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)[reply]
Comment in addition to being a campaign ad, the article was almost entirely a copyvio from here (click "more" to see all of it). Should not be undeleted as it breaches Wikipedia's copyright policy. Hut 8.5 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as moot - the previous content is visible in the cache and it is clear that the entire content was merged to the election article here. BlueValour (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck??? I created an article on a person, since there was sufficient non-trivial coverage from multiple sources of him, beyond the mere fact he was a candidate (though I only added a little of it). I then asked for the old version (before the one I made) to be undeleted. So, now, it's been suddenly speedy deleted, with no discussion? What earthly reason do we have for composite biography articles. The version I created doesn't fall under any speedy deletion category. It should be undeleted, and put under AFD, if somebody wishes it deleted. There are multiple non-trivial sources, meetting WP:N,and this isn't a campaign ad, so the deletion was wildly out of process. --Rob (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is not a deletion or a speedy, and does not require AFD approval if it's consistent with standard practice. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not consistent with other cases, since there's a basis of notability beyond mere candidacy. Of course, you don't know that, since you didn't read any of the bios you merged into Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election including multiple copyright violations. That's what happens when you do "category clearing". Some were notable, some were non-notable, and some were illegal copyright violations. Sorting things out, will require discussion for each individual bio. Sadly, that won't happen, since you went ahead and did everything, by yourself, with no discussion. Unfortunately, we're left with Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election which could grow to have 82 biographies. Actually, the merge is worse than a proper deletion. I had to remove some biographical detail, which simply doesn't belong in an article about a party roster. --Rob (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
undelete history Reverting an undiscussed merge is clearly permissible. I think it is time to change the rule at WP:MERGE to say a merge of this sort which is anything that might be controversial can not be done if there was no discussion or request for discussion. Bearcat, standard practice is to discuss these things first, or at least be prepared to undo them and discuss. DGG (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't undelete copyright violations, whatever the circumstances. Hut 8.5 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Canadian Ivy League – No consensus closure endorsed. Closer reminded that non-admins should not close contentious or unclear debates. – Eluchil404 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Endorse No Consensus Closure There were valid arguments in the AFD that the sourcing in the article provides notability to the term and that it is not just a neologism. No consensus closure in view of the disagreement over notability is the sensible closure. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn non-admin close non admins should not close AFDs that is no consenus, several of the keep sites were I heard of it and I like it. The sourcing are all passing mentions. Secret 00:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is NOT passing mentions. Each of the sources discusses the term in depth, describing why people are using the term, and what it means to them. There is a verifiable program using the term for marketing purposes. I don't know what these "passing mentions" are. I know what a passing mention is, and a few of the sources mention "Scottish Ivies", for example, without elaborating. But the bulk of the sources are about looking for a Canadian university as an alternative to a prestigious US university, hence the use of a parallel term. That is not incidental. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok a few sources describe the term, not in full, the ones like the Boston Globe source is obvious passing mention. Secretaccount 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse no consensus closure I'd rather non-admins didn't make closes that weren't pretty clear but no-consensus seems like a good conclusion of the discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure. Certainly non-admins shouldn't close contentious AfDs, as is made clear in the policy. However, any admin could have reopened the closure and none have been prepared to. 'No consensus' was a reasonable call on the discussion though I take Secret's point that the sources are pretty thin and I'm doubtful that this is a genuine term. The way forward is a relisting if any editor is still unhappy. BlueValour (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I did what I could for the article, and it seems to pass WP:N, which was agreed by numerous participants in the AFD. This seems like using DRV for a second chance at AFD, personally. Obviously I feel there are "supporting grounds for retention", but then I'm an inclusionist. Most of the opposition seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NEVERHEARDIT rather than taking the time to look at the sources. Thus, I endorse the closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Admins are trusted to find consensus. Sorry, but the closure seems out of process. Charles Stewart (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No consensus is the reasonable outcome, and it would seem purely procedural to overturn this result only on the grounds that it was made by a non-admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acually this being endorsed would lead to more non-admins closing AFDs as no consensus, in which we need to avoid. Secretaccount 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Valid policy concerns were not properly addressed in the close - admin or not, it needed a proper discussion of the basis of debate, not just an apparent vote-count. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No Consensus Closure Sources demonstrate the use of the term to describe Canada's leading colleges. Most of the delete arguments rested on the entirely specious claim of a neologism. My favorite was the claim that the Ivy league is a sports league and that therefore this article can't possibly valid, though the presence of the Public Ivy article would shoot that one down as well. There is no evidence whatsoever of any out of process issue given the overwhelming consensus for retention. If anything it was a clearer keep than a no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and relist. It's a clear no consensus, nobody seems to argue against that. Just because an admin didn't do it doesn't make it any less valid (though he really shouldn't have). But it's a no consensus result...it can be relisted easily enough. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think too much of it at the time, though now I realize that an administrator should have closed it. I will be more careful in the future. Sorry. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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)[reply]
The article of the title was a redirect to Harry (term), which was deleted as an uncontested PROD after 5 days. The redirect was then deleted as being to a non-existent title. So I'm going to treat this as a contesting of the original PROD, and have undeleted Harry (term). Splash - tk 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
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:
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:
Please undelete this page as soon as possible. Thanks. Cadill (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a recent WP:PROD, so this contests it. I have undeleted. I note that the language in the article is excessive, and close to that found here (but not close enough to constitute a copyright violation, in my opinion), and that the article needs work in that respect or it is likely to face further calls for deletion. Splash - tk 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Undelete and list at AfD Judging from the last version of the article, it seems to be a significant Greek book publisher & record producer. The article was very spammy in the first two paragraphs about the poetic virtues of the company's productions, but could be trimmed easily enough. DGG (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the multiple speedy deletion as blatant advertising requiring a total rewrite to become encyclopedic (and not merely trimming). Given how many times this has been deleted on the same, valid, grounds I'd suggest that the requester here write a new version of the article in a temporary location, such as User:Eva Evangelakou/Mikri_Arktos, making sure it sticks to encyclopedic facts and notability and then come here to request that the title be unprotected and the temporary article moved into its place. Splash - tk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Side note: the comment in the AfD about delete as a recreation is an incorrect use of WP:CSD#G4, since the article has never been through AfD in the first place). Splash - tk 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Have to agree with Splash that the article would have needed a complete rewrite to remove advertising and as such was a valid speedy deletion. Agree that considering how many times this article has needed to be sppeedy deleted for the same reason (5 times), a good version should be produced in user space before allowing recreation. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and userfy to author on request. It is is not just the first two paragraphs, the whole article is shot full of unsourced hype such as "Mikri Arktos experienced an astounding success". The nominator should accept Splash's suggestion of producing a clean version in user space. BlueValour (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Despite some indicators of potential notability, this was pretty blatant spam and would probably not pass AFD unless the author or someone else undertook a complete rewrite. No objection to creation of a userspace version from sources, and then a return here to DRV. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm pretty sure I saw at least 2 of the deleted versions (I may have tagged one), and they were pretty blatant spam. I agree with the others, let's see a userspace copy first, then move it in if it passes muster. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Given the rather bad history of the article, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect a brilliantly-sourced userspace version before restoring it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I agree that recreating the article in userspace is an excellent suggestion. (On the whole, articles begun in userspace are usually much better than articles begun in mainspace.) --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. A Google search for "Mikri Arktos" record label yields 31 results, including the article on Paraskevas Karasoulos, also written by user:Eva Evangelakou. Anyone want to do a count for EMI, MGM or Sony? WP:ATA obviously. And I think we need to add "your publisher" to WP:BAI, since it's obvious that Eva Evangelakou is the author listed as one of Mikri Arktos' publications in the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
