Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Spam To start off, I would like to say that I sure hope that I am abiding by the appropriate format. I am here requesting review of the deletion of a page about a Christian Ministry, Holy Rollerz. My reasons are that the organization is recognized as a 501(c) Not For Profit organization by the United Sates, is the largest Christian ministry of its kind in the world, and plays host the the largest Christian automotive forum on the internet. These reasons, as I believe, are quite enough to justify a page to them--I believe--after having read over the Wikipedia guidelines. I worked on the page, learning the code as I went, for quite some time. During one point, a banner was created saying that it was going to be deleted because of the reason, "Just another pointless car club." I objected, saying that it was a Christian ministry, and the largest in the world. I then worked more on the page, creating a Non-profit box in the correct format, internal links, sub-categories of all kinds, and such, to meet the Wikipedia standards. At some point, over the last month, it was deleted. I would like to ask that it be reinstated due to the organization's international recognition and size and importance in its own industry. No where on the page was there any sort of "Spam". Thank you for your time with this, Skiendog (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This image was Speedy Deleted because it was originally uploaded by a banned user sock. Howver, the image itself is valid and its deletion has placed the article NBC at a distinct disadvantage: all other major U.S. TV networks have Infobox logos as Fair Use, e.g., ABC, CBS, and Fox Network, but the NBC article has no longer. I have requested the deleting admin to reconsider, but have had no response. I would like to have it temporarily undeleted long enough for me to re-upload it myself with appropriate FUR JGHowes talk - 18:44, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article about a poet was deleted last month based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Denner. The sparse discussion consisted of the nomination, one person who supported deletion (but said they would "revisit this discussion if some(any) good sources are posted"), and one person who wanted the article kept. This last person also added some material to the article, including an additional source—the article already had several sources, but these apparently weren't considered sufficiently "third-party"—but neither of the other two, nor the closing administrator, seems to have noticed this. Based on, I guess, a calculation that this is 2-1 in favor of deletion, the discussion was closed as "delete". Now in the first place, I disagree and think that at minimum, the nomination should have been relisted for more discussion. The failure to consider new evidence also means the arguments for deletion need to be reevaluated. Fortunately, the person trying to save this article happens to be Nicholson Baker, and took the time to write about this in The New York Review of Books. So arguably the article could have yet another source now. Poetry often languishes in obscurity, making research challenging for those who don't know their way around, but let's not compound the problem in this case. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Editor who nominated deletion misunderstood image. He claimed that the copyright was unclear. I remember that it was clearly in the public domain, as it was a cropped version of another image that had been used for the geisha article. That uncropped image is now in use on the geisha page - I would suggest this picture be undeleted. John Smith's (talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
WP:NFCC1 and lack of proper deletion review - let's talk about this as a group here, please Mikebar (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Userfy to User:Kinai/Noi Morei or similar for review following request at User_talk:Here by author User:Kinai for original content lost to deletion. ∴ here…♠ 05:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Kim's intentions were good, and his judgment is usually excellent; however, these sorts of mistakes are the kind that a non-admin (or a retired one) might well make. He failed to appreciate that an unusual nomination was coming from a respected source -- with a different, but fair and interesting -- take on established policies. Kim is free to take up the mop again at his wish; but, until he does, his actions are easily reversible by any admin, precisely because he might be expected to make these sorts of mistakes. Again, knowing Kim desires expediency, I will close this DRV and reopen the MfD. The question of how long the MfD should remain open afterwards is difficult to say. It need not be very long, four days having elapsed already before Kim's action. Of course, common courtesy suggests that some time should elapse, so that admins do not "race" to re-close it with a particular result. I trust the eventual closer to exercise circumspection, consider the arguments made the MfD on their merits (especially, whether this page is sufficiently outside the norm such that it need not be archived), and reach the proper result in due time. Stopping this DRV now prevents process from dragging on when an easy restart is possible, something everyone should be keen to avoid. – Xoloz (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegable proxy was inappropriately closed early with an inappropriate result. There was overwhelming consensus to delete this page, but it was ignored. Wikipedia:Delegable proxy is a horribly bad idea that is STILL being pushed on the talk page. It was created by a farm of sock puppets and leaving it around even as a rejected policy serves only to give credence to the idea. Under Wikipedia:MFD#Prerequisites, "if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive ... it can be nominated for deletion". This proposal is obviously disruptive and thus a nomination for deletion is procedurally appropriate. I ask that the close, which was obviously against consensus, be overturned and the page be deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The request to overturn here is based on a misunderstanding of MFD policy. We DO NOT DELETE proposals except in exceptional circumstances, which are far from being met here. Use of MFD is inappropriate in that situation. Consensus in an MFD debate does not alter policy. Consensus for a clearly inappropriate action does not make the action appropriate. Deletion review also does not alter policy, therefore deletion review is equally inappropriate. Alteration to MFD policy can be made by normal wiki-editing, or use of Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Proposer is warned to review policy before further using any of the deletion or deletion review systems in future. The correct venue for further debate on the delegable proxy proposal is -> Wikipedia_talk:Delegable_proxy --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted this inappropriate non-admin close. --B (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I originally created this article so I could be said to have a conflicting interest. When it was nominated the article was called Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent and was changed by the nominator to Possible consequences of Kosovo independence. The change to controversy was made around four days before it was deleted. During the whole discussion there were 44 deletes, 14 keeps, 19 renames, and 6 merges. Given rename and merge need an article to rename or merge it could be fairly said there were 39 keeps. On the deletes there was an assortment of reasons but broken down it was 20 citing speculation as the only reason, 10 objecting specifically to subject/title of the article, 4 who gave no clear reason, 3 who mainly cited point of view but mentioned speculation, 3 who cited original research, and 2 who cited point of view as the reason for deletion. After the article was changed to Controversy only one delete response was given. My proposal then is to undelete the article and relist it on AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was speedily deleted as it was accused of being spam. However, the reasons given seemed to be more of a notability issue as VWvortex is not in the business of actually selling anything. It is rather just a website with information and forums. It needs to have its "day in court" so to speak regarding whether it is notable. But it certainly is not spam, especially considering the page had existed for nearly four years on Wikipedia. Analogue Kid (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
A number of related lists of retired American football players by position have now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retired professional American football runningbacks. To give fair consideration to that group of lists, it would be appropriate to relist the quarterbacks with them, since the lists only make sense if they are available for all positions. BRMo (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Extremely heated debate, a landmark in the history of junior athlete articles. I'm not specifically going to go into the details of my reasoning, as they are all there. Every time I tried to add another statement to prove his notability, there were several editors that always tried to disprove my claim. Of course, when I took a two day wikibreak it got deleted with an extremely weak closing statement from User:Black Kite, which reads in full:
Yeah, a page with 76,471 bytes of discussion, ~½ voting keep. May it also be stated that this was not the only example of my apparently new claim of semi-notability; see the DRV of Natasha Collins for details. Editorofthewiki 21:24, 28 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
A new version of this oft-deleted article has been created in userspace at User:Acatauro/Ra Ra Riot. Rather than risking a G4, I am bringing it here to see what people think about whether the group meets WP:BAND, whether it gets sent to AFD for that, or whatever. I realize that it's not salted but given the deletion history it's virtually salted so I'd prefer to bring it here to minimize drama. If the consensus here is that the band still comes up short, then so be it for now, and no one ends up having to be the admin defending his/her deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This organization is referenced by 4 articles and needs a stub See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arabic Network for Human Rights Information for further details. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Much of the discussion below is not explicitly focused on the category per say, but instead on the presence of divisive or inflamatory material in userspace (namely, userboxes). Such material has, for the most part, been adequately dealt with using a combination of the userbox migration compromise and discussion at Miscelany for deletion. The present case, however, deals--in part--with an administrator repeatedly removing a hard-coded instance of the Hezbollah userbox in question from an editor's page. Because no use of deletion tools was employed in this particular userbox issue (to the extent I can glean from the discussion below), it is outside the purview of DRV. I suggest an alternate venue for further discussion of this topic, such as Requests for comment. Because the application of CSD T1 has failed to gain consensus outside of the Template: namespace (and its use thereof has been repeatedly overturned by DRV), administrators in particular are reminded to avoid application of CSD T1 outside of the Template: namespace unless consensus for this application is subsequently reached. It should be noted, however, that pages which advocate terrorist acts may be likely to bring the project into disrepute and as such may be speedily deleted and appropriate sanctions issued after warning (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war). There are many gray areas, however, and this is obviously a high threshold to reach. It is also important to consider a wide-reaching and global perspective of disrepute (for example, pictures of the Prophet Muhammad are likely to bring disrepute to the project in many Arab countries). Editors with strong feelings on these topics are urged to avoid acting directly and raise concerns on venues where broader consensus can be gained (i.e. WP:MfD, WP:AN/I). Please note that other criteria such as CSD G10 may also still apply. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This category was deleted 5 times for different reasons, once because of Wikipedia:CSD#C3, once because there were no users of the user box, and three times because it was a recreation of deleted material. Accompanying user boxes were also deleted. There was a debate that took place here when a user, User:Noor Aalam started creating the userboxes on his own userpage and an administrator, User:Sandstein, started deleting them. It seems that there was no conclusive result of the debate but users repeatedly deleted these user boxes until the debate was ended inconclusively, despite a good faith effort by User:Noor Aalam to revise the boxes. A user box was even created later protesting the deletions. I believe deleting these user boxes without comprehensive debate was a violation of ideals of free speech not to mention wikipedia's policies. There are comparable user boxes that have survived deletion review here and to delete this one and not those is inconsistent. Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The following user boxes were proposed:
It's debatable whether these user boxes give widespread offense. Although Hezbollah (or a part of it) has been designated as a terrorist organization by six countries, there are many notable exceptions, and many countries openly support Hezbollah. In any respect, it's clearly debatable and the last debate was inconclusive. There also seem to be several comparable user boxes that survived deletion review, notably:
the deletion of which was overturned here. The Hezbollah user boxes do not appear to be libelous or explicitly inciting (from what I can see), and although they may contribute to wikipedia being used as a soapbox, we should at least be consistent with our application. I note for example:
If your answer to #1 is yes, you probably should view the userbox as acceptable. If your answer to #2 is "aids", then likewise. The opposite side is that we have the scary possibility of people editing on contentious topics who openly proclaim allegiance to known terrorist groups... but is that really any better than having them hide their support and still mess up these articles? M1rth (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The subject of this article clearly satifies criterion #2 of the web notability guidelines. It has won a "well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization (a Golden Spider Award. The reason the admin gave for not reversing his decision to delete is that this is a "local" award. In fact these awards are national, and well known in Ireland and Europe. The equivalent services in the US, Netflix and Blockbuster, are included in the encyclopedia. 1-555-confide (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The AfD was simply, Doesn't meet WP:N. Half a second of searching indicates otherwise. It is admittedly hard to sift through the large number of online store links and press release reproductions, but here, for instance is a fairly solid article. For full disclosure I work for the company that produces it, but have been active in WP music software articles since long before that was the case. Assuming the article is reinstated I'd be willing to write a sourced stub, but it'd be nice if someone could review the results to avoid WP:COI issues. Scott.wheeler (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
accidental deletion NE2 04:13, 27 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I didn't realize this article had been deleted until I came across a red-link where there shouldn't have been a red-link. I requested userification of these articles yesterday. So I know the administrator didn't delete the article because someone else put a {{prod}} tag on it. I think the admin should have simply raised their concern on the article's talk page, rather than exercising their power as an administrator to delete it without telling anyone. Decision-making on the wikipedia is supposed to be open and transparent. In the 24 hours since it was userified I have found some more references, like this one. I am not sure if I should remind participants that DRV is supposed to be about whether the proper procedure was followed, not about the merits, or lack thereof, of the article whose deletion is under review. Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Put back North Shore Women for Peace. I recall there was a New York Times article in it explaining its relveance, but who is to know now that you have destroyed the evidence. Jidanni (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This image was just deleted under grounds of NFCC 2, which states, "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Before, it was also deleted on grounds of having no copyright info. I undid that deletion, as the copyright info was removed without an edit summary, and it didn't appear the deleting admin was aware of that. The current deletion is based on different grounds, a violation of NFCC 2. I did not upload this particular image, but I do believe it is a valid fair use. In my opinion, while all fair use has implications on the original market role, this use did not replace it. The image was part of a 11-part TIME photo-essay, which was also linked to TIME articles. As far as I know, none of the other images are being used on Wikipedia. Thus, there is still considerable incentive to go the linked TIME site to see the full photo-essay (with associated commercial ads). I also believe this image has a legitimate educational purpose. The protests were a one-time historic event for which no free images like this are available. This image is particularly valuable because it helps illustrate the political and cultural elements connected to the two articles where it was used. There is at least one free image of the protest (Image:Bbbb.jpg), but it does not fulfill the same purpose as this one. It doesn't effectively illustrate any symbolism, and it is difficult to even make out any protestors. Finally, the uploader was not warned that this was an NFCC 2 violation. The only warning was by an automatic bot, that it was allegedly a blatant copyvio. This was inaccurate, as there was already a rationale. Superm401 - Talk 08:32, 27 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Challenge the Speedy Delete Gordon Laird (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC) The article was deleted before I had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate the noteworthyness of David Lochhead Gordon Laird (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am working on improving the article at User:Gordon Laird/David Lochhead --Gordon Laird (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion of this article and others seems to have created a precedent whereby Home and Away character pages are appearing and disappearing on a virtually daily basis:I refer also to Ric Dalby, Rachel Armstrong, Dan Baker (Home and Away) and Peter Baker (Home and Away).Given that this is creating massive gaps in a valuable resource, I request that this decision be reversed and all affected pages be restored. Skteosk (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Didn't want deleted, accidentaly put template. — ComputerGuy890100 00:25, 26 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedied as A7 (non-notable band) by User:Bearcat. I attempted to ask Bearcat about this but have received no reply, so I'm going to bring it up here. I don't have access to the original text of the article, but I do remember seeing it in Special:Newpages and specifically thinking it did not meet A7, as it did indeed contain an assertion of notability (if it did not, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion myself). As such, I think this article at least deserves a full AfD rather than being speedied. Powers T 23:45, 25 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This redirect (to esp@cenet) was first speedied with the edit summary: "R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link or misnomer: db-redirtypo". I then took the bold liberty to restore it while leaving the speedy tag (I created the article), to be able to contest the proposed speedy deletion on its talk page. Unsuccessfully. The redirect was then re-speedied with the edit summary: "Speedy deleted per (CSD r3), was a redirect based on an implausible typo. using TW". I then attempted to resolve the issue with the admin here. But in vain. The speedy deletion was done under CSD R3, "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers." The redirect was created in November 2005! This is not an implausible typo. While the symbol "@" is part of the official name (see first footnote of esp@cenet), the forms "Esp@cenet®" and "esp@cenet®" appear relatively often because it is a registered trademark (a search on Google Book or Google Scholar for "esp@cenet" reveals occurences of "Esp@cenet®" and "esp@cenet®"). Strictly speaking the form "esp@cenet®" is neither a typo nor a misnomer. Some users do search for articles by just copy-pasting a string of characters into Wikipedia, and some users even create article with a "®" at the end. It makes sense to have a redirect from "Esp@cenet®" to "Esp@cenet" to.. redirect these users. And, since redirects are cheap, ... Edcolins (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
In a nutshell, the delete vote was 3-2 and not enough to form a consensus and the keep votes were far more well explained, per wikipedia rules it’s a discussion not a vote. The motivational theory was coined by a famous business philosopher Herzberg on how not to deal with employees and is in academic textbooks. The delete votes were all based on it being “made up” which per the references and the discussion it clearly was not. Any search of google books proves this. I find it hard to believe that this would be deleted on it’s content and believe it has been deleted on it having a funny name. Englishrose (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Two years ago the Anarchopedia entry was deleted due to it was not considered relevant enough. However, I think that nowadays the project has grown enough to be taken into account. Here I give some arguments:
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
No consensus for redirect. Page is an historical archive of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)
Overturn WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL do not make one immune to criticism. Furthermore, hiding the entire thing stinks of censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Jtrainor (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
In a nutshell, the delete vote was 3-2 and not enough to form a consensus and the keep votes were far more well explained, per wikipedia rules it’s a discussion not a vote. The motivational theory was coined by a famous business philosopher Herzberg on how not to deal with employees and is in academic textbooks. The delete votes were all based on it being “made up” which per the references and the discussion it clearly was not. Any search of google books proves this. I find it hard to believe that this would be deleted on it’s content and believe it has been deleted on it having a funny name. Englishrose (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Some say this may not satisfy the notability treshold, but it is very well referenced and he has played for Ireland under 17 and Ireland u19 and i think that is more that notable. Sunderland06 21:01, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I do not think it is proper for consensus-forming processes to be deleted. Candidates for crat should understand and appreciate that an unsuccessful outcome is possible, and that there will be feedback given during the process that may be hurtful or unpleasant. Future candidates should have the benefit of reading over both sucessful and unsucessful candidacies to determine if they think they are ready for the feedback, and if they stand a chance. If there are WP:BLP-violating or other unacceptable comments in the RFB, they can be redacted without deleting the entire debate. This deletion was done by the candidate, and therefore represents a COI that could be considered an improper use of the sysop tools. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:21, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted less than a minute after it was put up, despite the fact that included sources such as the article in Investor's Business Daily that raises the fact that some might be unconfortable with a president who has a half-brother who self-identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim. Abongo has gotten a lot of attention recently and I am curious why there is no information about him on Wikipedia about him. AJmed (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted within minutes of it being launched. The Brevard County Historical Commission (an independent, 3d party org that researches & assess historically notable items for the county) has already determined it notable enough to place a historical marker on it & they are the experts -- not me. I believe that the last sentence of the history section establishes the historical notability of the building. Besides, this article was a stub about a building/org & not nearly in a final state. IMHO, it simply was premature to delete this article & should have been tagged for improvement rather than speedy deleted. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:dvb}} |
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deletion of this article seems unreasonable, the term has got quite a bit of currency in futurist discussions, and people would expect it to have a page on Wikipedia (certainly I have referred to wikipedia for this word before myself). I had a look at contacting the Admin who had deleted it, but they say on their user page that they don't want to receive any communication on Wikipedia - so I'm writing here. Charlie Stross also thinks Spimes shouldn't have been deleted, fwiw: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/02/news_of_the_weird.html Winjer (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deletion through G11 was totally inappropriate. Clearly, the article (and subject) are already encyclopedic. Buy.com had $290.8 million in revenue (as of 2004).[19], and the company is regularly mentioned in mainstream media. It is true that parts of the article show a slight bias towards the company, but that is hardly justification for speedy deletion. Superm401 - Talk 10:15, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Template has a useful purpose and deletion was made without discussion with the creator, who acted in good faith. Two other related templates are involved with this undeletion request. Jazzeur (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Then I noticed the deleting admin has been off-wiki for three weeks. Would someone please restore these articles to my user space, so I can decide whether I make the effort to address whatever concerns triggered the deletion? Specifically, could someone userify:
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
"I went to this page to get information on this computer computer game from my childhood; however, there is no information available now. It seems like if I'm interested in this game there would be others who would like information on it too." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.214.77 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn and Rename: Change article name to 'Murder of Brianna Denison'. The article was nominated and voted for deletion when it was still a stub written in a quasi unencyclopedic tone - I believe the user who nominated the article for deletion, User:WWGB failed to give the article a chance. The article was also deleted by admin Bongwarrior immediately after a significant expansion and sourcing. This story has received prominent coverage in the U.S. news media. Though coverage may be fleeting, once notable is always notable, and I think it's got to that point already. As for the MWWS argument, there are plenty of cases in which similar subjects where considered notable enough. Considering that the kidnapping has received significant media coverage and that the perpetrator is still at large, the subject should be at least partially satisfied by an encyclopedia article. I believe this warrants an overturn. James Bond (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
"There is nothing so fearful as ignorance in action." [Goethe] It seems that ignorance has moved into action to delete the information by G. Edward Griffin. That is no surprise. Remember the 4 stages of any new idea: denial, ridicule, violent opposition, then it becomes intuitively obvious. Obviously, Griffin's ideas have been promoted to stage 3. Nothing new there, except it appears that Wikipedia is allowing censorship without requiring proof of error. --1215 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)1215
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
While this article may have not met certain criteria or guidelines some of the information in here was salvagable and could have been moved to relevant articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhowden (talk • contribs)
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I wanted a history-only deletion for this article, as I'm curious if anything in the prior version was useable Rob (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
A clear neologism that has no supporting grounds for retention, as is evidenced in the AfD debate. Requesting review of non-admin close. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion of this article on a notable subject (compare no:Harry) without any discussion comes close to vandalism. 129.240.216.11 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Fits criteria for inclusion along with scores of other Masters Degree pages Regarding the inappropriate deletion of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Science_in_Information_Assurance Please undelete the Master of Science in Information Assurance and include it in the large and growing category of masters degrees on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Master%27s_degrees The Master of Science in Information Assurance degree page necessary to clarify the MSIA acronym, and to use as a reference for graduates as to the existence and validity of the qualification which is a growing degree program offered by several universities and cited and described many times on their websites. The MSIA is as valid as the rest of these degrees recognised by wikipedia and is no different from the many other Masters degree pages. It should be included on Wikipedia along with them. Acronym page and another degree which shares the same Acronym: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Science_in_Industrial_Administration Please undelete this page as soon as possible. Thanks. Cadill (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article included no more advertising than any other similar record label companies featured in Wikipedia (i.e. EMI, MGM, SONY, etc.) The deletion appears to be treating the small independent record label companies differently than the huge conglomerates. I request reinstation of the article. Eva Evangelakou (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Relist at AfD. This may seem strange, but as the nominator (of the second AfD), over time I've come to feel that an encyclopedic article about disappointment could actually be written and that I should never have nominated it. It's a genuine emotion that everyone has experienced and more than a dictionary definition could be written, I'm almost certain. Also it looks out of place with the existence of articles on other emotions - this one's surely just as valid? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:30, 21 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
does not fit criteria for speedy deletion
Avanti was a project for an approach to collaborative working in order to enable construction project partners to work together effectively. The project was promoted, among others, by the UK Department of Trade and Industry. Avanti focused on early access to all project information by all partners, on early involvement of the supply chain, and on sharing of information, drawings and schedules, in an agreed and consistent manner. The Avanti approach was supported by handbooks, toolkits and on-site mentoring and relied heavily on the advice and materials provided by CPIC. Avanti mobilised existing enabling technologies in order to improve business performance by increasing quality of information and predictability of outcomes and by reducing risk and waste. The core of the Avanti approach to a project's whole life cycle was based on team working and access to a common information model. In July 2006, the Avanti DTI Project documentation and brand ownership was transferred to Constructing Excellence. Since the handover, Constructing Excellence endeavoured to promote the savings demonstrated on live projects. Further work was also carried out to make Avanti part of the update of BS 1192. The BS 5555 committee coded the methods. See also External links Category: Architecture
Category: Civil engineering
Category: Construction ________________________________ Machiavelli2008 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear DGG and John Thank you for your comments on the deletion review page about Avanti Construction. Can I then understand, in view of your comments, that I can restore the article? If so, please could you unprotect the page? Thank you very much indeed for your response. --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion was disputed. Additionally, the speedy deletion criteria are not applicable in this case. -- Taku (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Does not fit criteria for speedy deletion.
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
does not fit criteria for speedy deletion
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Amyyaley (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I would like this article undeleted. It is about a significant patent in the software industry and the developer is a leader in the Open Source community. Amyyaley (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Don't know anything about the article itself except that he was a junior hockey player. I only found out about it on my talk page due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination), and judging on the afd it seems that it was a no concensus/default keep. Oh, and he also scored the gold medal winning goal at the 2008 WJHC's. Editorofthewiki 20:01, 20 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Don't know anything about the article itself except that he was a junior hockey player. I only found out about it on my talk page due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination). It was deleleted after a grand total of 5 comments. Editorofthewiki 20:01, 20 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed as no consensus, but practically none of the Keep votes addressed any policy-based reason why the article should be kept. Keep votes claimed a consensus that such articles should be kept (there obviously isn't, or else there wouldn't be current RFAR on the subject), "It's notable", and "per Arbcom". Despite being an obvious violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, the article cannot be deleted or merged whilst the Episodes and Characters injunction is in place, but should have been relisted. The AfD was also closed by an admin who is active in the Episodes and Characters RFAR and has argued for the retention of such articles, and should therefore have recused themselves. Black Kite 13:35, 20 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
If the logs are checked it can be seen that there was a clear majority for Keep. Plus Jawahar Shah's contribution in development of the Software is unquestionable. It is one of the leading softwares used by thousands of Homeopaths the world over LINUSS (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of article cannot be justifed by saying that the article creator has submitted only one article so far. There is always going to a first article by everyone. Also; I am sure if any one is even remotly associated with the field of Homeopathic education and softwares for Homeopaths will be aware of Dr. Shah and the software he and his team has created. LINUSS (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am forwarding some links for your quick refernce, which will bring to light dr. Shah's role as a teacher and homeopath plus product review of Hompath software. http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/jawahar_shah.html http://www.amishhospital.com/drketanpatel.htm http://lmpotency.com/clients.htm http://www.webhealthcentre.com/altmed/homeopathy/homeopathy_index.asp http://www.minimum.com/reviews/hompath-shah.htm LINUSS (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello, this article is vulnerable to Original Research as it cannot be verified. There are no sources in the world to stop people from adding their own ideas/opinions to this article. I believe it's "no consensus" result happened as some of the "keepers" were new users (invariably not knowing about WP:OR, sorry to presume) and that it was listed at the "list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions", inevitably drawing in the Sci-Fi crowd, who perhaps saw the AFD as an attack on the book. But it is for the sake of the book that this article must go, users should not be able to twist the author's message to suit their own Point of View. Also, the closing admin said "Two "delete" opinions advocate merging, which does not only not require deletion, but actually precludes it due to licencing issues", well I'd be happy for a merge or redirect or anything to get the article away from what it is now. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The wrong AFD was linked in the request, which seems to have caused great confusion here. I corrected the link. For the sake of clarity for whomever goes to close this, please update your previous comment to state that it applies to the correct AfD. Otherwise earlier references to "keep" closure may be assumed to be irrelevant to this review. Please place new comments below this notice.JERRY talk contribs 03:26, 21 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Strangely, this is not policy enough to warrant {{disputedtag}}, but policy enough to be speedy keepable at MFD. Make up your mind. Will (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The only thing propelling me to do this, is my conscious. That same conscious realized that it is unfair to Perry Belcher's family and children to have this article under his name. So I agree with you all, and in time Selmedica article should be up hopefully. Thatopshotta (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Change of opinion. Yes, i do agree to restore this.If Lakshmi is important enough to be on the Bodyshock series, she is of worthy of being in Wikipedia.I am sooooo cool! 19:49, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Although I suspect this page was deleted because it was a stub I plan to fully edit this entry and make it a useful contribution to the Wiki. It is a large organization, which represents more than 60,000 teachers and is credible enough for recognition on this site. Please note the administrator who deleted this post is no longer active. Obviously, it needs to be capitalized and edited. If capitalization will allow me to recreate the entry, I will just do that.Malonem2 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I see absolutely no consensus and further, no reason for closure. Relist if necessary as there's no consensus for delete either, but to close based on one questionable keep that doesn't show that the subject passes WP:BIO. Yes, I was the original nominator, but I think this needs far more discussion before a close Travellingcari (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I closed this discussion because it was posted, one person commented with a keep, and no other comments had been made for several days. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have come here first. I just relisted the AFD in question and undid the closing as it was quite obvious to me that the article should have been relisted, not closed, especially a non-admin close (no offense meant Dustihowe, you made a good faith close, but not accurate according to policy for non-admin closures). Anywho, I went to Dustihowe's talkpage after undoing the close and relisting to inform him and saw this DRV notice, so here I am! In other words, Hema Sinha is now appropriately relisted instead of closed. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 19 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
| ====
The closer of this debate said that "I believe this image is not replaceable with a free image. Any drawing would either be a derivative or original research" That is senseless: are all illustrations on Wikipedia original research, or derivative works of existing illustrations?. It seems like ordinary research synthesis to me, which is what encyclopedizing is. This image clearly fails the Non-free content criteria, and does so in such a convincing way that there is an example of unacceptable use on WP:NONFREE that applies: Images #4 "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." Replace "war" with "waterboarding" and this use is verbatim prohibited by our guidelines. Overturn and delete. ➪HiDrNick! 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have set a copyrequest to an appropriate email should hope to hear back soon. (Hypnosadist) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
deleted 30 seconds after creation by overzealous editor, I am translating from the Swedish Wikipedia for which there is a link. He is also in Encarta. Deleted by same editor a second time despite the tagging with "holdon" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I've put a {{db-bio}} tag on it because it fails to make any claims of notability. Being an experienced Wikipedia editor, Richard Arthur Norton knows better. He doesn't get a free pass any more than anybody else does. Corvus cornixtalk 21:50, 19 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm opening this nomination on behalf of User:BrownHairedGirl because she has expressed an interest in having the close reviewed here. You can see other discussion, if that's the word for it, at User talk:Angusmclellan#Year in Ireland CfD closure, User talk:Sarah777#Year in Ireland categories and User talk:PrimeHunter#Strong suggestions. The CfD concerns a large number of categories of the form Category:697 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), most of which contain only the corresponding article, e.g. 697 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). My view is, and was, that these categories cannot be adequately populated. WP:CAT tells us that "[c]ategories are mainly used to browse through similar articles". These could not be as the "similar" articles are each in their very own little category. It was proposed that the categories be merged into the corresponding decade categories, i.e. Category:697 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Category:690s in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I believe that the basic concept of categorisation supports this and the arguments on this side were the stronger. BHG will be able to do the reasons for retaining them, and the reasons the close was incorrect, much better than I can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting off topic for a DRV, but I can cooperate on a new system if the category deletion is endorsed. Individually choosing and changing which years get their own category would require some work and could create inconsistent navigation so I would prefer a boundary. Roughly, there tends to be less information the farther back you go. There are some exceptions to this but a little variation in category sizes seems to matter less than having a good category system. Pick a boundary year divisible by 100, for example B=1100. Don't allow templates to add category links for years below B. It seems unlikely to me that any decade before 1100 will get so many articles that the decade category becomes hard to use. Some simple template changes:
A suggestion to make it easy to change B in the future: Make a new template, for example called {{IrelandInYear}}, with a year parameter. If another article than "y in Ireland" (which uses YearInIrelandNav for categorization) should be categorized in "Category:y in Ireland" if it exists, then the article can add {{IrelandInYear|y}} instead of [[Category:y in Ireland]]. IrelandInYear can then be coded to add a year category for years after B, and only a decade category before B. Currently this template would only have 5 uses before 1100. If it becomes much more then a bot could be programmed to make the conversion. The above system makes it easy to change B, for example decreasing B by 100 when more articles have been added to the preceding century. If B is changed in templates then everything else should work automatically. After loking at 1100 to 1600 (a period which may have hundreds of one-article categories but I haven't counted), I think B=1600 would currently be much better than B=1100 (although more articles would need conversion to {{IrelandInYear}}). But no year after 1100 was listed in the CFD nomination so some editors might object to raising B. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Splash - tk 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking this here because I've been told to and there's no other page - the article was kept at AFD about six hours ago, and the closer remarked that the group were notable, though not independently notable. I won't complain about that. However, a merge proposal for that exact reason was closed citing because there's already been an AFD, there can't be an immediately following merge proposal. Thoughts? Will (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
votes were cast on an edited article which did not bear semblance to the contents as it appear in the latest available version of the book I should like to request a review as I believe before the votes were cast there should have been a confirmation that the contents as they appear in the deleted article bore semblance to the contents in teh valid available version of teh book and not the recalled one as seems to have been the case.Admittedly the number of votes were overwhelmimngly in favour of deletion but that was unsurprising!I woudl not like to retain a list of notable scientists unless Einstein was on it!The other names can be debated!And that is waht happened.A request to get an administrator to independently find out if Einsten was there was not conducted.And at least two votes hinged on that!Maybe more! Most of the reasoning given related to the recalled edition!Not the current edition!And as the talk page of the deleted article shows,there has been enough discussion to point out that nay such list is bound to have ommissions-even teh Nobel list does not have Tesla or Edison and Einstein's theory of relativity was not considered good enough!But through this list at least I was made aware of Alter,Zohary,Donders and Klingenstierna,names I had never heard but whose artiocles were a direct outcome of thsi list. Much of teh dscussion in the outcme of a knee -jerk reaction resulting from faulty premise that this lait did not have Einstein. (Delhite (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC))
Overturn,get the new edition ascertained independently and then submit for Afd Before the closing administrator rules,it woudl be worthwhile to ponder over a few points: One of the contributors questions if Einstien is ther as he says there is no evidence apart from the photo on the cover:Exactly!That is why it is important to have a senioe administrator like Bhadani independently verify this.I am sure many voters were influenced by the absence of Einstien as they should be!The process woudl not take long and then thsi article could be resubmitted for Afd-that woudld be fairer! Comimg to the evidence,one of the voters suggested that teh Rochester University website was a mistake-as the discussion shows many were influenced by this-but is there any evidence! Moreover the same voter suggested that Jordanova,a top historian of science was embarassed by her association with this book-any evidence! But perhaps teh most striking comments was from this voetr when he suggested that a top and highly publishing house like Orient Longman accepeted 'turd' rejected by UK publishers.My edition of Oxford Dictionary defines turd as -term of utmost contempt -lump of excrement! I leave it to the voters to judge! I agree there are major omissions as woudl appear in all such lists but there are names of graets that I ha dnever heard of whose articles have been created just because the names appeared on the list. And surely not everyone who holds thsi view is a sockpuppet-I have responded to this voter.I woudl sincerley hope that vote numbers woudl not be the only criteria that would decide.! (Delhite (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
Conditional reversal requested :There a a few scientists without whom no list of eminent scientists would be complete.Most would consider the following to fulfil this criteria: _Einstein _Darwin _Newton _Galileo _Mendel. In fact I seem to remember the Royal Society conducting a poll to determine the most eminent scientist of all time and the choices they gave were Newton and Einstein.Newton won! But the point is that most voters woudl dismiss the list at first sight if Einstien was not there and it woudl be safe to assume that happened!Therfore I woudl agree that it woudl be important to find out if Einstein did appear in the valid list as teh original article woudl suggest. The other names in my view can be debated.There are major omissions-I can add quite a few more-Leavitt,Lagrange,Meitner etc etc etc.But science is such a vast discipline that any list would suffer from these deficiencies.I never knew how importnat Alter,Rosky,Yoder and Zohary were until I read this list. (Shonali2000 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
Most upsetI did not know aht a sockpuppet means but checked it out!I am most upset at the allegation and am seriously considering reporting this man!Perhaps you shoudl prevent new registrants from editing if they are going to be greeted with this sort of impolite response emerging from someone obviously with a cheap mentatility.(Shonali2000 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
At least I ahve responded to this rubbishy nonsense that people of sneering predispotion are prone to on Colin's talk page within the Wiki parameters of civility that some woefully lack.(Delhite (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
====
The discussion history has been deleted by Hu12 for the reason of "housekeeping". However, imho this is no case of housekeeping. X-Bert (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Consensus not reached, MfD closed prematurely along with Wikipedia:Presidential poll. Apparently, one contributor acquiesced to speedy; I see nothing on record of the other doing so. Debate is at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Presidential_poll. Comments to closing admin are at User talk:AzaToth#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Presidential poll. Ron Duvall (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unfairly and Incorrectly deleted, Consensus Not Reached, Article Notable and Suitable, Original debate had moved on and suggestions had been made and accepted on how to proceed, difficult to see why other "list of" articles exist just fine while the reasons given to delete this article would also rule out all other "list of" articles Bardcom (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
He was on Jimmy Kimmel Live and Chris Kidd Show as well as American Idol. [28] ۞ ░ 18:56, 17 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The debate was procedurally closed as keep citing reasons of the injunction. However the precedent that is in place is to insert Template:FICTWARN on the AFD and relist it until the injunction is lifted or modified. The closing admin, when asked to modify the closing, said he does not agree with the template, and seems to prefer to dispose of a consensus-forming process in favor of preventing a backlog at AfD. The backlog concern seems unwarranted, as the articles are in a tracking category and can be quickly dealt with when the injunction is over. To ignore consensus-forming input by summarily closing these debates makes the problem worse as it prevents editors from exchanging ideas about these articles and will likley result is a rash of new AFD's that have no particpation in them yet, the moment the injunction is lifted. That will create the same backlog. So I say overturn and add template. JERRY talk contribs 00:59, 17 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reasons:
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The notability of this topic has not been established. The admin who closed the discussion, User:Nihonjoe, claims there to have been multiple, independent, reliable sources. Asked to do so several times, he was unwilling to say exactly which sources he was referring to. He ended the discussion by accusing the editor who approached him, User:Slarre, of being POV and being on a personal vendetta (a clear violation of WP:AGF, BTW; for the whole discussion see User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_30#Per_Bylund). Several links to external websites were provided in an attempt to establish notability: Bylund's CV, several articles written by Bylund himself ([29] [30] [31], [32], [33], [34]), a blog, a dead link, three extremely brief mentions in the Swedish media ([35], [36], and [37]), an article in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, which briefly cites Bylund's master's thesis, advertisement for a book he contributed to, his personal website, and a list of grad students at the University of Missouri. These links quite clearly do not establish notability. Most of those sources are not third-party. The few that are are only very brief mentions of Bylund and therefore are not enough to establish notability. Carabinieri (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Lord Metroid (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article Nial Djuliarso has been deleted again for the second time. I am tired of having to explain that Nial Djuliarso is a prominent musician in Indonesia. I created the page of Nial Djuliarso. Although he is not notable in the US, he is a notable jazz musician in Indonesia, because he's a child prodigy of jazz and has created a number of recordings which won awards in Indonesia. Deletion of his article is regretted. Again, I am really sad that Wikipedia uses American standard for notability, while ignoring people from developing countries. We can see categories such as Indonesian Journalist, Indonesian Musician, and Nial Djuliarso is one of them. (Sorry for the late comment regarding this matter because I was away to give birth of my son). The AFD has been discussed many times, it has been contested and approved to be reinstated. Please explain why Nial Djuliarso is deleted again on January 23. Chaerani (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaerani (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 February 2008
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was listed as speedy delete, but fails speedy delete criteria. I placed a hangon message, and within a minute the page was deleted. I was just about to add more information and link The Advocate reference at the time of deletion. See [46], also found on their site here [47]. I was also going to seek more sources here: [48], atop the book references that were already in the article. Administrator did not use proper precaution in this instance. See these following sources as well: [49] and [50]. Additionally, she wrote 16 pages in the book What makes a man : 22 writers imagine the future edited by Rebecca Walker. Mind meal (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Similar articles were kept whereas this one was deleted due to "vanity" and "unencyclopedic" and while the article was still at its infancy. Supporters of the original nomination quoted another argument - that the contents should be merged to UEFA Cup 2007-08. But seeing the breadth and depth of this main article and the importance of its subject, it follows that such details deserve a child article. The original editor tried to recreate the article, but was sd-tagged by the original deletion (as CSD-G4 apparently) by the original nominator before much further additions could be made to address the changes. Informed by the major editor of this article, I feel that there is a need to address the concern. I hope that the deletion decision could be overturn, or otherwise I'll nominate all relevant articles for deletion. Deryck C. 19:50, 15 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. [51] Mattythewhite (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This abuse documentation page was deleted a while back on the grounds that the vandal was gone from Wikipedia and that keeping the page was unnecessary glorification. However, recent evidence on WP:AN and WP:ANI calls this into question. According to this statement, there appears to be some suspicion that Solumeiras and/or Sunholm are actually WoW sockpuppets. (They have apparently now been blocked.) If that weren't enough, a blatant Willy account (User:Tom on Tires — see page move history) has shown up. (See this AN thread). Given all this, I think we need to resurrect the WoW LTA page, at least for a while. *** Crotalus *** 15:27, 15 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Plays for a full-time club, same as rest. Jimbo[online] 14:33, 15 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I would ask to restore the last version of Sonopia page. Sonopia article was moved to "speedy" deletion because it has failed AfD due to the not-proper content. The last version of Sonopia had different content from the previous versions. I have read wikipedia policies already and I have tried to edit page according to all policies, so can it be restored? I will appreciate any help, thanks! Sonopia Guru (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
| ========
Image was speedy deleted for the reason: "reasonable to assume a free image exists", which is not a justifiable criteria for speedy deletion. Admin should have used template:rfu so that a discussion could have taken place as to the availability of a free image of a band that hasn't existed in fourteen years. ChrisB (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article is now notable as the subject has played in a professional football league, and so passing WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This actress was speedy'd by A7, but it seems unclear to me. She appeared in over 100 films, at least some of which are notable (based on oncoming links). There are many sources, but it's hard to tell how non-trivial the mentions are, but several, in particular her obituaries, mention her by name in the title, as though readers would have known who she is,. The sources include newspapers from across the U.S., indicating it wasn't local fame, and across decades, indicating that it wasn't a short burst of fame. Rigadoun (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I can't see the cache, can you provide sources? I can see lists of films that she made, but not much on a bio. Corvus cornixtalk 21:23, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Closing admin erred in keeping this non-notable article. Article was kept due to inherited notability of leader in violation of WP:ITSA and misapplication of notability guidelines. Asking for article to be deleted. Bstone (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This entry was deleted after a proposed deletion which only went uncontested because I was not aware at that time that it was being reviewed. Please restore it, as there is nothing in this article that runs afoul of the deletion policy. Supernatural Chicago is a significant production that, in its lengthy run (it is beginning its fifth year this month) has become a mainstay of Chicago theater (it is therefore linked to the Chicago Theater page) and is a unique representative of interactive and environmental theater (both of which should be linked terms) and is staged in a historically recognized location (Excalibur nightclub, where another link logically appears). It has attracted considerable media attention in Chicago, and has even been named by the enormous travel community at TripAdvisor.com as one of the top 10 attractions in Chicago (http://chicago-hotels.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g35805-Activities-Chicago_Illinois.html). If Tony 'n Tina's Wedding (another longrunning interactive/environmental show) merits a Wikipedia article, so does this. Necromancer66 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Manganese(II) oxide doesn't require context to be identified Lysis rationale (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
{{{reason}}} ELDRAS (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Blacks commit crime way out of proportion, how is this category not important? CplJames (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category was emptied and deleted without following the process called for at WP:CFD. The contents should be moved from the replacement category and returned here. If a rename is still desired, it should be requested using the process defined in WP:CFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
i would like a deleted page "neuroracism" to be restored: the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria (neologism is NOT listed as criteria). There was no "marking for proposed deletion," only a speedy deletion. The term "neuroracism" goes hand-in-hand with "Neurodiversity" (which is a neologism listed here without contest, thankfully). The admin claimed "neuroracism" was a non-notable neologism, but i have read the term in use elsewhere (i do not think i coined it). i attempted to discuss this with the admin who did the deletion but his responses were unhelpful. It was NOT a discussion. He offered links and copy/paste text explanation from the WP:deletion definition. i asked for a copy of the deleted material and was ignored. i did not challenge this at the time because i did not know the proper formalities involved. i learned that there are "alternatives to deletion" (just today, as i looked through my contribution list). i would be more than happy to see the Neuroracism content added to the Neurodiversity page as an alternative to complete restoration, if it is maintained that my deleted page does not belong here (yet). i wish not to attempt recreation of the deleted material on my own and seek restoration from back up (which is why i am not simply trying to add it to Neurodiversity myself. i do not HAVE the original material; it was written well enough the first time and i contest that it does merit its own entry into WikiPedia). Dysamoria (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like a deleted image, Image:Marshall2.jpg, fully restored for a temporary review. An administrator, User:East718, deleted it and has decied to take a break from Wiki, making it very difficult to discuss the matter with them. The image was posted some time ago and the administrator believed insufficient description was given for fair use. If the page is restored, all can review and I will make sure to address any concerns or inadequacies in accordance with Wiki policies. Thanks. Cato2000 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I made some changes to the article between the time deletion was proposed and when it was carried out. I believe these changes address the deletion criteria, in particular notability and secondary references. Also, note that the voting consisted of one 'Keep' and one 'Delete' - not a particularly strong consensus. Chewyrunt (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was closed as defaulting to keep. All of the the keep !votes clearly lacked solidly in any policy or precedent, but rather were explicitly Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The closing rational seems seriously flawed. WP:V or WP:OR played no role in this discussion, yet they were seemingly given comparitvely more weight than the "applicable oficial policy" for which the article was nominated. WP:NOT#DIR (3) criteria states Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide ...and use explicity as an example " radio station generally should not list...current schedules, etc...". Despite the solid policy based rationale for deletion, the closing admin dismisses official Wikipedia policy stating "The WP:NOT#DIR criteria can be debated for years without results and it can be subjected to various interpretations'. I've broken down on the AFD's talk page the raw analysis, and would recomend either a Relist or Overturn and Delete. Hu12 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Endorse the basic argument was that general programming information about networks was acceptable, and always has been. The program guides prohibited are specific program schedules of individual stations.DGG (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Prodded and contested after deletion. I am unsure what the reason behind the prod was, but this can be determined upon undeletion. If deletion is still deemed necessary, the page can be VfD'd as necessary. Thank you. tgies (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Subject is proven notable by massive news coverage. Article is not a BLP issue as it only repeats what has already been widely reported in the mainstream news media. If specific parts are BLP issues, then those parts can easily be rewritten, edited, or trimmed to make it compliant, but the vast majority of this is perfectly fine. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We should have a full AfD of this topic. There's no compelling reason not to have a full AfD when his name is plastered all over the news and the reason we've had so many separate discussions is because of the number of out of process attempts to close things early. At least one member of the ArbCom has expressed that this speedy deletion was not the sort intended by WP:BLPUNDEL. Since I'm not as eloquent a writer I will simply refer to what he said, quoting a large part. [54]. As FT2 observes in the above dif, BLP is "The "up front deletion" aspects of WP:BLP exist for specific essential reasons, to protect a subject from actively being defamed (etc) whilst we debate at leisure. It exists for negative unsourced material, "attack articles", and in the case of borderline subjects where they have requested deletion, we allow for that too. In the present case no request has been received from the subject related to removal, nor is the article negative in the sense that BLP deletion criteria anticipate. It is not enough to say "its a bio" to draw on WP:BLP for deletion. The "delete it first, then discuss" approach does not exist in a vacuum and never has; it was established originally for the specific purpose of protecting people from negative unsourced material, use of the wiki for personal attack and defamation, and (later agreed) hurtful publicity to publicity-avoidant subjects who may be borderline at best anyway and have requested removal, by deeming that such material was removed whilst the case was discussed, and may stay deleted if there is doubt." I strongly recommend that everyone read the entirety of FT2's comment. While deletions have been done before for privacy reasons, we cannot reasonably expect their to be such serious privacy concerns when a) the individual in question has made international news and b) is busy self-promoting himself. The claim that the individual is a minor should not also matter; his legal guardians are apparently fine with all the publicity. I also strongly recommend that everyone read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP especially the first part which discusses why we should in general use AfDs to determine community consensus about BLPs that are well-sourced. Finally, I note that even in the last few hours, Delaney/Worthington has appeared in three more news sources, over a month after the initial event. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment -- recent ongoing press coverage (just a sample from a longer list):
--A. B. (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Please restore, article was put up for prod, but already survived an Afd 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was closed as no consenusus, even though the keeps didn't really give a policy based reason, and clearly didn't fix the sourcing concerns, which were serious. Either Relist or Overturn and Delete Secret account 20:29, 12 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article appears to be written by it's own subject, ("Wikipaeton" appears to be Manago himself) Article is not at all encyclopedic in nature, full of self-egrandizing. He includes an "interview" with himself. Language is ego-centric, not objective. Sources he lists do not actually support information in the article. If not deletion, article needs substantial editing. Wikipedia articles should be written by someone objective and not the articles subject himself.Beatmakerz (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
We have extensively edited the article in question and added newly found references. Text is here: [[83]] Is this sufficient? Eric Barbour (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Please restore this page. Someone listed this as a prod, but I failed to notice in time. This article has already survived AFD once. Rawr (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Creator not informed of proposed deletion, wishes to know reasons and revise in keeping with Wikipedia standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciajane (talk • contribs)
Is it possible, without violating the spirit of this section, to make the case that a company that has been covered in the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, among others, is notable? Patriciajane (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
No progress has been made towards rewriting this article since it was last proposed for deletion in 2006 User:BowChickaNeowNeow 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Comment add listing as in place since earlier but within comment tags at head of page. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Requesting restoration of a deleted page Sirs/Madams: I have rewritten the page on Retarded Animal Babies. My version meets all the requirements of Wikipedia. It includes reliable third-party citations and proper formatting and NPOV. Since there are now a number of Wikipedia articles that link to it, I feel that it should be remade. The rewritten article is temporarily posted here: User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox I have only a secondary relationship with the RAB creator. This is being done as a courtesy to him--we feel that he deserves a decent representation on Wikipedia. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. EricBarbour (talk · contribs) 21:10, February 11, 2008
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I restored this article without realizing that it was previously on AfD, so I am listing it here now. The article was deleted due to "not one valid reason given for keeping", despite the keep/delete ratio being 3:2. On a closer look, it seems that those in favor of deletion were confusing subject's "notability" with "notability based only on the English-language sources". As per WP:RSUE, while English-language sources are always preferred, sources in foreign languages are still permitted when English-language sources of equal quality are not available. I hereby request further review of this article's status.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 11 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The reason given for deletion was "Un notable, COI with user creating it" non-notability is a reason for speedy deletion only for articles. I was planning of moving the page to article once I could better establish notability. Further, this deletion was only done after I nominated MediaWiki for deletion because of lack of independent coverage. Reedy Boy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed this and threatened to block me, then deleted a page in my userspace. Charles Stewart (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse per above. --Kbdank71 21:19, 11 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
consensus was NOT achieved Tinucherian (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I found new english sources to prove notability of ASuite: [91] [92] [93] [94] Salvadorbs (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
consensus NOT was achieved before deletion of these 2 pages This is regarding the speedy closure of AFD discussion of the above articles. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil There were strong suggestions to both Keep and delete from many noteable wikipedians. Strongly Keep: 12 We are trying to get also expert opinion from People from this part of the world also with knowledge of Indian Christian history , when suddenly one of the Admins User:Nihonjoe closed the debate and deleted the articles , without even a consensus was achieved. :( We , lot of wikipedians have put our heart to this , feels this as extremely unfair and unjust, losing our faith in Wikipedia. - Tinucherian (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was written by a wikipedia newby- because I'm not allowed to write my own. Instead of trashing it- can't you fix it. If Charles W. Sanders and Jane Mitakides can have pages, shouldn't I? I'm sure some of you esteemed editors can do basic research David Esrati (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reason for deletion given as "Recreation of deleted material". Not true--latest version of page significantly different from previous incarnation. Ottens (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. | |||
| ====
Closing admin rationale: deletion upheld. This has been deleted three times in the last two weeks, already reviewed once, this resubmission is disruptive, abuse of process, and a WP:POINT violation. There was also vote canvassing, for example, here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong overturn. MfD against an WIP private yet well-sourced and referenced userpage with roughly 140kB still pretty much at stub status compared to what it was supposed to develop into. The MfD's closing admin justified her closure by arguments put forth by Calton and Coredesat that were instantly refuted by a multitude of established editors and admins everytime those "arguments" were posted as those were debunked arguments against a mainspace article (of only 40-60kB) only sharing the title with what MfD closing admin has now decided to delete, and on top of that, those were arguments only valid for mainspace as explicitly stated by policy. Not to mention the deleted userpage had been created long before the particular AfD was opened on mainspace article that was very controversially closed as delete. Even the deletion of mainspace article was patently illegitimate because that second AfD had failed to provide any new nomination rationale as without a new nomination rationale any new AfD is invalid from the beginning, which is one of the many reasons why established admins such as User:John, User:Grue, User:DGG, User:Tango, User:Coren, User:@pple and others, called the closing admin Keilana's entire ability to proper judgment and fulfill her duties as an admin into question for her unwarranted personal decision to delete the mainspace article for which she was even incapable to provide any rationale for until several days later when an involved member of the delete party shoved a rationale onto her which boiled down to WP:IAR (DRV closing admin Mackensen quoted a vague unsubstantiated claim that nobody had been able to provide any rationale or refs for, even though repeatedly requested to do so, and that there was absolutely no consensus over). After that illegitimate decision, the same people went with an MfD after a different piece in private userspace which happened to have the same title, and the only "arguments" the MfD's closing admin quoted were stating that the mainspace article had been deleted. Consensus, logic, and following policy look different. --TlatoSMD (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion for the 27th time. DRV is not AfD2, and should not be a habitual response to an AfD close you disagree with. If there is a process problem, i.e. consensus was interpreted incorrectly/involvement by the admin in the discussion/early closure/etc. then DRV can correct that. If the outcome simply didn't go your way, that is not what DRV is about. Avruchtalk 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Avruchtalk 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'd like to hear from the closing admin before I consider this further. Certainly her stated rationale is not sufficiently explanatory. (I urged deletion.) Relata refero (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_GLOSSARY_NOT_A_DICTIONARY 4 commentators stated it was a dictionary whilst entries were at the 'A' section, and before B and subsequent sections were added. 1 user stated 'Inappropriate' because she had already deleted 2 articles on 31st January on the (incorrect) assumption of copyright violation. I accepted that 1 article (A Manual) was better suited to Wikia. The Glossary was reinstated with positive help from RHawaorth, but without support from Deb, who appeared unwilling to read the revised version and also proceeded to delete Feb 8th additions, whilst claiming not to know the reason for deletion, when asked for clarification as to why those additions were not shown. Despite spending inordinate amounts of time responding to Deb's post hoc reasons for 31st Jan deletions, I was accused of wasting her time, when all that was required was cessation of harrassment of a newbie, in favour of the help and goodwill offered by others ie RHaworth, JimfBleak and SGGH }} SJB (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
'Comments
Response: RH, I attempted to elicit a positive response from a hostile environment, before providing a further target for baiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veraguinne (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Response; No-one has bothered to amplify the accusation of 'misuse' of a subpage.
Response 2: You also claimed that no context was given. This was because it was clearly a subpage of Youth Offending Team and therefore self-explanatory. ( btw No amplification of claimed 'misuse' has materialised to date.)
Response 2: I did not notice any tag. I only discovered your auspicious intervention by luck after you had deleted it without so much as a single word of explanation.
Response 2 QED
Why can't I add any more information to the Glossary ? --SJB (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No comment If you are indeed too hard-pressed by your own authorship ("My main reason for being at wikipedia is to make contributions of my own. By constantly questioning the judgment of other contributors and asking for repeated explanations, you are taking me - and others - away from that task" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veraguinne ) then may I respectfully suggest that the role of Admin is an Inappropriate for your particular talents. --SJB (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Response 2: If an attempt to call you to account for crassness is construed as 'harrassment' and 'beligerence', then heaven help those whom you do assist. As an Admin you were of no help to me whatsoever. Thanks.--SJB (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The frequent deletion of Home and Away-related pages and the quashing of any attempts to improve them, despite precedents being set elsewhere for pages of this type, seems less like an attempt to clean-up Wikipedia and more like a concerted campaign against a long-running and popular show.The page listed above and several others are a valuable and useful resource which I believe should be retained. Skteosk (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to contest the deletion of the page for Dungeon Majesty. It was originally deleted in 2005 due to lack of references and poor description, but the latest entry was re-written ,more references were added as their noterity has risen, but it was victim of speedy deletion without consideration. This entry received a notice that it may provde no meaningful content or history, but that could not be farther from the truth. Dungeon Majesty was one of the first independently produced internet full length television programs to ever be on the internet. They we're part of the birth of the viral video and strived to change the way people watch programming on the internet. Their crusade led them to host several screenings and lectures across the country including "Gaming and New Media" at GenCon in 2005, major gallery shows including one at the Hammer Museum in 2007, and in addition have appeared on G4 television, as well as World of Wonder's show Ring My Bell. In 2005, MTV2 asked them to make 10 shorts which they then put into heavy rotation between music videos. Proving that the internet was now a viable source for the inspiration of television. In addition they have had gallery shows, been written about in several magazines including RES, DRAGON, and LUMPEN as well as a 5 page piece in XTREME Fashion published by Prestel books in 2005. In addition, all 6 episodes plus 10 shorts are available on DVD. To prove the verifiability of this entry I would like to present a few links to it's cultural significance. References: Hunter, Sandy "D&DIY FILM" Res Magazine May/June 2005 Campbell, Eric "Dungeon Majesty" Dragon magazine December 2004 Smith, Courtenay "Xtreme Fashion" Prestel Books 2005 4 Television Apearance 1: http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3953/Dungeon_Majesty_Game_Developers_Conference_Batmobile.html Geek Girls Play D&D : http://www.spike.com/search?query=Geek+Girls+play+D%26D&s=Search Headline artsts at Version Festival Chicago 2007: http://www.lumpen.com/VERSION7/index.html WIZARDS OF THE COAST hosted a contest based on a film by Dungeon Majesty: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20061205a SPECIAL GUESTS at Gaming conventions: http://www.kublacon.com/guests/sg_majesty.html 5 page write up in the book XTREME FASHION: http://www.amazon.com/Xtreme-Fashion-Courtenay-Smith/dp/3791331752 SCREENING AT HAMMER MUSEUM IN BILLY WILDER THEATRE-March 2007 http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/ Collaborations with Leslie Hall: http://www.willowdontcry.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK9GPTY3dM8 Contributors to Select Meia Festival: http://selectmediafestival.org/2007/ Nuggets from the Net January 8, 2008 http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/tag/138/Nuggets_From_The_Nets.html Select Reviews and Articles: HACKWRITERS.COM http://www.hackwriters.com/DM3.htm 76.173.98.58 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The page was deleted because allegedly the sources provided were not reliable, however, not only my main source www.greatworks.org.uk is 'independent of the suubject' 'second party' and 'verifyable' as requested in Wikipedia's policy, buut it is endorsed by no less than the British Library, the UK official institution that presides over all publications [96][97] [98] 'This site was selected for preservation by the British Library and is archived regularly.' What more do we want to establish reliability? This has lead people in the 'delete' party that my source was reliable, but has not been noticed by the admninistrator. Not only, no reasons are given why the spurce does not meet Wikipedia reliability policy, only that the reliability of sources is a problem, with no reference to the policy. I will point out that the British Library has put its official' (invested from the power of HM The Queen's UK Government, one will read in the chart) seal of approval on only 5 websites in the whole world so far, and my source is one of them. How can it be unreliable? There are hardly any other sources as reliable as mine. I will nott add that amongst my secondary sources there were 2 academties and the Guardian as well. I do strongly object6 to the deletion and request a review. TonyBrit (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like some objective scrutiny of my these sources. 1 - http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html It is a very famous poetry website, has a rather comprehensive academic article written by T Harrison on A Bulla, which clearly states that A Bulla is a force in literature to be recognised. User:Paularblaster has not commented on this source at all, yet, it is thee main source fror my article. 2- http://www.greatworks.org.uk/texts.html the same website with a biography of A Bulla, which matches what is in my article. These two are have the seal of the British Library http://www.webarchive.org.uk/tep/13933.html][99] [100] 4 - http://www.scilt.stir.ac.uk/Languagesnews/TEFL/tefl200381.htm This is the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. It's a National and official website related to the University of Stirling. I have included this reference to prove that A Bulla has status in the academic world, and the article pertains Post-Colonial policies. State funded website! 5- http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4811005-108281,00.html is from The Guardian. Now, I have never said that there are articles on HIM in the Guardian, but BY him, (from my article 'He has also published in 'The Guardian). That article was the featured article of the week. It is there to prove the point that Mr Bulla has credibility as a commentator/critic, in particular with regards to hiis cvontribution to Post-Colonial studies. 6 - 'Openings' 1999, The Open University. An anthology published by the Open University where A Bulla appeared. 7- LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, This is a poetry publication,, it is there to prove that his first publications were in the 1990s, at least that we know of. Plus of course Bulla's own books with ISBN and evidence that they are available in all major bookshops. And what is the reason for deletion? Some (vauge) problems with the reliability of the sources? Are we having a laugh? Prove that all these are unreliable or overturn this unfounded delete. TonyBrit (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I could provide a series of articles backed up by sources that are no where near as reliable as mine, yet, mine are presumed unreliable despite being officially verified. Is grewtworks.org.uk a secondary source, verifyable, inedependent of the subject yes or no? No point arguing unless someone comes up and tells us that it is not and that the British Libriary do a very bad job at checking which websites they endores These are the policy critera for reliability. They are Wikipedia's own plolicies. Policies are policies and should not be up to me to point out that the discussion should stick to them. If the conditions for notability set by Wikipedia are met, then we should presume (Wikipedia policy) the article notable, otherwise not. It's not a matter of the individual editor's opinion. Does the endorsement of the British Library satisfy the reliability of a source? Say no if you can. This is the point. Sources reliable? Overturn. Sources unreliable? Endorse. I am a bit bored with reminding what the policy is to people that should know it better than me. Another side comment on incorrect information offered. 'Openings' is not published by students but by The Open University, and is produced by its poetry society which includes lecturers alumni, students and a professor. his was justb as ource to trace Bulla's early career, so by no means essential to my article, however, we need to stick to facts. Now, you want me to redirect you to thje policy? [[106]] [[107]] This states: 'Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.' QUESTION: have my sources a por reputation for fact checking? NO. [[108]] This states: 'Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above). Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.' QUESTION: are my sources by any means 'Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs'. NO. Theay are verified by official institutions. Explain how my sources are not reliable please. The reason for deletion was 'the lack of authoritative sources (as the nominator puts it) about the author is and remains a fundamental problem.' [[109]] This statement is untainable. Don't come and tell me about all minor things. Delete it on minor points and your views if you can supersede the policy. Tis statement violates the reliability and verifyability policies. Sources are reliable, veryfiable, 3rd party, independent from the subject and in a lot of cases extremely prestigious. Now, from wikipedia on reliable sources, this quote actually would put my main source (and others in my list) as highly reliable one of the very sources Wikipedia prefers....: 'Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. ' Academic, it is, peer-reviewed it is and valued by the British Library as so. So, of course are my (even if less crucial to the article) likns to universities, important newspapes etc... I actually think that the quality of my sources does not only meet wikipedia's policies, but is exemplary in some respects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBrit (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) The article's deletion is either a gross misjudgement or an open violation of wikipedia's policies. From wikipedia's policy, definition of consensus [[110]]: 'When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice. ' Are we maybe expecxting Mr Bulla to be published in 'The Sun'? For a very highbrow writer, that would be an outrage. He's been published in serious publications and academic ones the ones peers read and the ones that establish one's literary influence. Notable for his literary influence, A Bulla is and without the shadow of a doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBrit (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Can we please refer to that framework? Otherwise, things become arbitrary and a policy is in place just to prevent that. Without sounding rude, nowhere is it written that wikipedia policies can be superseded. Stick to them, thanks. TonyBrit (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Comment The editor of http://www.greatworks.org.uk is a lecturer at Harlow College and Westminster University [111] by the way. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Your assumption contradicts the guideline on [[114]] ' Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof. ' Greatworks meet the standards in [[115]] Reliability of specific source types 'Scholarship Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic. The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred. Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.' Unless university lectures don't count as scholarly community. It is clear that these are the sources that are not acceptable [[116]] 'self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable' My sources are none of these. Your comment does not explain which reliability standards the main source - let alone the others - are not met I'll post them here and I would appreciate a comment to explain how these are not met (from [[117]] 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4] "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7] A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.' I remind you that consensus [[118]] in wikipediia is not editors' povs but adherence to policy. Demonstrate where my sources do not meet these critera, thanks. This is the policy This is what I've been asking for a long, long time with no answer. Your argument does not stand because: 1- You say The British Library archives lots of sites. So? Does it mean that all the sites are unreliable or that there are more reliable sites? 2- I provided a list that the British Library (quote) selected [119] to archive, I do not see your list of thousands of webistes, so, again, I provide evidence, you don't, but even if you did, well.... point 1 above stands. 3- You call greatworks a 'webzine'. So what? That's how you call it... I do not read 'webzine' in the list of unreliable sources (above) and I will here post Wikipedia definition of webzine: 'An online magazine is a magazine that is delivered in an electronic form.' The point is, is this 'webzine' reliable? Then we go to the reliability guidelines... 2nd party, verified (it matters llittle if it is verified with 4 others or a thousand others, it is verified by the British Library, its logo is ON the website....) Then we go to the 'preferred sources' i.e. those that have links to academic institutions. Now, greatworks is linked to 2 universities, as its edoitor (there is the peer reviwed) is on the payroll of these two universities. Other sources I provided are academies or hasve the logo of a university non them. Call it webzine, call it analyn, call it brtopelk, it does not make any change. Is it second party? (3rd legally)? Yes, is it verifyable (yes, and is verified...) is it independent from the subject of the article? Yes. Critera met for article, as stated by.... Wikipedia, not me. Your argument being, greatworks is 3rd party, edited by a university lecturer, independent from the subject, verified by the British Library, but there are others verified, so it all of a sudden becomes unreliable? And where is it written in the policy? There is an assumption of non-notability against sources that not only do we have no reason to doubt, but that are approved by institutions like the BL and published by university lkectures, while in WP it simply states that sources should be generally 'verifiable' and sources that should be discarded are those that are known for giving incorrect facts or sources that are clearly linked to the subject. The policy is there to guarantee that evidence is the basis of articles, not the editors' personal knowledge of the subject. The assumption of non-notability given relkiable sources is not acceptable acording to the links to the notes on notability above. Change policy or stick to it. I wish all sources on wikipedia were edited by a university lectures, verified by the BL.... Thanks TonyBrit (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The editor that nominated the article for deletion, and some of his cohorts that voted "Delete", have an obvious vendetta againt the subject of the article (based on their history outside of Wikipedia, not because of the nomination or votes themselves - for example, two of the voters belong to a rival publishing company). In addition, the article was voted "Keep" by most participants. The article proves notability on several levels, including newspaper articles written about the man, lengthy TV appearances, photography awards he's won, his photo gallery on a national tour, and the list goes on. Granted many of the "Keep" voters were from the area where Mr. Richards is on TV and radio. I realize this only further proves notability on a local level, but every little bit adds up to a whole. The accusation that somehow Mr. Richards magically has access to dozens of IP addresses to "enhance" voting is patently absurd (most of the votes appear to come from the LSU campus, but some come from far flung locations - all of which make sense when taken in context of the local fan base of a gamer). He has posted publicly on several occasions that he doesn't think anyone in the gaming industry - himself included - belongs on Wikipedia, so I doubt he is involved. To sum up: Notability was proved, through meaningful secondary sources (specifically, newspaper articles from large, legitimate newspaper companies), and the Randy Richards article was voted "Keep" by consensus, which the deleter tried to waive off as hacking by the author - something I doubt he (or myself) is capable of doing. Malakai Joe (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the conventions he is involved with are through him volunteering his time; many receive compensation via free access to the event, not pay as shown. I do the same on the west coast. If he had a level of notability he would have had an ongoing presence at Gencon, which he has not.
I see we will be stuck with this article no matter what. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malakai_Joe" Quode (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Let’s review your references. Dragon con. Two visits in 8 years. No information about these appearances, no articles etc. Gencon. This link is to the current site. Not a past reference. And you were there, once, 10 years ago. The picture tells all, your badge color is wrong. Gary’s badge is yellow for quest speaker; if you were in a panel with him yours should be yellow as well. The other cons clustered around the Dreadmire book release. “Richards is active in the gaming industry, giving seminars and hosting panel discussions at conventions throughout the United States.” The local cons listed do not support this statement. Most of the rest of the links are based on your work after the storm, and Dreadmire. For a man in his early forties you do not have a long, connected record either in photography, tv or writing. The articles are just about Randy, the guy that did some stuff. Long accolades, published works spanning a decade, Gencon involvement every year for the last 10 years would have helped. Yes you have references but as a sum total, they do not match people like, say Elizabeth Donald. Your list of published works, shows two yet to be released. Youre in one local commercial and one tv interview. Two news paper articles in one year. “I decided to start writing on a regular basis” No evidence of this at all, one article, one book in 10 years. Elizabeth Donald our produced you. In fact, why try to get her to write a book, why not do it your self? Points to consider. Quode (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Endorse Deletion" I've been informed by numerous e-mails that this article was on Wikipedia, and that it is being deleted. I reluctantly decided to come check it out. While I appreciate the effort everyone that worked on the article has gone to (and the local "Keep" voters, which I did not ask to come here), I want to say for the record that I do not believe I am famous or celebrated enough -- either in the gaming industry OR as a photographer -- to be listed in an encyclopedia, even if there were 50 newspaper articles on me. In my opinion, Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, TSR, Wizards of the Coast, and D&D itself all deserve entries, and not a single other person does. Now having said that, I can confirm that Quode is an ex-girlfriend of mine who became my stalker, and is now attempting to harass me on the Internet. Anything she says should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, there are people who hate me, and yes there are people who love me. There are all types of people in the world, and not all of them are going to like me or my personaility. Some oppose me, because by doing so they gain the spotlight. Others are simply envious of my success. There is no sense in attacking them back, because thats what they want. Just let them have their say, perhaps releasing one official statement explaining the other side of the accusation, and let it go. There is no sense in arguing, as it diminishes your position by bringing you down to their level. They say the best revenge is "to do well" and I believe this wholeheartedly. I will continue to do so. In closing, I endorse deletion of this article on Wikipedia. I do not mind it being on the D&D Wiki, because thats where minor (very minor) celebrities in the gaming industry belong. Good luck to you all, and have a nice week. Randy C Richards (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Please restore this article and relist at AfD. The article didn't get that much attention at first, with established users like Corpx "voting" delete without really considering the thing in depth. As the nominator of the original AfD, I believed that Mark Prindle was non-notable, although the AfD was apparently linked from a 4chan post. I believe that the closing admin Coredesat made the wrong interpretation of this strange AfD (due to its unusual structure). People from 4chan (they're not all just internet trolls, you know, sometimes even /b/tards can do a good thing) who "voted" keep in the AfD actually gave me reason to believe that Prindle is genuinely notable, given the mention of him in several books, the fact that his reviews are cited widely, and his site gets many pageviews, and he's been online for over 10 years... h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:11, 8 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
DELETE_REASON- Lacks notability; no meaningful secondary sources available in any number; wikipedia os not a directory of all Irish athletes
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
DELETE_REASON- Lacks notability; no meaningful secondary sources available in any number; wikipedia is not a directory of all Irish athletes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.71.53 (talk • contribs)
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion had
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
New References
-Fkick
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted per CSD G4 altough it didn't fall under that category, I created the article myself from scratch adressing the issues from previous AFDs. Any issues regarding notability or similiar of the new article isn't reason for speedy deletion. MrStalker (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(exdent for convenience) I went and looked up G4, which says "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". I must agree that the addition of sources addresses -- not necessarily "meets", but "addresses", which is what the definition says -- the reasons for which the material was deleted, which is, very specifically, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (the reason cited by the closing admin and some of the commenting editors in the AfD). The sources attempt to predict the future with some degree of rigour and for sensible reasons, but they are predicting the future -- Paul Walker could get hit by a bus between now and the start of production, rendering the article meaningless. (Needless to say, I hope that doesn't happen, for Mr. Walker's sake.) I have to confess that I didn't actually go through this chain of logic at the time, but merely considered the article in terms of WP:NFF. I hope to be excused for thinking that WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is the equivalent of WP:NFF, since both refer to future events which cannot accurately be predicted as a standard for inclusion/exclusion; my feeling is that NFF is something like a subset of CRYSTAL, just more specific, but I admit that I can't point to anything in policy pages that says so. At any rate, I think the situation definitely now falls under WP:SNOWBALL. I apologize if I've contributed to a situation which has wasted anyone's time. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:13, 8 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dan Besse is a current City Council member in the fourth largest city in North Carolina and a Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the state. The other contenders are listed on Wikipedia. Michaeloder (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
For press coverage of Dan Besse see: The Herald-NC: http://www.theherald-nc.com/149/story/6985.html Raleigh News and Observer: http://www.newsobserver.com/659/story/916910.html http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/story/908374.html http://www.newsobserver.com/659/story/850119.html http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/jimblack/story/538371.html http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/jimblack/story/493870.html Winston-Salem Journal: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192961721 Charlotte Observer: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/379910.html AP Story: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354286448 http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/NEWSREC0101/70131027/-1/NEWSRECRSSARKIVE http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354284732 As Andrew Howse notes, I am the web master for a statewide Progressive group that has endorsed Dan Besse. I am also a personal friend of his, so I can't claim impartiality on the subject. Obviously, I wouldn't care as much about the topic if I didn't have some connection to it. I've also never made any claim to impartiality. One note about the interpretation implementation of the notability policy in this case is that it would leave Walter Dalton as the sole person listed since he is a member of the State Senate while excluding the other candidates in the race. That seems a bit unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeloder (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Company still exists and is growing. 68.178.100.214 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC) While it is a contested prod, i see no notabilty mentioned in this article for meeting WP:CORP. It's an A7 and there is no point in restoring just for redeleting Endorse Deletion Secret account 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Proof of notability http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2006/07/03/smallb1.html?i=48911 Proof of notability http://www.startupjournal.com/ecommerce/ecommerce/20050531-hanrahan.html Proof of notability http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001949623_amazonweb07.html Proof of notability http://www.sdtimes.com/article/story-20040315-03.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.83.211 (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_REASON Any reason why it should be undeleted, Endorse and likely close until a reasoning is provided. Secret account 22:19, 7 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Contest Prod. Prodded for absurd notability concerns; Guy played with Duke Ellington for 24 years. [125] Has an article on the French wiki; is linked to from the Portal:Music Date of Birth page, and the Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics worksheet. Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This survived an AfD last year, but on February 5 it was speedy-deleted twice by two different admins as blatant advertising. I put another speedy delete tag on the third recreation on the same day, but another editor removed the tag saying this isn't advertising. To me, this reads like blatant advertising. Could we get the original version prior to the two speedies restored to see whether it might be less blatant? Corvus cornixtalk 18:17, 6 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The previous problem with lack of sources is now resolved:
On emo, the two newspaper articles are RSs. That they are behind a paywall is by our consistent policy totally irrelevant. One can go to a library and read them. This is a distortion of RSs to keep out a subject which does seem this time to meet the rules. The news articles on the Fortuny matter are also unquestionably RSs, the coverage of ED is significant, and at least some of them are freely accessible. They talk abut ED is a substantial manner. Similarly the Macleans and the MSNBC. That;'senough sourcing for a modest article. DGG (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural request as closing admin. A user has stated that they think the deletion of this page was not proper. Since it had low participation I would not be terribly opposed to relisting it, but I believe it is a hopeless cause, so I suppose a discussion here is the right way to go, because from the user's comments, I am certain that even after a relist xe will not be satisfied with a delete outcome. JERRY talk contribs 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I am including the user's comment from my talk page below:
Above comments added from User talk:Jerry from discussion prior to procedural delrev. JERRY talk contribs 18:08, 5 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Also Colour revolt. Both titles are protected after an AfD from way back before they were actually popular and a ton of A7/G12 speedies. In the past year or so, they've made a big splash; see All Music Guide ([128]), Pop Matters ([129]), SPIN ([130]), Paste Magazine ([131]), etc etc etc. Google will give you plenty more. I would like to have these titles Unprotected so I can write a decent sourced article. Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article about a kibbutz in Israel was deleted in 2006 by administrator User:Lucky 6.9, who did not give a reason in the deletion summary. I am working to complete Wikipedia's coverage of kibbutzim in Israel, and I am ready to write this article. I do not want to be credited as the first author if there was someone who wrote the article before me, and there may be information that I don't have in my sources. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Company meets notability criteria 68.178.100.214 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro Empires was proposed and accepted for deletion because the game did not meet Wikipedia Notability requirements. This is no longer the case as the game as been featured in more than one press article in its home country of Portugal. The observatoriodo algarve Website, the largest regional News site in Algarve, Portugal the home of the game have published an in-depth look at the game link along with Correio da Manhã. The later, in December 2007 featured an interview with game creator Nuno Rosário. The game has expanded with four simultaneous servers with over 33,000 players. After discussions on the achieve talk page for the old article of the game (here) it was recommended that the case if put forward here. Butch-cassidy (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.10.89 (talk • contribs) — 85.138.10.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Astro Empires (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John major jenkins was proposed for deletion, under Afd procedures, as a non-notable biography. Investigating the individual, I found a number of reliable –verifiable and credible sources that allowed for a contention that this individual did met the standards for inclusion at Wikipedia as noted here [132]. It so happens that RogueNinja actually places a CSD G11 tag on the article itself, resulting in a Speedy deletion. However, the supposed copyright violation was from the page of the individual the article was written about. Was there a copyright violation, I am not sure, in that I can not compare the versions of the articles at this point. But typically, notice is given, by the individual placing the tag, to both the author and any other interested parties that there is suspected copy right violation and either correct or the article will be deleted. This did not happen. My requests is either have the article re-listed at Afd or, provide the original text to me. In which case, I will rewrite the article with the proper references and cites to establish clear notability. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 20:19, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This person (also known as Corey Delaney) is all over the news and internet after holding a large party and making a number of appearances in the media which garnered a lot of reaction. The article was deleted awhile ago and I undeleted it starting from scratch, thinking he is a notable person. Another admin deleted it again 6 hours later, and I believe the re-deletion was not justified and ignored the information I put in the article about what has happened recently. I had created the new page from scratch with something like 21 news articles from the BBC[133], International Herald Tribune[134], and major Australian newspapers, and American shows like Best Week Ever. The Times of London [135], AP [136],etc also talked about him. I also added on a section about the aftermath and his activities after the party, which was one of the major concerns from before - his future prospects have been the subject of much media coverage - he has been "earmarked" to host the Australian Big Brother[137], he's going on an international DJ tour,[138] he's modeling in Australia[139], Ozzy Osborne was interviewed about him[140], hosting parties[141], and even smaller stuff makes the news - a contest to win his sunglasses[142], which also led to sales in those sunglasses exploding[143], he was beaten up outside a mall, which got a lot of press coverage (for example [144][145]) and when it came out that the fight might have been staged, it got more press coverage (i.e. [146]). There are tons of Facebook groups, t-shirts, etc for the guy, he's been called an "international hero"[147], "one of the world's most famous teenagers,"[148] and so on. I would argue that he's notable not because of the party, but because of his appearances on the media, the reaction to those appearances, (such as [149][150] and even a t-shirt [151]) and what he's doing now, (TV gigs, tour etc) which to me would invalidate the argument that he is famous in connection with only one event. Even what his name is has been in the news.[152] So in short, I think he's notable, not just for one incident, and deserves a page here. It adds to the encyclopedia. AW (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
If you look through the votes, many of the votes have poor reasons to keep, and nearly all the keep votes were shown to be ignoring wikipedia policy and precedent. RogueNinjatalk 18:49, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted via PROD, with the reason stated "This is pure advertisement and PR" on the deletion log. I would like to improve the article and attempt to fix any of the advert and "PR" problems with said article. I'm requesting that the content of the page just prior to its deletion be restored in my userspace, as well (if possible) any pertinent discussion which existed further explaining its reason for deletion so that I may use that to improve the article. →ClarkCTTalk @ 17:19, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Now confirmed on myspace.com/thenewregime as a solo project from Ilan Rubin of Lostprophets, therefore associating it with an undeniably notable band U-Mos (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable enough, the focus of national press and ongoing investigation of the murderer, who is likely a serial killer. Should be speedily undeleted and moved to Murder of Meredith Emerson. Does not fulfill WP:BLP1E because well referenced. See also User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP 3sides (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
No consensus. On argument against this article was the use of primary sources. But these were published sources, not eye-witness accounts etc., and Wikipedia's guideline is that Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (which these have) may be used in Wikipedia. (Moreover, many modern newspaper reports might be considered primary sources and newspapers' reliability is not always good. ie: "Titanic sinks - passengers saved!") Please see the Keep comments on the AfD discussion page. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_Notability Bydesignonly (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Claim to notability: A quick search on Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sheraton+cadwell&btnG=Search) displays about 10 pages of references to "Sheraton Cadwell", including the many CD albums the musical organisation has released with its various orchestras. In addition, the article has been re-edited, with external links removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article with the title "John Gore (theater producer)" was speedily deleted by administrator User:Ryulong on the basis that "no importance" was asserted for the subject. I feel this merely reflects a lack of knowledge of the live theater business. John Gore is a London based prodeucer of live stage shows who on January 25, 2008 acquired the company BROADWAY ACROSS AMERICA (BAA) previously a subsidiary of Live Nation. This acquisition and its consequences was extensively reported on in The New York Times, The Wall St. Journal, Variety, Stage (UK), The London Times, many other major newspapers and over 75 regional papers including Canada and Japan. By acquiring BAA Gore has become perhaps the central figure in the American Broadway Theatetr. BAA is the most active investor in and producer of Broadway shows, and operates touring productions of Wicked, The Producers, The Lion King, Light in the Piazza and may, many more. They are responsible for presentations in 42 cities across the country, many of which are muicipally owned and operated by non-prifit arts foundations. By virtue of this acquisition, Gore has become a figure of note and the many parties interested in knowing more about the new CEO and owner of the company would find this article useful. Gore's predecessor as ceo, David Ian, has a Wikipedia page [157] and he was an EMPLOYEE of the company whose production credits are largely derivative of his role as the CEO. Gore, by contrast is the OWNER as well as the CEO. An original version of the article started by being based on Gore's website and was then extensively revised. It was speedily deleted for being derivative of Gore's site - the intention had been to provide background information for the story that was about to break. Subsequently an article was posted by Key Brand, Gore's company, describing the deal. The article was subsequently ammended to include bits about his earlier career -- this article, which did NOT overlap Gore's website was speedily deleted as well. Link to New York Times coverage: [158]
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural nomination. The first AfD was speedily kept by a non-admin (User:Brewcrewer) after 2 hours. Another editor (User:SatyrTN) opened up a second AfD a few days later. The whole deletion process has been botched on this one, so I wanted to have some other people look this over before making a decision. Caknuck (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, I would like to explain my rational for closing the discussion. After the nomination, I was shown this link. Although not a reliable source per se, it was a solid reference point for other sources for notability. And this is what I found:
The refs provided, in aggregate, established notability. That is why I closed it as a keep. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:07, 3 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was speedily deleted out of process, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus whatsoever. Article was exhaustively sourced with a great deal of WP:RSes. Admin claims it "must be deleted". Info cannot be added to the main Pete Doherty article as it would bloat it massively, yet the information is so central to this person's fame (or infamy) that to not include it is basically censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was about a brand from a very large company, which should at least be sufficient for a claim to notability, but it was deleted as an A7 speedy. This happened just after I removed a prod tag from it, but I can see no way that this meets the A7 criteria. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was about the concept of bringing dead organisms back to life via technological means. It was deleted (and later redirected to undead) because it was "nothing unique" and "unencyclopedic" (see this AfD). A Google search for "corporeal reanimation" returns less than 500 results, most of which were copied from Wikipedia. I even personally cast a "weak delete" vote on the AfD since the article was poorly written. However, several other articles discuss the possibility of bringing the dead back to life. The concept of using technology to reverse death seems notable enough, but there are no centralized articles on this subject. I've changed my mind, and I don't think that we should delete articles just because they weren't well written. Also, the concept of "corporal reanimation" appears in many works of fiction, such as the Universal Soldier films. The article should be restored, but it should also be renamed and completely rewritten. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
how can mike mo capaldi be deleted? he's one of the best and most well-known ameteurs in the history of skateboarding. he deserves a wikipedia. canb't you let someone edit it better? wait i have an idea how about if he turns proffesional and becomes more noticable you allow someone to make him a page. i mean ryan sheckler has a wikipedia and he isn't even a good skater. mike mo is so please think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skateskeet (talk • contribs)
|
| 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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
Very clearly a deadlocked debate that was mistakenly closed as "delete". Closing should be overturned and the article kept per "no consensus." The Transhumanist 22:41, 1 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
I was honestly stunned to see this deleted. Josh Tyrangiel is easily one of the most influential American journalists today, and one of the big names among music critics. He is frequently quoted here at Wikipedia. If being second in command at TIME magazine and the editor of TIME.com isn't sufficient notability, I don't know what is. Google his name if any doubt remains. And all of this and more was well-documented in the article, which was admittedly a stub, but most two-day-old articles are. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:43, 1 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
This debate was closed (non-admin) by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) in a debate that was 50-50 split with only 4 participants as a "keep." His reasoning was not provided initially but here it is: (talk page). This is a very poor interpretation of a debate. The closer viewed the initial nomination as saying the article didn't claim notability. The closer read the comment by ElementFire as a "valid argument" that went way beyond what was actually said, when in fact ElementFire just said why the topic is interesting. The closer then agreed out of hand with one of the participants that Digitally Imported, an internet-only radio station, is significant enough to meet the "Put into rotation nationally by a major radio network" criterion from WP:MUSIC, despite that this point was debated and opinion was split 50-50 on that specific point. There obviously isn't much point seeking an overturn to "no consensus" - since there were only 4 participants, I feel the debate wasn't finished yet, so I seek relisting. Mangojuicetalk 14:45, 1 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_hickey Please allow editing for the page Brett Hickey http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/wallstreetwarriors/warriors/view/brett http://www.aegiscapitalgroup.com/team.php?teamID=1&v=s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatmealstout (talk • contribs) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |