this could possible be an article. I stated something similar on the talk page before it was deleted, but the entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on r9k, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on r9k, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. People have a view point of why these shootings are happening, and with a lack of concrete evidence, turn to using a phrase said in jest as evidence. There is even a fair chance that the entire reason that this is being talked about, the perpetrator of the shooting in Oregon, never even used the term in his life, or knew what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I posted a lot of this in a different thread, but it is relevant to this discussion. Endorse deletion The entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on /r9k/, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on /r9k/, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. The entire premise of the article is predicated on the fact that there is a movement afoot for some sort of social revolution, using the actions of one person and their supposed postings as evidence, when it is entirely possible, and in fact becoming more probable that they never posted the statement in question and did not hold those views, how can you have that in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Forget him, there is no other instance that can even be brought up as an example of this supposed wide-spread simmering movement in action. It's just conjuncture based off of mis-information from bad reporting in the moments after a tragedy. Most media articles are taking the issue super seriously, and writing a wikipedia article at this time lends that viewpoint credence, because, let's face it, there are a significant number of people who will google the term, end up here, and think it's a real movement. So, even if, a week or two down the line, it becomes clear that the killer did not hold the views in question at all, and that any post related to the matter on places like /r9k/ or reddit are satire, there wont be new media articles saying we were wrong, it was all just some inside-joke, none of these events are related. We will have a wikipedia article that will have been viewed however by many people, perhaps even media personal themselves looking up information to write further articles, that presents the this movement as something taken seriously by people, and that is causing actual harm to other people.
References
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion was flawed, did not focus on WP guidelines e.g lack of secondary sources, lack of notability etc. Subsequent discussion on talk page has addressed these issues, concluded that article should be deleted. Most of the information on which the original decision was based has been removed from the article now. ゼーロ (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |