Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August
31 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion was closed and the article was deleted because the deleter, Black Kite, said there was a consensus that it "failed" WP:POLITICIAN. There are two problems with this: First, that WP:PERPOLICY says an AfD discussion is NOT a vote. Second, as far as I can tell, Bobby Schilling clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article. The deleter and the discussion participants all based their arguments on the idea that Schilling will not be notable until he has received coverage outside of the local media, but nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say this is a requirement. Schilling has received significant coverage in the media, as evidenced by Google News. Therefore, I request that the article be restored. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
30 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Efactor1975 (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This is the 6th of an 11 album discography from a notable band, Nox Arcana, who has charted in the Top Ten on the Billboard Holiday charts, and has coverage in national newspapers and international press. The vocalist Michelle Belanger is not a member of the band, but is likewise a notable author and has been the subject of several tv shows. This album is unique in that it is a collaborative work of Belanger and Nox Arcana. Belanger also performed as a guest vocalist on the 3rd album by Nox Arcana Winter's Knight which hit #8 on the Billboard Holiday charts.
|
| 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 read discussion article undelete ABOVE Ebonyskye (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
28 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Per direction from Skier Dude, representative from TSU would like to request this page be temporarily undeleted so that we may review this page in order to bring it in line with standard Wikipedia practices in an objective manner. Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2009 (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 was speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike as G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Another editor, who may have had a conflict of interest, created the article. I recognized that the article was unreferenced, so I located and added some references. It's not a great article, but I think the subject is notable and the article should have been tagged for cleanup rather than being speedy-deleted. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2009 (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. |
|
Mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the Delete side was heavier than the Keep side. Secondly, the person is just another small brick in the bureaucratic wall of Pakistan. Hasn't done something notable himself except that he is holding a certain Cop job/position. Leaving the entire world aside there are several hundred such positions in Pakistan alone and Wikipedia can't afford to have separate pages for each of them, hence the reason for this review. MARWAT 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Who is the above user? He is using the I.P address which has just contributed too less since August 27th, ofcourse by multiple users. He is just here to vote. Please declare his vote as null and void.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
An article was recently deleted. Soon after, someone recreated it. I nominated that one for deletion the regular way. I now realize that I should have nominated it for speedy deletion G4, which is in fact the action that Administrator RoySmith ended up taking on his own. But then he was forced to relist it due to a procedural error on my part. Inexplicably, the ensuing deletion discussion resulted in a decision to keep the article (though just barely). All of the people who voted "keep" completely ignored the fact that it's a recreation of a recently deleted article, even though I made that perfectly clear. And one voter looked suspiciously like a sock. So this article has been spared on a technicality (my stupid mistakes that other people went along with), which I don't think is a valid reason. The fact remains that it meets WP:CSD G4 and should be deleted. I tried convincing the Administrator who closed the discussion, but he told me to request a deletion review. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with you people? This is a clear-cut case of an article that should have been deleted immediately. And in fact it was, until a silly procedural error brought it back from the dead. The deletion discussion you're all talking about is beside the point because it should never have taken place. This is the discussion that counts, where it was decided (9-1) that the material should be removed and merged into a preexisting article, which is what happened. The new article, which is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of the old one, was created two weeks later in direct violation of that consensus. None of the "keep" voters the second time around paid any attention whatsoever to these facts, and now neither are any of you. This is beyond ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Also included are: The nom's rationale for deletion was overcategorization and "not needed." Meanwhile, the closing admin said nothing but "The result of the discussion was: Delete" for all of these, with no further explanation. Other comments were mixed. But all of these should have been kept because Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages, a guideline, states that "every category should be placed in at least one parent category," and all of these are exactly that, parent categories. Also, in practice, per WP:USELESS, "not needed" is considered to be a bad argument for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2009 (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 the discussion there were 3 sources which were largely undisputed REes and some 8 others which were weaker. Two of the RSes are from the Post-Tribune ([1] has a reprint of the article in an Alum newsletter on page 9) and [2] is the first part of the 2nd article (rest is behind a pay wall). The other is a TV interview [3]. The !vote was 6 to 5 to delete. In light of the !votes being close and the existence of these RSes I think the best close would have been no consensus, with keep not being out of the question (it meets all of our inclusion guidelines after all). In the closing comments, discussion with the closer, and some of the !votes there seemed to be undue weight associated with the fact there was a recent AfD for the article (which was relisted due to a DrV action as more sources had been found). That fact isn't a reason to delete. Those !votes should have been discounted and certainly shouldn't have been a contributing factor in the admin's decision to delete. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (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 was based on listing the mission of the organization. I attempted to reword it some but left a lot the same so as to not lose the intent of it. Canterbury Tail offered no help or suggestions just the Speedy Delete. All information in the article was new and not on the organizations website except the mission statement. Note: I find it tacky that Canterbury Tail also had to then go tag another of my articles for deletion. ToyCharlie (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (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. |
|
As I mentioned to the closing admin, this article has one problem and one problem only: it does not establish its notability. User:A Nobody presented a number of straw man arguments throughout the AFD including its supposed multiple reliable sources and eventually resorting to WP:POINT-ily copying snippets of text from this article into others in order to keep it from being deleted because of GFDL concerns. WP:N is extremely clear about the requirement of significant coverage from multiple sources. Every single source cited in the article at present (and each and every Google News result mentioned by A Nobody) is a trivial name drop of the setting, with no further comment on its importance. The sole exception is the developer quotation, which really only says that it may or may not have been inspired by Lost--definitely not establishing notability. So yes, it is the common setting of a handful of games, but it is apparent that the setting itself is not a major aspect of the games, warranting an article. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (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 The consensus, tally, to delete the page was 5 to 1, still the article wasn't deleted. Not only the tally but the article itself lacks to be notable as the article is about a simple bureaucrat. I would request a speedy deletion of the article, in regard of overlooking the previous deletion nomination. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment As users Stifle, lifebaka and MuZemike stated above that the consensus for deletion was made, despite the sockpuppets were involved who voted against my nomination (in favour of keeping the article), the decission be overturned and the article be deleted. I agree that sockpuppetry was involved but isn't there a overwhelming consensus made beside the sockpuppets' votes? Wasn't there a valuable discussion made to delete the article by users? I would also like to make some other comments that:
I would request deletion of the article, as it is not meeting the notability criteria set by Wikipedia. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
25 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was salted after multiple recreations and deletions per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright concerns. A non-infringing Stub now exists at User:Hass2009/Exinda. Requesting unsalting and move to article space. MLauba (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (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. |
|
NAC as redirect, then article effectively recreated with this edit, thus reinstating large amounts of unsourced material. Chzz ► 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Although, admittedly, a consensus was effectively formed to delete the 1998 and 2002 election articles, I'm not convinced there was a consensus for the 2006 article. A few delete voters in the AfD said they regarded the 2006 election as a special case, as it contained some real world information. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The AfD was closed "Per WP:WPOUTLINE". Thus it was closed "per a Wikiproject", and not in line with any policy or allowing for any reasonable discussion (indeed it was open only for 2 and a bit hours). I've spoken to the admin involved offwiki. The AfD was closed some months ago, but for the sake of clarity and process I suggest the DRV for the purpose of confirming that a Wikiproject's support for an article is not sufficient to speedily close an AfD. DRV would not be, and is not, the place to discuss the merits of Outlines of Knowledge. This page should be relisted (the decision made at AfD is relatively baseless, but DRV probably isn't the place to "overturn and delete" (without massive drama) in this case! Thanks Martinp23 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No, actually, it wasn't, and we discussed this, Martin. I actually hyperlinked wrong, and was intending to link to Wikipedia:OUTLINE, or Wikipedia:Outlines. One two three... 23:07, 23 August 2009 (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. |
|
Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." This MFD discussion was incorrectly closed as "no consensus", despite the fact that it was clearly established that User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses violates Wikimedia Foundation policy regarding non-free content. Summary of argument:
As User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses is in violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, its continued retention endangers Wikipedia's self-governance. An issue of this magnitude cannot be properly resolved with "no consensus". Erik9 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
<--- "whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here" Thats where you're wrong. That would be MfD 2, not DRV. In light of that, I propose this DRV be closed as "wrong forum" or some such. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:44, 23 August 2009 (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 picture was deleted even after relevant license was produced to justfy its authenticity. No one can determine the authenticity of the image unless and untill they are experts of the subject. An administrator and a stray editor assumed that the image was possibly not a free image, proposed speedy deletion. I do not endorse such a careless act by any editor or an administrator who delete an image without taking into account its credibility. Even after quoting the sources an image is deleted for some silly reasons. I also proposed that some administrator from Wikipedia:India look into the matter, cause a person naive about the picture and the subject cannot determine if the picture is to be deleted or to be restored. Nefirious (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The image has not alone been used in the Times of India but separate posters have been printed out and used during festivals in Aurangabad, thus I think that the image qualifies under the free license. The image has been published, not in the main supplement, which could have been subjected to copyright, but it was published in Aurangabad Plus, a weekly supplement which uses free images from the internet as well as research papers and other sources. I myself am a contributor of Auranghabad Plus. Nefirious (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
22 August 2009[edit]
21 August 2009[edit]
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
The closing Admin preferred to count votes instead of considering policy based arguments. The nomination raised the question of why the Military History of New Zealand article would need an ordinary image of showing "soldiers doing minor engineering works" (i.e. WP:NFCC#8). One keep voter said the image was "historically significant", committing the usual fallacy of mistaking a "photo of a historically significant moment" by a "historically significant photo" (as can be seen by his line of argumentation in the vote), and argued about the image being "irreplaceable", committing the usual fallacy of believing irrepleceability is a sufficient criteria for justifying the use of non-free content (when it's just one of the 10 criteria that can bar the use of it). Two other editors voted keep talking about the image being "irreplaceable", repeating the mistakes, and the closing admin counted the votes and first closed it as keep, and when asked about his reasoning (after even trying to compare this image with the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima!), he closed it again no consensus - keep, later deleted it anyway and later restored it. Votes like "me too", "this photo is irreplaceable", "this photo is useful" and "this photo is historical" (when it isn't) are always discarded by experienced admins when closing deletion discussion about an image's suitability in regard to WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out that deleting images like this, which do not breach copyright and for which no free equivalent can reasonably be expected to be found damages the encyclopedia. How is anyone meant to meet the criteria of the higher article ratings (which require supporting materials such as photos), if such images are not allowed? Finally, as for arguments that the image is decorative, well you may as well delete 99% of the non free images on the encyclopedia, because there are unlikely to be many images that show things that text can't in some way illustrate (maybe a technical animation of how a complex piece of machinery works, or something like that, but even then text could probably explain that adequately too if written by someone that knows how to write technical information in a way that is easily understood by laymen). — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2009 (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 has been sourced and significantly improved during the AFD, and it's not clear whether these improvements have been taken into consideration or not. Most of the "Delete" votes (but one) apply to the version as of 04/08, whereas the article has been improved between 05/08 and 10/08 (when the AFD was closed). In particular, the ZDNet, Official Windows Magazine and the two Softonic sources are articles where the app is actually reviewed and not simply mentioned. For information, the latest version of the article can be seen here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLaurent (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
20 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was unfairly deleted at an AFD. The Consensus was to keep, not delete. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if it matters at this point, but Cptono will have copies of newspapers articles at his disposal to back-up reliable sources on the article and he will cite sources and enhance notabilty. If it works, great. If not, whatever. As a newbie editor, I tried my best to add filmmaker/author Mr. Jennings to this site. That's all I can do. Timemachine1967 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is being fixed. A bunch of newspaper articles and interviews have been e-mailed to cptnono. He will now look them over, edit the article, add what needs to be added, (along with the acceptable on-line refs) as well as, clarify the sourcing and summarise what's there. This will give an indication of the depth of coverage so the article can hopefully be restored very soon. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confident after cptono reworks the article with the verifiable sources I've sent him, it'll make a difference in the final decison. Timemachine1967 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Spartaz, it was obviously a tongue-in-cheek joke. It'll be interesting to see how much of a chance you give Cptono when he adds the new info. Timemachine1967 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Spartaz has been away for a couple days so thought I would update info here. The sources look to meet the requirements and the article is in my userspace getting cleaned up. The info can all be found at the first Jay Jennings discussion on Spartaz's talk page. Take a look if you get a chance and let us know if guidelines are met. User talk:Spartaz#Jay Jennings Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 1. ^ a b c Davidson, Ben (1999-09-10). "BH Resident's New Film Unearths Seedy Life of Loan Shark". The Beverly Hills Courier: pp.
2. ^ Bertoldo, Brian. (1999-09-06). "Loanshark Movie Review at FilmThreat.com". http://filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=579/. Retrieved 2009-08-07.
3. ^ a b Bernard, Ethan (2000-03-02). "A Life in the Movies: Beverly Hills director Jay Jennings shares secrets of his trade". Beverly Hills Weekly: pp. 8.
4. ^ Amiran, Eyal (2001-01-03). "Guerrilla Filmmaking". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 1.
5. ^ "Best Bet". Los Angeles Times: pp. pg 5 sec around the westside. 1999-08-03.
6. ^ Amiran, Eyal (2000-09-20). "The Silver Screen comes to Silver Lake". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 2-3.
7. ^ Royale, Pinky. (2004-11-05). "Loanshark Movie Review at Exploitation Retrospect". http://www.dantenet.com/er/ERchives/reviews/l_reviews/loanshark.html. Retrieved 2009-08-10.
8. ^ Engle, Marc. (2001-08). "Loanshark Movie Review at CULTCUTS.COM". http://web.archive.org/web/20011101093028/www.icehouse.net/cultcuts/loanshark.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-11.
9. ^ "Silver Lake Film Festival". (2002-09-16). http://web.archive.org/web/20040825103224/www.silverlakefilmfestival.org/archives/2002/shor.html. Retrieved 2009-08-12.
10. ^ "TromaDance Film Festival". (2005-01-27). http://news.tromadance.com/archives/2005/01/11/2005-official-selections/. Retrieved 2009-08-12.
11. ^ Weil, Marty. (2008-03-14). "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector". http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2008/02/knotts-berry-fa.html. Retrieved 2009-08-07.
12. ^ Berlin, Loreen (2009-08-07). "Knott’s Berry Farm: The Early Years", Buena Park Independent (pg 5). Retrieved on 2009-08-12.
13. ^ "Real Orange". Hosts: Maria Hall-Brown and Ed Arnold . Real Orange. PBS. KOCE-TV, Huntington Beach, CA. 2009-06-24.
Bottom line is that the new sources need to be verified, you can email to me at my username @gmail dot com but I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of individual notability through reliable sourcing here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono...You've done a great job sourcing the article, which can be seen here: User:Cptnono/Jay Jennings. For some reason, Spartaz seems to dismiss everything you've presented to him when it comes to this article, no matter how many times you show him reliable sources. He dismissed the consensus to keep; He dismissed verifiable resource links; He dismissed reputable newspapers that interviewed Mr. Jennings; He dismissed reputable newspapers that cited Mr. Jennings' films. He keeps arrogantly dismissing all your proof of notability. As an example, the Beverly Hills Courier is a well respected newspaper of major circulation that interviewed Mr. Jennings about his film career, yet Spartaz dismissed it. Real Orange is a well-respected PBS news show on KOCE-TV that only interviews "notable" people, and they interviewed Mr. Jennings this past June about being an author and writing a book about Knott's Berry Farm, which Spartaz, once again dismissed. Another of Spartaz' disregard of facts is when he erroneously called the "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector" at: [11] a blog. It's a legitimate website where serious memorabilia collectors are interviewed. For Spartaz to dismiss it as a blog is absurd. Cptnono, you did an astounding job, much better than I, in establishing notability. Spartaz, as well as others, have chosen to ignore WP:reliable sources, WP:BIO, WP:CITE WP:N, and WP:V even though Mr. Jennings' multiple sources of notability keeps staring them in the face. This is getting old. You've done your best. Timemachine1967 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Jennings does have serious coverage, but they are blatanly being ignored even though they meet Wiki guidleines. It's truly astonishing how you Wiki vets don't even follow your own rules, completely ignoring notable sources when they're presented to you, even when the hard copy articles were e-mailed to Spartaz. Gigs, I thought your quest was to rescue articles, not join the bandwagon of ignoring sources of notability. It seems to me that this site is not, by any stretch, "new editor friendly" at all. BTW, these sources below are all about Mr. Jennings (all hard copies, plus others were sent to Spartaz) but just keep convincing yourselves they're not there. All the editors and administrators involved in this particular issue should just stop jerking around and either keep or delete the article. Spartaz has most of the actual articles, so after he's done with them, let him weigh in and you can all do your thing. Watching you people trying to show muscle and pull here is not what I expected when I signed up as a new editor. Mr. Jennings is well known in the Hollywood film community and is a published author. Cptnono and myself were simply trying to add him to Wiki. If he is, great. If not, life goes on. It's just the blatant disregard of his notability here, day after day is both laughable and sad. 1. Davidson, Ben (1999-09-10). "BH Resident's New Film Unearths Seedy Life of Loan Shark". The Beverly Hills Courier: pp. 3. Bernard, Ethan (2000-03-02). "A Life in the Movies: Beverly Hills director Jay Jennings shares secrets of his trade". Beverly Hills Weekly: pp. 8. 4. Amiran, Eyal (2001-01-03). "Guerrilla Filmmaking". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 1. 9. Berlin, Loreen (2009-08-07). "Knott’s Berry Farm: The Early Years", Buena Park Independent (pg 5). Retrieved on 2009-08-12. 10. "Real Orange: Book author segment". Hosts: Maria Hall-Brown and Ed Arnold . Real Orange. PBS. KOCE-TV, Huntington Beach, CA. 2009-06-24. 11. Weil, Marty. (2008-03-14). "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector". http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2008/02/knotts-berry-fa.html. Retrieved 2009-08-07. Timemachine1967 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Gigs, did you just make a blanket statement, inferring that you and the entire Wiki community of editors and administrators, make a conscious decision to be unfriendly to people when they simply state their case on an issue? That looks like a blatant disregard for WP:DONTBITE and WP:Civility. You're a perfect example of the snobbish arrogance that perpetuates this site. Even Spartaz didn't go that far. Your response spoke volumes. I'm sure your fellow Wiki comrades are real proud of your statement. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono...You're on your own, my friend. These people only care about showing off their status and how many deletes they've made, Some of them even admit a disdain for newbies. What a negative atmosphere to be a part of. Best of luck to you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (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 doesn't run on simple majority voting. The admin's deletion guidelines confirm that "[c]onsensus is not determined by counting heads," and while a closing admin may "disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith, ... contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious," they are supposed to call AfDs based on their best judgment of the Rough consensus, i.e. the "sense of the group" or the "dominant view." Deletion requires affirmative consensus to delete; without it, the result defaults to a no consensus close. That is not what happened when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement was closed. Eighteen people !voted (i.e. made or joined arguments on either side). Ten supported the nomination, eight opposed. If we went by majority vote, the ayes had it, 55% to 45% - but we don't work by majority vote. We work by consensus, and there wasn't one favoring deletion. The closing admin's contrary conclusion was error (an incorrect interpretation of the debate in WP:DRV's argot), and it should be overturned here. "An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus" (WP:WHATISCONSENSUS), and that "[i]f the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the article is kept by default" as a no consensus keep (WP:DPR#AFD). If 51% is not consensus to delete, how can it follow that 55% is consensus to delete? It does not. And other nominations confirm that the closing admin here found consensus where it is not commonly found. Here, the ratio of delete:keep was 5:4, which is typically well within the range where no consensus closes are the appropriate result. See, e.g. [12] (3:1); [13][14][15][16] (3:2); [17] (approx. 2:1); [18] (also 9:8); [19][20][21] (1:1). DRV has overturned mistaken delete closes with even more lopsided margins than 5:4, too; for instance, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations, the tally was 2:1 to delete, and the closing admin closed as delete. But that was overturned on review and amended to a no consensus close, see [22][23]. From the other side of the looking glass, a 4:5 tally that was closed as delete was recently overturned to no consensus.[24][25] Although the vote tally is not conclusive, it can be a proxy for rough consensus. (Indeed, it is impossible to decide which view is dominant without considering how many support or reject it.) If there are good arguments on both sides and the !vote tally is close, no consensus is usually the right answer. That was the case here, and a no consensus close was the correct outcome. To make the close yet more egregious, the closing admin made no effort to explain his/her disposition, offering only the perfunctory observation that "The result was delete." The closing admin made no effort to explain how they had reached that conclusion in the face of the deep (and roughly even) division over both the article's fate and the relative strengths of the arguments on either side among the editors who weighed in. To their credit, after being courteously invited to take a second look as DRV's rules require, the closing admin expanded their rationale, but still failed to overturn or (in my own view) adequately justify cutting a consensus from whole cloth rather than calling the existing consensus (or rather, lack thereof). Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Regardless of which side had the better of this debate in abstracto, and regardless of which side the closing admin would have found more persuasive had s/he decided to participate, their task was to neutrally asses the consensus of the group, not to cast the deciding vote. That decision interpreted the debate incorrectly, and should be overturned to a no consensus close, the actual result. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:56, 20 August 2009 (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. |
Reopening previous DRV, as current situation does not satisfy conditions of that DRV: Attempts at compromise have been done several times. Starting on the Talk page. Then went to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests (I believe the conversation ended here, but the archive confounds me somewhat). After File:Malik Amb.jpg was uploaded, File:Ambar Siar.jpg went to DRV at the uploaders request. At the DRV I attempted to explain the copyright problem of a uncited black and white image, being colourized by an unknown person then being published in a broadsheet without any Citations. DRV fizzeled out as original uploader assured they would scan a new image from a book (the book would be able to stand as the Citation for the image). Now a de-coloured version shows up File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg. I contend is the exact same picture (simply with the copyright fooled with even more again by unknown persons). Examination of the Metadata shows Date and time of data generation 20:49, April 13, 2009 for both images. I no longer consider this an edit dispute, I will not restrain myself to conform to WP:3R as I have so far, it is covered by exception (Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.) At this point it is even getting hard for me to assume good faith, as statements like The administrator who removed the picture admitted that it was a mistake & The Administrator claims it was not him who removed the picture are outright false, and careless editors like you shows no assumption of good faith in the first place. Now we find Images are being Altered in attempts to skirt Copyrights, and copies of files are being uploaded even before their deleted versions are DRV'd. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the original image and a number of images on Wikipedia are an artist's imagination and they are never nominated for speedy deletion. The image I uploaded can still be seen on Sheikh Chand's book 'Malik Ambar'. The picture I uploaded File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg, is from the book. A renowned paper like Times of India too used the color picture of the same version. SO there is no doubt about its authenticity. I propose that the picture remain as it is, undisturbed for representational purpose. If you still do not believe, please have a look at the source mentioned, i'll be grateful. Nefirious (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Reason 1: Subject is not notable and discussion shows a clear consensus agreeing that it is not notable after four weeks on AfD. PROD takes less time than that! One crummy keep vote in a month, please? Reason 2: This is written like ad-copy by SPA only here to write about this tea store and didn't even bother to return to defend it. We have a history of removing this kind of crap sourced only to press releases. One drive-by keep vote argues only by assertion, not by actually citing sources, improving the article, removing the advertising, or doing anything useful. Reason 3: This is kind of a POINTy DRV. The burden on including material in Wikipedia is on those adding it. I'm a believer that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS are a trifecta requirement to put up or shut up; articles without verification by multiple, independent, reliable sources mean a subject isn't notable. And if people can't be bothered to add sources to the article when saying it should be kept, then it should be deleted for failing our minimum requirements. Crummy sources and ILIKEIT votes should not overcome the minimum burden trifecta of V, N, RS. Nothing against Julian, the closing admin, because I'm trying to use this DRV to drive future AfD closes a little closer to policy. Our discussion with his reasoning is here User_talk:Juliancolton#Deletion_Review:_LUPICIA SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
18 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think the page presented verifiable publications of the allegations. The article's title may sound shocking but I think it does not endorse the referenced points of view. ilgiz (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Fair use rationales given were not criticised, except by general statements that they do not apply. Direct questions were ignored. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (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 who nominated the article for deletion did not fulfill all the steps required in the nomination process. The nominator did not list the AFD discussion in the deletion log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 6. When I noticed the nomination process was incomplete, I listed the article, yesterday (16th August 2009). As a result the AFD went for 10 days without input from the wider community and in particular users who monitor the AFD discussions. I have discussed this with the administrator User:RoySmith, who deleted the article based on a limited discussions that took place. I am requesting the undeletion of the article, and relisting of the AFD, because the wider community was not given an opportunity to participate in the process. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (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 someone saw him on Fox News, they should be able to find him on here Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)— Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Question Is there bias existing against this article since it was swamped by 4channers at one time? I fail to see any other reason why disallowing a man who has made many appearances on a national TV show, amongst other things, is being deleted. If someone were to see him, and then google his name, they would have to piece together information about him instead of coming to this site. It makes no sense at all. He's not some random blogger, he's a solid source of information himself, cited on a few other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
16 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
<REASON> We are not a hoax, E-ligion is a real movement just small at its current state. It feels almost as a religious discrimination to silence a movement that is just forming just because one has not heard of it, Just as many people have not heard of Eckankar , Bwiti, or Cao do. We only wish our message to be heard, and if the E-ligion Movement page is to be deleted then so should the page on vampires, werewolves, and other mythical creatures because they are not real. People will be hearing about us in the next few years as we plan to be active in the community so the truth may be heard. Censoring the message of love is a great injustice to humanity as a whole. The E-Ligion Webpage. While it is not finished it will be up and fully operational in about a week. Give us time this is not a made up one day thing, this has been an endeavor for about a year. We are slightly known with the temple of the true inner light as I was taught under a clergy, and we are known to a hindu temple in belton, tx as I also studied under them for a short time. We are known locally so please just give us a time limit and I promise we will meet it and have a second source of proof other than our webpage. I spend majority of my time reading on wikipedia, absorbing its knowledge. This place is almost my internet home, I just want the chance for other people who are wikipediholics who want to find a way that is right for them. -Blessed Be!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonichippie12 (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. |
|
Nearly two years after being deleted through AfD (and salted over a year ago), I created a subpage to hopefully get the article reinstated (it has become too large for the main article). I contacted the protecting admin, Stifle (talk · contribs), and he suggested bringing it here, due to the fact that he can't overturn that consensus of 2007. I'm confident that I've successfully brought the article to discography standards and it should now merit a separate article. — Σxplicit 04:36, 16 August 2009 (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. |
|
Issues regarding WP:OC#OPINION were raised and considered by the participants at CfD and consensus was clear that the existing title of Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories was appropriate and within the confines of Wikipedia policy and the decision to rename it to Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is out of process. I'm not sure what exactly a conspiracy theorist does for a living, but there are certainly those in the category who have not theorized any conspiracies regarding September 11, but whose role as a proponent of conspiracies theorized by others is a defining characteristic that falls into the "activist" label described by WP:OC#OPINION. The rename not only disregards consensus, but it imposes a definition on the category that does not match the consensus set at CfD. The escalating trend of closing admins casting their opinion as a supervote regardless of the discussion at XfD needs to be replaced by giving proper heed to actual consensus as a rule and overriding that consensus only in the rarest and most exceptional circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
After this MFD discussion was correctly closed as delete, the closing administrator was bullied on his talk page about it. Caving in to the pressure, he inappropriately restored the page, in blatant violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy since our EDP, WP:NFCC, does not specifically permit non-free text in userspace, and relisted the discussion in a manner clearly contrary to WP:RELIST, which advises relisting only when extremely limited participation in a discussion prevents any conclusion from being reached, not as a substitute for the actual closure of discussions with substantial participation. We must not allow the machinations of editors who oppose the application of Foundation policy regarding non-free content to Wikipedia userspace to keep the MFD discussion open indefinitely simply by scaring off any administrator who would dare to delete the offending material. Erik9 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2009 (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. |
As the bot operator who would ordinarily convert these templates, I disagree with their deletion; the administrator who closed the TFD discussion has stated that he "would not be against" relisting and suggested raising the matter here [29]. Even the best available substitution of template:indent, for example, gives us ugly and unreadable wikicode like [30] and [31]; conversion to the standard template:spaces syntax would break uses of the template, since the "templates alternate HTML and unicode acceptable variations of ways to declaring spaces, forcing browsers to recognize each in turn, when their rendering would normally compact and eliminate successive spaces. In short, they force padding within, before, or after a field which includes them in a line (which in practice, is usually within a wikitable, to force alignments of long and short words, such as month names, etc.)" (from Template:Space/doc). I suggest relisting to more fully explore the technical considerations involved. Erik9 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the wikipedia cache has now caught up with the fix to the broken {{bs-header}}, and so the list of 'uses' should now be correct:
My vote would be to
I think that there is some advantage to removing these very short name templates as they often expose typos in template programming (especially true for Template: 5). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the previous AFD over a year ago the article failed notability policies, it still fails now. All but one keep in this AFD was canvassed from an outside fan website. I saw no reasonable arguments that were put forward to suggest why this article passes our notability guidelines. So it should have been closed as delete. Relevant guidelines that the article fails: Wikipedia:Notability+Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. After discussing with the closing admin, they didn't believe either arguments in the afd were airtight. Otterathome (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Those who run around attacking pages they personally do not like on Wikipedia would do well to read this article: And then, take a good looks at them self in the mirror. Wikipedia should not be a personal vendetta. Enough is enough. You know who you are. Let's get back to building a pedia that we all can enjoy and contribute to. OK?--Modelmotion (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2009 (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. |
|
Non admin closed prior to full seven days, few enough comments that a relist might have happpened, keep arguments were of the ILIKEIT variety. Abductive (reasoning) 04:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a pattern of earlier than 7 day closes to me. Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —I wikilinked the list for convenience. Flatscan (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
13 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There has already been one inconclusive DRV on this debate. This DRV is made at the suggestion of the closing admin, with whom there has been extensive furher discussion. The CfD was not just for this category, but for over 100 categories, all of which were deleted and their contents upmerged. This request for review is focussed on the single category of Scottish surnames, without prejudice to any decision about the other categories concerned. The grounds for review are, first, that considering over 100 categories in a single discussion tended to prejudge the question of whether they should all be treated alike, and led to a discussion on excessively general terms, without adequate consideration of individual cases. Whereas many statements were made to the need for sourcing when allocating article to categoriees, no actual sources at all were cited in the original deletion discussion. Scottish surnames were not separately discussed. No mention, therefore, was made of relevant sources such as (amongst many others)
all of which support the contention that there should be a category of Scottish surnames, and that "Scottish surnames" is a suitable name for it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2009 (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 to delete; "at least a few of those recommending keep put forward reasonable arguments that were not fully refuted." --The lorax (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't understand at all why the article for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie was deleted. This article has been in existence since early 2007, and has always been maintained despite challenges for deletion prior. To suggest that Currie is not notable within the field of dating and relationships as well as attraction and seduction is virtually laughable. Currie's talk radio show is about to be mentioned in the African-American business magazine, Black Enterprise. I think the decision to delete Currie's page should be re-reviewed and overturned. If the current decision stands, it would be my most strong opinion that agents of the infamous Seduction Community were behind this, and this was to a degree a 'personal' decision. Currie is the #1 voice against the manipulative tactics of the Seduction Community 'experts' and 'gurus.' Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
comment / request - I beg of all of the editors to please reconsider this decision. If the content needs to be severely edited, I'm willing to adhere to that. But please don't let this deletion stand. Comparing fans of the Attraction & Seduction Community to U.S. politics, deleting Mr. Currie's article would be like letting a lot of Liberal Democractic voices be heard, but deleting notable Republicans, or vice versa. Currie is the "Un-Cola" so-to-speak to the Seduction Community's "Cola". Mr. Currie should definitely have a presence on Wikipedia, even if most of the content is basic. I'm pleading with Nja247!!! Chicago Smooth (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Review Discussion about NEW article - The second, more improved article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie was NOT "identical" to the original article; The second article was written with significantly more citations and references, and had content supported by news articles; The criteria for a "G4" deletion reads as follows: A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, articles that address the reasons for which the material was deleted, and Content moved to user space for explicit improvement. Material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is not excluded). This also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). between the editor Theserialcomma and myself regarding the new article more improved article (with significantly more citations) about Book Author Alan Roger Currie Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (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. | ||
|
Possible reason for unjustified deletion of 4-month-old article: Misunderstanding...a vandal apparently re-arranged the article, Accounting4Taste was appalled at the result and deleted the entire article without closely examining Page History. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I don't know all the hoops to jump through and templates to fill out and include, I'll just include the discussion at Acccounting4Taste's Userpage, and I think anyone with common sense can figure out what the problem is. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC) What the hell? You deleted Diop Kamau = Police Complaint Center supposedly because it was an "attack Page"?! Here is the google-cached copy of the article which you eliminated.
-- and yet nothing in the article was disparaging of Diop Kamau or the Police Complaint Center. And you did so without any discussion or consensus. It seems you deleted the page because you are disparaging of the subject of the article. If not, how about explaining one single thing in the article that was negative and or unsourced, or which constituted an attack of the articles' subject? 70.246.244.4 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
.jpg){kind=link}
11 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
MBK004 is abusing his power. He makes objective decisions to delete an article based on his uneducated point of view. Contributions should be discussed by knowledgeable people before being deleted at someone's whim.Sahlomee (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2009 (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. |
|
Hi, there is this user who is editing/deleting facts that have a secondary independent source on the Stoern page. His name is McGeddon. Please help his stop his unjustified deletions. For example, according to the University of Alberta Ian McDonald is a family doctor. I cited this source to demonstrate who the head of Stoern's jury is and McGeddon and his sockpuppet deleted my addition.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
10 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion was closed prematurely in less than a day rather than 7 days. The reason given was snow but the discussion was not unanimous and the majority opinion had made little reference to policy or the merits of the article in question. The closer's rationale was discussed at his talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2009 (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. |
|
Web television and Internet television are two separate and distinct ideas. Both Internet television and Web television have separate articles that clearly refer to different concepts. I would recommend a restoration of the category. If there is a concern that the two categories have duplicate content, we should properly categorize articles, not delete one of the categories entirely. Bradybd (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (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 Midnight Sun (novel) article is based around a novel that was never completed due to a supposed leaked draft of the book. The author stated after said leak that they were putting the book on the back burner. Recently the author has revealed in interviews that she had originally intended to write the novel entirely, but decided to purposely leak a portion to garner more news coverage of her series. She then states that she decided to use the circumstance to put off the work, and by this point she has no desire to complete the unfinished and unpublished book. Thus, the article refers to at most an 'intended book' and in the least a PR stunt. I believe that an entire article devoted to a book that was never published (and looks to never be), and served only as a PR stunt is stretching the notability guidelines. I suggest deletion of the standalone page and possibly an expansion of the subject on the pre-existing Series Page. MasteroftheWord (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article meets the notability criteria and shuold not be deleted. I being a new page patroller checked the sources and found them to be reliable. However, a user placed an afd tag on the article. Please review the article and check whether it qualifies for deletion. Nefirious (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The actors, the people behind the film seem to be authentic. The film seems to be in Post Production. I am a member of Wikipedia:Films and henceforth its my duty to see that the right kind of stuff is put up. Atleast, the article does not qualify for deletion. It may require a bit of polishing though, the guy who created the article needs to be informed. Nefirious (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2009 (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 was complete consensus on the fact the article should not be under Shona Holmes and either should be renamed or merged. We didn't even get to decide where because the closing administrator closed it before we could even argue to where we should put it. I support merging it with Health care reform in the United States and deleting the article others have the idea, but haven't said where to put it. They are was another user saying to rename it Holmes-advertisement controversy. The only real person saying to keep it as it is was User:Geo Swan (the creator of the article). We needed more time to discuss it and the discussion was clearly not done, yet the administrator closed it. PS I've emailed the admin, but haven't gotten a response. I believe this user is taking a break because of the message on his user page, so I'm going ahead and doing this.--Fire 55 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2009 (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 think that the page should be deleted because their ain't that much information to make a full article and the movie was never made i want it to be deleted i serched not that much inforation to come to a full article i don't think a full article will help who agrees with me that i should'nt have a full page i would have liked to see it but it never happened so it does not disurve a full page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverbeatme!! (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't know how to work this deletion review, however I have figured out how to make an artical with relevancy. My Tomato Pie was cited for not showing its the business's significance, however, it was my first article, and I didn't realize the "sandbox" option, so I continued to make the article, even after it was deleted. It was deleted repeatedly, so now I'm not able to make the article. It is a business that people are curious to the history of it. Anyway, I would like this article available to be made again, so the public can have wikipedia to learn about the company. Thank you. If you need some reputable sources, here is an example; [39] --JamesLTIII (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2009 (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 Hank Green article has a long history of notability issues, vandalism, etc. The last Afd was in December 2008 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_green. The issue at point there was wrong capitalization to avoid protection, so notability wasn't talked about that much. But I did get some positive response there even though the article wasn't quite ready yet. (The last full blown Afd is over a year old. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Green_(2nd_nomination)) Since those reviews, the most important new source is the ranking on a Billboard chart of Mr. Green's first studio album. As per WP:MUSICBIO#2, this provides some notability. In my opinion enough to, together with the rest of the sources, establish Mr. Green's notability.
I would like to call for a new deletion discussion; i.e. relisting at WP:AfD.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 August 2009[edit]
6 August 2009[edit]
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
No consensus to delete this redirect that is in the category catchphrases and there was data showing it is the canonical spelling of the catchphrase Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You may not have heard of it, but at least do a Google search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2009 (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 participated in the review before closing the review; this is forbidden. The admin involved claimed that he hadn't used his admin powers as if this made it all right, but I checked the policy, and it's illegal for users to comment and close a review as well. Additionally, the review was closed very, very early but nobody even voted for speedy delete. I complained to the admin involved, but he then additionally claimed that the topic was not verifiable. However he had redirected the page to a wikipedia article about a book on the subject; one the article already referred to. According to the AFD policy admins are not to be all three of: judge, jury and executioner. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
History-only undeletion (article was deleted as it wasnt "noteworthy" enaugh even though the article predated the policy by years. And if possible put the deleted history of Delta Tao in too if you could be so kind. Zarutian (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Yes, I consulted with the closing administrator already. Also, I voted to merge & redirect the article during the AfD. I felt that overall during this AfD, a good portion of the "Keeps" completely missed the point of BLP1E and failed to adequately argue against it. For example:
On the other hand, all the deletes/redirects had solid, reasonable arguments about enforcing BLP by not having an article solely because he is under investigation. To me, those arguments are more solid and should have been given more weight when closing. NW (Talk) 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Notability is more easily proved through third-party sources now, including curricula and other works citing Szulborski's books, etc. I'd like this page restored to my namespace so I can do a rewrite addressing the notability issue. Andrhia (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
subject does not meet WP:N WP:BAND WP:MUSIC Entire section on Skinny Blonde uses an opinion article from tabloid newspaper as a source. The claim of national controversy in unverifiable anywhere else. 203.153.202.40 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — 203.153.202.40 (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. |
This page, at the time of listing, had no reliable, third-party sources to establish any notability. The only sources were from the producer's website. Now, well over a fortnight since the AfD was closed, there is still no indication that this is notable. The AfD was pulled off-track by a trolling IP, who inflamed discussion with 'helpful' comments such as, "Maybe you're doing this because you don't like this page for whatever reason," "I'm a third party and I'm backing up its notability," and "You don't want to keep things that one day may be really useful to some historian in the future." I tried to simply re-list the article to try and garner a more genuine consensus, not one which was distracted and disrupted by such stupid remarks as the ones above, but was told to come here. Note that I don't blame the closing admin at all; I was initially reluctant to resort to DRV because it may look like I did. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:50, 2 August 2009 (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. |
|
Im not sure why the page had been rejected as i followed all of the guidelines, quoting reliable internet sources where the text visible is solely available to be edited the owner of the page and not open to discussion in a public domain. The actual Hip Hop artist, Pace Won, of whom i did the article on, is in no way connected to me personally and i have no reason to try and promote his material with any form of personal incentive. The reason i created the page was because you have a great article on one of Americas most influential underground hip hop acts of the 90's, called 'Outsidaz,' the head man of this group BEING Pace Won himself. i wanted to create a page about him because he was one of the most respected artists in the underground in the 1990's and was thought to be the "next hip hop star" in the 90's, being the only member of the hip hop group to launch such a successful solo career, for which he expressed his views during interviews for pages carrying out well respected hip hop articles (of which i have referenced their pages) and also a discography of his solo work to date (leaving out his work with former hip hop group 'Outsidaz' as you already have their prior works on their own page). There are also many aspects that i am yet to add to the Pace Won page garnering much interest in the hip hop world. For example, being part of a group with the Outsidaz, he worked with Eminem (before Eminem got famous) and claims that Eminem "came to them with his own style, stole theirs, then left the group to commercialize the soul of their music." there is still an ongoing dispute between Eminem and Pace Won. There are many other aspects to include on this page that i was going to research but found it has been deleted for reasons i cant imagine. He has worked with worldwide respected superstars and underground artists alike and i believe he deserves his own page on the Wikipedia website. Demolisten (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (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 believe that at the time of this article's creation, then re-creation (several times by various users), the artist had no real notability. I have been following a lot of music acts gaining buzz on the internet and his stature exceeds others by far. He supposedly is now signed to a major label which was stated in an interview (that didn't state the label), has a single with Lil Wayne that was a huge success, and a newly released single with T.I.. A Google search of Chrishan brings up the single with Lil Wayne as the first listing. Obviously I would like to see the deletion overturned due to his new-found notoriety, and I will have the page created from the Article Creation page. Also if this is overturned and they do create the page can I ask for a lock so that un-sourced editing doesn't occur? Thanks 192.231.160.6 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 August 2009[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was never even flagged for speedy deletion - it was deleted right out from under me while I was still making edits. The reason listed was "A7: non notable". I've been told by wikipedia admins in the past that non-notable is not sufficient grounds for an A7 removal (and that many overzealous people wrongly flag things for deletion that should not be - with newbies coming along and not realizing the policy) - and I looked it up myself to confirm it. I contested this with the wikipedia admin - quoting relevant policies - but he still demands notability, despite the fact that policy explicitly states that notability is not grounds for SPEEDY delete. I even asked for the admin to replace it with AfD if they like. The admin has archived the discussion without following up with me at this point, so I felt I needed to go here. I DID try and go out of my way to show importance in the article... Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
overturn as invalid speedy. Likely belongs at AfD though. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (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. |
|
Clearly inappropriate closure. Closed after 3 days instead of the normal seven as keep even though 11 people voted delete, 8 people voted keep, with 2 of those being conflicted editors of the page and 1 acting as a pseudo meatpuppet. Closer's statements are factually inaccurate and show a lack of actually reading the page. Closer has a bad habit of closing pages 4 days before they are to be closed and should be desysopped. This should be a speedy unclose and restoration of the standard AfD, but people are edit warring when it was rightfully reopened. They should be blocked for edit warring and disruption as with the closer as there was no evidence that this was a mistake and the rationale shows that this was purposefully done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |