|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I’m concerned that this may have been an out of process speedy deletion. It was deleted by Discospinster with the reason
|
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 a 2-2 vote as !keep. Without looking at the strength of the arguments, 2 editors suggested keeping the article (1 keep, 1 keep/merge), and 2 editors were in favor of redirecting the article (nominator being delete/redirect, 1 merge/redirect). On top of this, there is no mention in the close reflecting how the closer weighted the strength of the arguments provided by either side (WP:CLOSEAFD, WP:AFDEQ, WP:DISCUSSAFD all mention that this is not a simple numerical vote). Not weighing the arguments penalizes the redirect's case, in my (involved) view. Should have been a relist, a no consensus, or a redirect IMO, but certainly not a keep. Pilaz (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC) last edited by Pilaz (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2023 (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. |
Unfortunately the admin went with a bad move. And the other people on the AfD said to redirect a page which is about a football club nothing on what George Andrews Reserve is, it clearly states it has Basketball Court, Pavilion, Picnic Area, Playground, Public toilet, Soccer Fields and Tennis Courts per official source, then why the hell would you redirect to a football club which uses the same location. This is not how we should be doing things for a geo location. And I strongly suggest this be reviewed. And if you're going with a redirect, because it is a geo location it should be directed too Dandenong, Victoria for the part of the city it is in. Geo locations should always be directed to other geo locations when GNG doesn't qualify and not football clubs. Govvy (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2023 (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 within the realms of non admin closure as it was not a clear consensus to keep. I believe it should be relisted to determine a greater consensus and then closed by an admin. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2023 (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. |
Looking at the deletion nomination discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Farooq (2nd nomination), it is not clear why it was decided to be removed, given the votes to keep. The missing references can be rectified. The page contains enough references to make this page relevant. This page is about a major figure in Pakistani and Austrian badminton history. World Champion, European Champion, national coach of Pakistan/Austria badminton team. I would like this deletion to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyda sh (talk • contribs) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (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. |
(Edit: I seem to have not realised the second version of File:The sun1.jpg is a merely a derivative of the first version avaliable at File:The sun (color modified).jpg. Please undelete the first version of the file by Lykaestria. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 14:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) ) This file should be undeleted (preferably to a different name such as Sun glare (1).jpg to avoid unsuspecting users overwriting this file)—Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
For everyone's reference: proper attribution history of an image requires that we list the contributors, and that's it. File:The sun (color modified).jpg, in the "author" line, lists User:Lykaestria as the original author. Unless someone else contributed to this file (the image itself, not the description page), there are no problems with the "color modified" image. Any other derivative works can be repaired fully by adding Lykaestria if needed. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2023 (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 prefer to try again submit Grace Wan article because there is new information independent article that can add new references. Dobët100 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC) dobet100Dobët100 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (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 for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I would like to point out that Muthukumar has been part of several significant shows and played the leads in the shows Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? & Sasural Simar Ka 2. Moreover, she is now seen as the lead in the show Do Chutki Sindoor of Nazara channel. There are resources for supporting these roles of Muthukumar. Therefore Muthukumar passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. So kindly restore the article to the mainspace.117.243.150.209 (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2023 (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 deletion log for this user category is a bit confusing. The CfD discussion close says it was speedily deleted under G3, but the deletion log quotes G6 (and links to the CfD section). In any event, I don’t believe that this user category would have been eligible for deletion under G3, as I wouldn’t describe it as a I’m bringing this to DRV because (1) a recreation would otherwise be open to being deleted under G4, and (2) because the page is currently create-protected so it can’t be recreated anyway. I apologise if it’s not the right venue. All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 07:39, 21 September 2023 (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 reviewed twice & there was no change. First nomination & no votes. Soft delete & article refunded. Second nomination 2 votes with Delete. Both nomination was addressed by same person (checked his edits which was below 100). I have read about notability, and all the references were reliable. Still article got deleted. Am I missing with Notability or we can make the article back to mainspace? Or shall I go through AfC review rather than directly publishing? VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 20:24, 20 September 2023 (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. |
Clearly a no consensus result but closure's decision is redirect, also WP:IDONTLIKE bullied by anti-monarchy gang, who trying to deleted many royalty articles since 2020. The princess was a daughter of a reigning monarch, and her life received extensive coverage from various sources, also notable enough for a biography to have be written about her "The Struggle for a Royal Child, Anna Monica Pia, Duchess of Saxony", ISBN: 9781332933518. For example AfD outcome see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane, Duchess of Württemberg. Unfair decision! Why not have an entry on Wikipedia because she was not a princess of a British monarch?. Thanks 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2023 (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 this article should be restored, since I find the action taken by the nominator and closing admin as "hasty". I completely disagree that the article is promotional or if had any WP:Peacock text, it could be trimmed and not speedily deleted. Initially when I questioned the closing admin, I did not get a sufficient answer but an alternative method to push it to draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejoy2003 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 September 2023 (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. |
See this version, the article is now worthy of being reinstated. 202.134.8.129 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2023 (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. |
Overturn and restore or delete: A redirect to M-Girls seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different music groups. I am unable to provide more than an anecdote about the popularity of Four Golden Princess vs. M-Girls, but you can find Four Golden Princess' page on Spotify here, and M-Girls' page on Spotify here.
|
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 just thinks he needs a wikipedia given he has press and news articles like I said If It isn't clear that deletion of the draft is the most appropriate way to deal with the resubmission then why has it been done. This is a legitimate up incoming music rapper which it says by his title on google he has many References they just have to be inserted correctly. If you put the draft back up I will assure that the excessive submissions won't happen again unless the page is ready and he has been posting on so really notable news outlets. He has also has had new press articles since then. JoshKaine (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2023 (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:RS, WP:OR House of Aberffraw article deleted to redirect for Rhodri Mawr a medieval Welsh King, the article stood for over a decade and needs more presence than a redirect. Issue arose from my outdated sources, but that can be amended. Thanks, Cltjames (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (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:RS, WP:OR King of Wales article was deleted and replaced by the same user who deleted House of Aberffraw. The article links to King of the Britons and the List of rulers of Wales articles, but now there is a gap between articles because the information was deleted in one article but not the other and this have created inconsistencies. Cltjames (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually the article was neither deleted nor blanked-and-replaced. Further discussion on the talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2023 (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 beg. I am requesting the review of the deletion of the article "Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education" because I believe the article should be restored. The article provides valuable information about an educational institution and adheres to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, including notability, verifiability, and neutrality.
I would like to include some additional information about Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education:[1][2][3][4]
These credentials highlight the college's commitment to quality education and its recognition by relevant educational authorities. References
This citation provides valuable information related to the Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education, which is pertinent to the article's notability and content. Please consider the above information as part of my request for the restoration of the article. Subject: Discussion on "Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education" Respected Administrator, Sir, I wanted to initiate a discussion regarding the article titled "Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education." As the primary contributor to this article under the username "Supriyomj16022008," I value your input and feedback. The purpose of this discussion is to: 1. Address any concerns or issues related to the article's content, neutrality, or compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. 2. Collaborate on improvements to enhance the quality and accuracy of the article. 3. Ensure that the article aligns with Wikipedia's standards and policies. I want to clarify a few important points: - I am not a paid editor, and my contributions to Wikipedia are made in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. - As a novice, I may have asked question about public search engine but please believe me, I don't have any bad motive behind asking that rather I asked just to know the unknown and maybe I have inadvertently added some promotional content to my article in the past, but I want to emphasize that I have no intention of promoting or misrepresenting any information. - I am genuinely committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and verifiability because I have a deep appreciation for Wikipedia and its community of editors. It's important to note that the college is a government-aided institution and operates under the umbrella of Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home, Rahara. Though I am a monk associated with this Ashrama but please believe me, I am not personally involved with Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education in any official capacity. Please share your thoughts, suggestions, or concerns in this discussion. Your contributions are valuable in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia's content. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, (Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2023 (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 do not believe that a policy-based consensus for deletion (or merging/redirection) is discernible from this discussion. Outside of the nominator, the rationales in support of merging or redirection were "no need for character to have his own page" (which cites no policy basis for that determination), and "The duo might be a better target than the generic list, but I don't feel strongly" (same). The last !vote indicates the presence of Google Scholar sources, which appears not to have been plumbed as a direction for development, beyond the nominator saying "I cannot access the Google Scholar sources, so I cannot do an assessment of that", which is not a basis for rejecting such sources. At the least, I would suggest that this should have been (and should be) relisted for further discussion. BD2412 T 16:24, 5 September 2023 (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. |
Original AfD in January 2023 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr) came to the conclusion that the article should be redirected. Since then, I had improved the page and published it, but it was suggested that it be merged with Cristiano Ronaldo. Besides the nomination for merging, the discussion had received three opposes and one support, but was closed as a result of the original AfD from January. With the article in its current state clearly not having a clear consensus on its notability, I feel it is worth a review. Davidlofgren1996 (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. |
The writer of the book Ved Prakash Upadhyay and the book also is notable and the afd was closed in a misunderstanding. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17 and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. 202.134.10.130 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2023 (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. |
1. I don’t think the article should have been allowed to be nominated by an account w/ no history. 2. The article was improved, 9 references were added and the argument to support deletion refused to acknowledge this or any depth of coverage, even though it clearly meets the multiple sources requirement. 3. The AfD was nominated for a 3rd discussion which shouldnt have happened. 4. The closing vote by my count was 8-5 in favor of a keep. 5. There was apparently a sock account that voted but there was no crossover in this discussion and the editing history is pretty vague for a sock ban. There was no vandalism. 6. I asked the closing admin and he refused to even draft the article. 6. Also, there was extensive discussion and opinions offered on both sides, at very least this should have been a no decision. This article could easily have been improved, there are tons of reviews and comparisons available that were never used in the article. 7. The article included a NY Times, NBC News, Calgary Herald x2, Edmonton Journal, Engineering.com x 2, IEEE, Crowdsourcing.com, 2 book passages, 2 papers. The article was nominated and significantly improved references. 9. I know it shouldnt be brought up but attention was brought about other pages in the same category such as guru.com and peopleperhour who have pages and much worse referencing. Akikormin125 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (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. |
Disagreement by participants about the validity of my "no consensus" close (originally I erroneously closed it as "keep"). See also this discussion on my talk page: User talk:Anachronist#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shivkar_Bapuji_Talpade. Bearing in mind that this isn't "AFD round 2", the question to be answered is: Did I close it improperly? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |