|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion of the article broken thousands of links, which are not the result of sockpuppetry in any website. This article existed for years and all the material in it is encyclopedic. Lots of sites cite this article, that is now a dead link. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Since an IP requested an redirect at AFC/R, should be created as an redirect? KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:35, 28 January 2017 (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. |
Lack of consensus; no discussion since 15 June 2016. There is no rationale for treating the National Bank of New Zealand differently to Lloyds Bank Canada, Lloyds Bank California and Lloyds Associated Banking Company. All four entities used the undifferenced black horse device. 2.27.81.170 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2017 (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. |
Prematurely closed, I would have commented keep because it is used in sources such as [1], which is why I created the redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 26 January 2017 (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 consensus Colcody2000 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC) The page in question was deleted despite weak argumentation on the side of editors, nonresponsiveness to the well-argumented reasons to keep the article and two-day no response from the person who actually deleted the article. Consensus was far from reached, it was simple overvote by an argument which was continuously disputed with content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uro%C5%A1_Pinteri%C4%8D Measures of notability are different, contextual, the article was well referenced with independent sources. I am not disputing the need for constant update and improvement. But i am disputing the consensus (since debate was done in the sense delete for No notability versus long explanations on a need for contextualization). Unless the AfD review shall be done on numerous articles about scholars of similar ranking, the article in question shall be restored. In any case, there are two elements to consensus: ability to reach the agreement and need to have a discussion. None of them was achieved. Delete argumentation was technical and out of the scope. Link to the request for restoration to the "deletor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Juliancolton#Colcody2000_.28talk.29_12:12.2C_21_January_2017_.28UTC.29_deletation_of_Uro.C5.A1_Pinteri.C4.8D_article
Problem of standardisation is lack of understanding of the specifics and question of judgement ability of "folks in AfD" - because "folks in AfD" showed very little contextual thinking. And this is happening also now, and this what the process of revision should not be. Technically, arguments of different (non-standard) nature should be exposed (for or against). To help you out a bit, obviously, i have little experience with doing things on Wiki, so i usually use wrong - non-tecnical language, but for sure i understand positive approach towards articles/information (where non-malicious attitude shall be respected, in combination with some relevance and no advertising style of writing) in opposition to technicist negative selection (which is still questionable in result), where rather anonymous group of people defines what is notable (even if irrelevant). BTW: what is then the ruling in the case if some person (assume notable - Nobel prize winner) requires never ever to appear (or his/her knowldge -e.g. theory) on Wiki? (just asking)Colcody2000 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2017 (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 requested by Pri D at the AfD for the article to be undeleted and the AfD be relisted so that a clearer consensus can be developed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2017 (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 closed without consensus. I didn't violate any rules, the administrator just disagreed with me. I consider this as an invalid reason to close the afd discussion without consensus. Let me also respond to some of the counter-arguments:
All in all, this article is mainly based on original research. The authors collected some news articles, then deduced that there must be an exceptional event. Let us wait until there are clear, reputable scientific sources confirming the exceptionalism of this event. And if there are such sources in the future, the article can be recreated. TheRandomIP (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (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 image was speedily deleted under WP:F9 (non-free images that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use). This was incorrect as I had claimed fair use under WP:NFCI#10 (pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely). The image was uploaded using File Upload Wizard and as such had all the required information under WP:NFCCP. I asked the deleting admin RHaworth to review the deletion but he has bluntly refused, stating that I should be able to find a free image as the subject died in 2011. Unfortunately there are no free images of the subject. I could only find four images of the subject (here and here), none free. I ask that the image be undeleted. If there was doubt as to whether the fair use claim was appropriate it should have been discussed at WP:FFD, not speedily deleted.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) obi2canibetalk contr 19:35, 18 January 2017 (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 official world military competition hosted by the CISM. This football competition is a part of the Military World Games (5th edition) (Rio 2011 - 5th CISM World Military Games) and the World Military Cup (43rd edition) (Championnat du monde militaire de football 2011). Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2017 (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 and thank you for your ongoing work to legitimize the information on Wikipedia. The aricle Jon Asher had been nominated, then wrongfully deleted in the past two months. There are many wikipedia pages that credit the published writer. Since deletion, even prior to deletion, there have been many digital and physical releases printed on CD's, MP3, Vinyl and other forms of media, published and verified with Jon Asher's writing credits in the liners - published by his music publisher, Roc Nation administrated by Warner Chappel Music. Liner notes of each individual published and credited work ever written by Asher can be presented as evidence for this claim. There are several articles online including Billboard, Rolling Stone, Song Facts and many more. This information is more than sufficient to back the credibility and legitimacy of this songwriter to re-instate, then protect this page from another wrongful deletion. Published works have been released through the likes of Colombia Records, Sony Music USA, Sony Music Japan, Sony Music Australia, Universal Music Group, SM Entertainment South Korea with artists and works such as Britney Spears "Mood Ring", The Chainsmokers "Setting Fires", Aaron Carter "Fool's Gold", Taeyeon "I", Stan Walker "Loud", Stan Walker "Light It Up", Bonnie McKee "American Girl", to name a few of his discography works. In the past, we have had communications with wiki volunteers but have had no progressive resolution. The original inquiry was with Ticket#2016110110000091 WRONGFUL DELETION OF ARTICLE - with a volunteer named Stephen Philbrick. )) Keyofgemini (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2017 (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 sink has been described in two national magazines; the Dutch Physics magazine Volume: 81, Editie: 12, Pagina: 41: https://www.ntvn.nl/archief/?q=wasbak+einstein&volume_start=&volume_end= And a monthly historical magazine (Historisch nieuwsblad) November 2015. It was even on the route of the historical bicycle trip of Museum Boerhaave during the Einstein & Friends exhibition. It has quite some local fame and is a noteworthy 'attraction' in Leiden. For this reason I think that it is relevant for wikipedia. I can't see the old article, but perhaps these two sources were not mentioned, because if it was only the newspaper articles then I can see how this could seem irrelevant. Synethos (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2017 (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. |
Originally deleted back in April 2014 as she didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG at the time, and it was then speedied a couple of times before being salted. Allow recreation now that she has made multiple caps for Northern Ireland women's national football team.[4][5] KTC (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2017 (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:INVOLVED close and a ton of notable coverage in reliable sources making this notable in it's own right as a scandal, even if it is disproven like Pizzagate. The article title may need work, but the content of the article easily passes WP:GNG. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (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. |
(Note that I had mistakenly posted this request on the talk page and am copying that discussion here because an editor commented on my request.) 10 months ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen was closed as delete; closing editor noted, accurately, that few editors weighed in in support keep, and that most editors described coverage as "routine"; although there was a strong minority opinion to keep. I am not arguing that the close was in any way improper at that time. The problem is that the AFD took place shortly after the murder, making it impossible to validate assertions at AFD that this murder failed WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and that it was WP:ROUTINE. I request that the article be restored on the grounds that it was not a WP:ROUTINE as evidenced by the fact that - unlike "routine" murders - this murder received national and international coverage when it happened, in the year since, and, most recently, when the murderer was convicted. The victim is from Florida and the murder took place in Florence). As an example of the kind of non-routine coverage this has generated, this: [8] essay in Salon.com on this murder as an example of the kind of harassment foreign women experience in Italian cities, and of the way young, attractive female murder victims can be blamed for their own deaths. Here is a small sample of recent and international coverage: 1.) Conviction of the murderer had gotten major international attention, detailed coverage in the New York Times, [9], The Guardian,[10]. 2.) Coverage has been ongoing since the murder and arrest, [11], [12] and the trial was covered outside Italy [13]. Olsen's murder is cited as an example of the way criminals can prey on visiting foreigners in Italian cities [14]. In sum, although an argument that this murder garnered "only routine coverage" was not implausible last February, it now seems clear, even from the small sample of ongoing coverage that I have linked, that this was a notable murder as evidenced by the the extensive and substantive national and international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2016 (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. |
Based on the votes this Afd was heading for keep but the reasons given by AKS.9955: for his WP:NAC are contrary to the points made by the contributors. None of those who voted keep argued that the subject met WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and yet this was the reason he gave for keeping the article. AKS.9955 has a history of making problematic non-admin Afd closures (e.g. Leslie R. Mitchell) and is the subject of an ANI discussion. obi2canibetalk contr 16:04, 7 January 2017 (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. |
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation. User:Nghwaya.
|
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 g13 doesn't apply, since the page was not created through an AfC. Unfortunately, the mistakes like this one have been too common. -- Taku (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (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 was a lengthy and contentious debate with multiple users supporting both sides, and employing differing rationales within those sides, some of which have implications for hundreds of similar articles. User:AKS.9955 closed as NAC, and it was suggested on their talk by both myself and User:HighKing that they undo their closure, as it fairly clearly wasn't an appropriate NAC. Their response was essentially "sod off", and simply delete the thread on their talk. So here we are. I've made my own argument at the AfD, but don't have a strong opinion on how the consensus should actually be assessed, other than it is not an appropriate discussion for an NAC, and probably trout worthy. TimothyJosephWood 14:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Editing break
| ||
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. |
Now notable per WP:NGRIDIRON (source) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2017 (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 reached 5 in favor of delete, 3 for keep, and 1 for redirect, and yet someone did a non-admin closure and said it was a consensus for keep even though it was not. The 5/3/1 vote was among two different AfD pages, the one listed above and [this one].TBMNY (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2017 (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. |
Lack of consensus; no discussion since 17 June 2016. The site referred to in the last comment has only been active since 2011, so the image is unlikely to have come from there and I don't think File:001 National Prov Bank Holyhead 18.08.13 edited-2.jpg is suitable for the infobox at National Provincial Bank. 2.27.81.240 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Just noting that, if new information comes to light about the public domain status of this image, I'd have no objection to undeletion/would be willing to overturn myself. ~ Rob13Talk 09:34, 5 January 2017 (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. |
Administrator failed to see Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs)
Answering "Multiple draft reviewers had told you it was an inappropriate piece of writing" - Multiple draft reviewers told me how to enhance the page not about G11, see the review comments properly speedy deleters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC) By the way, how to prove it is not promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC) It is an Initiative or Service by Government of India. It is about the features and how it works. Do Not have any promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have created new draft Draft:NUUP_Services, with live advice from Wiki experts. So i request keep Draft:NUUP deleted and help in moving Draft:NUUP_Services to main article. Few points to add - if you think it is promotional on seeing citation of SBI and ICICI, I can give you explanantion. SBI and ICICI are public and private banks in India. They are showing how their customers can use NUUP_Services. NUUP is something like NEFT, IMPS, RTGS (different types of transaction mechanisms). So bank websites shows how the services work, as it is new to India. - in mentioned NEFT, IMPS pages. are you seeing any convincing citations? because these are mode of transaction, which does not have articles in news paper, as much you expected. - Could I request for immediate intervention in Draft:NUUP_Services, as this technology is national wide implementation and has no wiki main article for users to look into. Manivannan184 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |