Image:Stpauli2003dergan.jpg – This request comes from a banned user as did the the (rather dubious) fair use rationale. Requests to unblock or unprotecd go elsewhere. – Tikiwont (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Oxymoron83 first orphaned this pic from 2 articles, second he vandalized the fair use rationale (see [1]) and third this admin from Germany locked the disc of User:MutterErde. Later Oxymoron83 was invited to a meeting in Berlin, but didn't come. Btw: He seems to be unknown there - not only to me. Please undelete the vandalized pic, because it was deleted by another admin without proving the image's history 78.51.238.122 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, what the hell? East718 isn't from Germany, and the uploader of the image was the one to "invite" Oxymoron to the meetup in Berlin. I'd also like to note that the IP which Oxymoron reverted (and called a sock of the uploader, who is a banned user) is in the same range as yours and has the exact same WHOIS profile, so... I'm rather certain we're dealing with a bad faith nom here. Beyond which, there's no valid reason given for undeletion. lifebaka++ 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Pathoschild isn't German either. Blocking IP for a while for ban evasion, someone can feel free to clean this up now. lifebaka++ 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should work a bit more careful. These are severe problems. I have described the case (as a German) as careful as I could.
The case: That pic was deleted without proofing its history by East718, but it was vandalized before by Oxymoron.
I wrote about locking the disc of User:MutterErde, nothing else. No Jimbo, no Pathochild, just Oxymoron
This is an undeletion request with a good reason, which you have avoided in your answer. Regards 78.49.56.219 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Has importance as a filmmaker forum website Indy424242 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WEB and point to how this site meets those requirements. Corvus cornixtalk 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will never blame an inexperienced editor for not understanding our rules. Once it is brought here, we should discuss the issue. DGG (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all six deletions. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse as for the actual speedy deletion,since nothing is claimed beyond the existence of the site, there is no basis yet for having an article. DGG (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Fábio Pereira da Silva – Status quo endorsed, however I think it's clear from this discussion that any administrator at their own discretion can unprotect "when the big moment comes" (playing in the top tier), without the need for another review of the situation. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Procedural nom after the request for unsalting came to my talk. What the article draft asserts and what the source provided to me says differ, and I'm not entirely comfortable with WP:ATHLETE to make the call on my own. Will be notifying all parties in a moment, as this is a procedural nom, I have no !vote. TravellingCari 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Absolutely nothing has changed since the AfD - he still fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a match. пﮟოьεԻ57 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted The common standard, as was agreed at the AFD for this article, is that until the player actually plays for the senior team they are not notable, and I see no evidence provided in the draft to contradict this and neither has a large amount of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability standard been provided. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with both of the above right now, but since he's actually on the team it seems likely he'll play. Perhaps we should unsalt preemptively, before it's necessary? Either way that one goes, users can feel free to ping me with a ref as soon as he's played a game and I'll unsalt it (if it hasn't been already). Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (as the last deleter and salter) until he appears in a first-team match. Once he does, let me know and I'll also be glad to unsalt. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow restoration. The "keep deleted" !votes may be technically correct per policy, but policy is a means to an end. I submit that we spend far too much collective time policing the borderlines of notability in this manner, for the purpose of ensuring that an article does not appear a couple of weeks before it is nominally supposed to (and risking biting both newbies and experienced editors in the process), all while there are many far more significant tasks that remain underperformed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this has been deleted four times over six months. I don't think we're talking a couple of weeks here. While I have little interest in the notability of athletes (or lack thereof) if one gets overturned does it turn into "well you let X, you have to let Y?" I'm thinking there may also have been deletion in another name since I haven't yet found why someone requested de-salt from me since I don't appear to have a connection with the article. This was repeated re-creation, do we reward it? OK, we give, we give. TravellingCari 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to you because according to the page log, you salted the article on 4th August. MSGJ 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you suggest we ignore consensus reached at AFD within consensus for the guidlines born of wider community consensus and just restore anything when asked to save us spending too much time on it? Do we extend that to crappy bands with a major tour in just a few weeks now (honest) or that imminent record deal, how about the adverts from companies who will be covered by the Times any day now etc. Many of these would end up straight back at AFD again, a nice wash rinse and repeat cycle. If this truly is a problem the solution is to fix the notability guidelines to move the border, not for DRV to declare the border isn't really there. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted until the subject meets WP:ATHLETE. Subject fails WP:N, these entries come with no commentary and to accept them is to create a living sportsperson directory. WP:ATHLETE provides a simple rule that we should stick to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
WTFPL – No consensus here to overturn the consensus there (can't agree about strength of rationale), so I'd suggest the best thing to do is send it back to AfD in the coming month(s) and try and get more opinions by linking to it at the relevant Wikiprojects' talk pages. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
(copied from Talk:WTFPL) I believe the second AfD was conducted in bad faith. Of the four keeps, the first was WP:GOOGLEHITS and failed to establish WP:N as pointed out by User:Thumperward; the second WP:PERNOM; the third suggested using WP:N was WP:GAME while failing to establish notability; and the fourth was a WP:VAGUEWAVE. None of these keeps went so far as to point to a reliable secondary source to establish notability. I understand that the editors in favor of keeping the article intend to establish notability, and I encourage them to do so as quickly as possible, but if this notability cannot be established soon then the article should be deleted beacuse articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. WP:NOTAGAIN suggests an article can be renominated for deletion as many times as necessary, given that we allow enough time for editors to improve the quality of the article after the first AfD. However, this article was first nominated for deletion over 20 months ago. In that time, the editors have not improved the quality of the article to sufficiently establish notability. Beefyt (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. no evidence of meeting WP:V/WP:N was provided... the sources in the article that appear to be vaguely reliable don't even mention this license, let alone provide non-trivial coverage. The sources that do mention it seem to be directory listings or provide no prose information about the license. The closer really should have taken strength of policy-based argument into account here. --Rividian (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus for deletion in the AFD, nor did any of the arguments for deletion quote an overiding policy which would justify overuling the consensus of the discussion - notability is not policy and at least one of the delete supporters in the AFD said that the article was verified. This does not stop the article from being renominated after a reasonable period if more reliable sources are not added to satisfy yourself of its notability. (Note I have added a foreign language source to the external links which provides a small amount of verifiability) Davewild (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure. I can't take anything other than a consensus into account here. There are reasonable sources cited in the article, and it seems clearly verifiable. (Note that the standard is verifiable, not verified.) Stifle (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The standard is reliable when discussing notability. The sources consist of a handful of blog posts and some primary sources where it's listed amongst other licenses, together with about ten minor (i.e. non-Wikipedia-worthy) applications. Reliable secondary sources which discuss the license itself seemingly don't exist. The sheer ridiculousness of the argument to keep is obvious where the license's own logo is used as a reference to prove notability. AfD had too little participation to really judge consensus and the keeps are weak as discussed above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean overturn and relist or overturn and delete? Your comment "AfD had too little participation..." tends to indicate the former but it might be best if you could clarify. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. I feel the participation was a little on the low side, but I believe the argument to delete is strong enough anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus). Has, but is weak on, secondary sources. Should be merged somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus) at WTFPL (2nd nomination). Some of the references seem legit. However, some of the references seem more like links to support original research. Before this is sent to AfD again, those desiring to see it deleted should make the references sources clearer (such as by using Template:Cite web and the other cite templates) so that a more thorough discussion specifically directed to the references can take place. Since it was closed as "no consensus. Leaning towards keep", I think about 30 days should pass before this is listed at AfD again (rather than immediately relisting it). -- Suntag☼ 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't think it is appropriate to identify a discussion as "AfD was conducted in bad faith" without also providing clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. See Accusing others of bad faith. -- Suntag☼ 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was perhaps too hasty in characterizing the actions of some of the editors as "bad faith". I only intended to suggest that they were intentionally and knowingly acting outside of the realm of establish WP policy. That itself may be an act of good faith, I don't know. It's all very subjective, and I apologize. --Beefyt (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think that the onus is on those who believe that the subject is notable to improve it, not the other way around. As far as I'm concerned most of the current "references" should be deleted, and were I not reverted for doing so I'd have gone that route. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Pemberton is a renowned anthropologist and scholar whose page was seemingly deleted without any process and very little time for discussion. This seems more like a situation that calls for careful consideration of his notability as an academic rather than speedy deletion in a matter of hours. Shakeer (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few things here. First off, it's usually a lot more helpful if you first talk to the administrator who deleted the article, and only come here if you can't come to an agreement with them. Second, it's generally good manners to notify the deleting administrator of DRVs, so that they have an opportunity to respond. Third and finally, overturn the deletion itself. It is too difficulty to properly judge how important a professor is for me to be comfortable with speedy-ing articles on them. I cannot tell whether or not this particular guy is notable, but I'd much rather see an AfD sort it out than a quick judgment call by a single user (which I hope this was, too; if you've gotta' think much about a speedy it probably could use an AfD instead). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, we don't have a page on Wikipedia for every single professor at every single university.... --Rschen7754 (TC) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it is very difficult to tell via speedy deletion whether or not a given professor should have an article. I see enough claims to send it to AFD and overturn the speedy, including the book and being a journal editor. GRBerry 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, it probably could be sent to AFD. The article needs a lot of help though. --Rschen7754 (TC) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Feel free to do it yourself, in which case we can be done here and close this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how notable he is as an anthropologist, but he has had several books published [2]. AFD would probably be the best course of action.— Ѕandahl ♥ 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert much notability, but I could go for an overturn and send to AFD. The nominator is reminded to read all the instructions, including either of the two parts where it says that you're supposed to discuss these issues with the deleting admin before coming here, as that tends to be faster. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
