|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I need source to attempt to rewrite this article so that it will pass review. GENI has worked for over a decade with (among others) the IEEE (a respected engineering association), and has had numerous articles about it in various popular newspapers and magazines. Also, one of the "delete" editors is no longer with Wikipedia, so I would enjoy learning how to write in encyclopedic style to allow GENI to gain entry to this online encyclopedia, where it deserves to be. Please send source to pmd@geni.org Also, I was not notified that this article was deleted. Is there any way to be notified of impending deletion? Geni-pmd 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 this article was deleted in error. This article was about the head of St Paul's School (London) a notable educationalist and author. There was no discussion prior to the deletion. The deletion reason given was that it was an attack page. This was not the primary reason for the article. Any vandalism on this article should be reverted according to usual Wikipedia policies. This article should be reinstated as soon as possible. Vivenot 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I was entering sources to show creditbility but due to the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryulong vendetta against me due to me correctly his many factual mistakes he decides to use his admin powers to ban me so that I can not make any changes then to my own talk page. I believe he took great delight in saying that it was only a biography, only a picture and only Wikipedia. I believe someone with this attitude should not be allowed to be an admin on Wikipedia. I had entered 3 independent sources and was adding more and then was prevented in doing anything else. Thanks for listing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krome007 ( talk • contribs).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Could somone clarify why this was taken down so fast, only a few users asks for deletion and i thouight iut should be merge with joe morris the footblall player. if not maybe we have two people but i'd be willing to fix it Cluelessangel 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notability 84.185.211.19 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC) This article about WinLIKE was recently deleted: Deletion of WinLIKE. But this was against the rules of Wikipedia because it is relevant in the meaning of Notability. There was absolutely no research otherwise the Admins would have found the following press which are listed on the Companies website:
Last four were newly discovered at 1/14/2007 (not online but scans on request...)
This is my last attempt to reason Administrators. Let's see the points: 1. "looks like a lot of promotion"(Radiant), "possible conflict of interest" (JzG|Guy) There was not a word of the greatness, etc. - just "medical" facts. The article about Microsoft Windows much more promotional - shall it be deleted also? Where in the policy there is a statement that the software autor cannot be the Wikipedia autor abot his product? 2. "not a ballot" My account was created several years back. If your database does not keep all tracks - consult your programmers 3. notability If links (with thanks) from the sites using WinLIKE do not counter, then, again, the article about Microsoft Windows should be deleted - except for Microsoft-enspired press, I newer seen a good word about it! 4. You did not present any answer for my questions set afore. Any comments? Stasdm 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Again and again I read "hardly any google hits".. as if that was the only way to measure Notability. Ever heard of books?? Magazines? Tv? Movies? Other search engines? And if the problem is that they wrote about their own product, then decide that companies can't write about their own stuff and be done with it, and apply this on all entries. It would be a good rule, if it existed.. which it doesn't.. so get over it and undelete. I don't get what the problem is, and you make a dirtpoor job of explaining it. Mikael Bergkvist 17:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 "keep" rationales all ignored fundamental and glaring policy violations. The value of tall as stated in the lead is subjective, and always was. It has been changed to a number of different subjective values, but they are all subjective. That is original research. It doesn't matter how many people get together to agree that we can have it despite it being original research, policy says if it's original research we can't have it. Just look at the lead now - in order to make this not a list of basketball players plus some other tall guys, there is a different arbitrary cutoff for bb players. This sucks! I mean, really sucks! Sorry, I seem to have broken the template, hopefully I've now added all the info. Guy ( Help!) 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD A7 candidate, but I strongly disagree with that assessment. This person finished in sixth place in the 2006 season of Canadian Idol, which is a song contest with a very large TV audience. People who finish as high as sixth place have performed several times, probably picked up several fans during the course of the program, and in any case, claim to notability is asserted, making this an invalid A7 speedy deletion. Even though not as famous as the Simpson, I will still ask to overturn speedy and bring to AFD if a full discussion is needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD A7 candidate, but I strongly disagree with that assessment. Fleury was the eighth place finisher in Canadian Idol, and with the large number of viewers and attention which Idol gets, that is very much an assertion of notability. This is not the kind of case which A7 was ever intended for. All of the other top ten finishers for third season have articles, (the number #10 is currently on AFD but the nomination is contested). Overturn speedy and bring to AFD if a full discussion is needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Coredesat closed this as delete. He first claimed that "[m]ost of the sources provided are only passing mentions, self-references, or articles not about the subject of the article itself," which was a patently false assumption, judging by examination and discussion of said sources, specifically two of them. On further discussion at my talk page, claimed a "weak consensus to delete" and a decision that could have been made editorially regarding whether the article should remain at Gregory Kohs or his business, MyWikiBiz. Of the delete arguments, one attempted to assert a G4, which it wasn't, one cited spam, which it wasn't, five referenced WP:SELF either by name or by concept, which also didn't apply here if you read WP:SELF. Many pointed to WP:DENY, which is about vandalism and not biographies, and some noted WP:AUTOBIO, which did not apply to the article in its AfD'd form nor requires or suggests deletion anyway. The subject meets WP:BIO/WP:CORP (depending on your point of view) because of the mutliple non-trivial mentions, so the assertions that the subject is non-"notable" fails to hold any water. This leaves only one truly compelling argument - that this is simply news reporting and not an article, but may have been based more on a belief that the AP and German sources were primary rather than secondary sources (a fine disagreement, by any stretch), and was hardly agreed upon anyway - certainly no consensus existed for that belief. Meanwhile, the keep suggestions included noting that the subject meets various "notability" standards and that, contrary to the closing admin's somewhat bizarre assertion that the sources don't meet our standards for reliability, that the sources more than certainly met what we need. The community doesn't appear to like this guy, that much is clear. That does not mean we need to get our own biases in the way of keeping up with our standards. Those were ignored today, and we need to overturn and undelete this article. badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm curious why such a notable company was just plain deleted without any review, and I suspect that the reason JzG gave for the deletion is false.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Kojiro Takenashi 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) The technology was horribly difficult to dig up any google results on, and I think in this instance the general 'google rule' doesn't really apply here, as information on it seems to be mostly confined to print. It's a fairly unique and convenient A/V distribution technology in its own right, and the lack of informative, online resources only galvanizes the need for a good Wikipedia article on the subject. -- Kojiro Takenashi 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 need source to attempt to rewrite this article so that it will pass review. GENI has worked for over a decade with (among others) the IEEE (a respected engineering association), and has had numerous articles about it in various popular newspapers and magazines. Also, one of the "delete" editors is no longer with Wikipedia, so I would enjoy learning how to write in encyclopedic style to allow GENI to gain entry to this online encyclopedia, where it deserves to be. Please send source to pmd@geni.org Also, I was not notified that this article was deleted. Is there any way to be notified of impending deletion? Geni-pmd 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 this article was deleted in error. This article was about the head of St Paul's School (London) a notable educationalist and author. There was no discussion prior to the deletion. The deletion reason given was that it was an attack page. This was not the primary reason for the article. Any vandalism on this article should be reverted according to usual Wikipedia policies. This article should be reinstated as soon as possible. Vivenot 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I was entering sources to show creditbility but due to the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryulong vendetta against me due to me correctly his many factual mistakes he decides to use his admin powers to ban me so that I can not make any changes then to my own talk page. I believe he took great delight in saying that it was only a biography, only a picture and only Wikipedia. I believe someone with this attitude should not be allowed to be an admin on Wikipedia. I had entered 3 independent sources and was adding more and then was prevented in doing anything else. Thanks for listing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krome007 ( talk • contribs).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Could somone clarify why this was taken down so fast, only a few users asks for deletion and i thouight iut should be merge with joe morris the footblall player. if not maybe we have two people but i'd be willing to fix it Cluelessangel 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notability 84.185.211.19 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC) This article about WinLIKE was recently deleted: Deletion of WinLIKE. But this was against the rules of Wikipedia because it is relevant in the meaning of Notability. There was absolutely no research otherwise the Admins would have found the following press which are listed on the Companies website:
Last four were newly discovered at 1/14/2007 (not online but scans on request...)
This is my last attempt to reason Administrators. Let's see the points: 1. "looks like a lot of promotion"(Radiant), "possible conflict of interest" (JzG|Guy) There was not a word of the greatness, etc. - just "medical" facts. The article about Microsoft Windows much more promotional - shall it be deleted also? Where in the policy there is a statement that the software autor cannot be the Wikipedia autor abot his product? 2. "not a ballot" My account was created several years back. If your database does not keep all tracks - consult your programmers 3. notability If links (with thanks) from the sites using WinLIKE do not counter, then, again, the article about Microsoft Windows should be deleted - except for Microsoft-enspired press, I newer seen a good word about it! 4. You did not present any answer for my questions set afore. Any comments? Stasdm 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Again and again I read "hardly any google hits".. as if that was the only way to measure Notability. Ever heard of books?? Magazines? Tv? Movies? Other search engines? And if the problem is that they wrote about their own product, then decide that companies can't write about their own stuff and be done with it, and apply this on all entries. It would be a good rule, if it existed.. which it doesn't.. so get over it and undelete. I don't get what the problem is, and you make a dirtpoor job of explaining it. Mikael Bergkvist 17:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 "keep" rationales all ignored fundamental and glaring policy violations. The value of tall as stated in the lead is subjective, and always was. It has been changed to a number of different subjective values, but they are all subjective. That is original research. It doesn't matter how many people get together to agree that we can have it despite it being original research, policy says if it's original research we can't have it. Just look at the lead now - in order to make this not a list of basketball players plus some other tall guys, there is a different arbitrary cutoff for bb players. This sucks! I mean, really sucks! Sorry, I seem to have broken the template, hopefully I've now added all the info. Guy ( Help!) 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD A7 candidate, but I strongly disagree with that assessment. This person finished in sixth place in the 2006 season of Canadian Idol, which is a song contest with a very large TV audience. People who finish as high as sixth place have performed several times, probably picked up several fans during the course of the program, and in any case, claim to notability is asserted, making this an invalid A7 speedy deletion. Even though not as famous as the Simpson, I will still ask to overturn speedy and bring to AFD if a full discussion is needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD A7 candidate, but I strongly disagree with that assessment. Fleury was the eighth place finisher in Canadian Idol, and with the large number of viewers and attention which Idol gets, that is very much an assertion of notability. This is not the kind of case which A7 was ever intended for. All of the other top ten finishers for third season have articles, (the number #10 is currently on AFD but the nomination is contested). Overturn speedy and bring to AFD if a full discussion is needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Coredesat closed this as delete. He first claimed that "[m]ost of the sources provided are only passing mentions, self-references, or articles not about the subject of the article itself," which was a patently false assumption, judging by examination and discussion of said sources, specifically two of them. On further discussion at my talk page, claimed a "weak consensus to delete" and a decision that could have been made editorially regarding whether the article should remain at Gregory Kohs or his business, MyWikiBiz. Of the delete arguments, one attempted to assert a G4, which it wasn't, one cited spam, which it wasn't, five referenced WP:SELF either by name or by concept, which also didn't apply here if you read WP:SELF. Many pointed to WP:DENY, which is about vandalism and not biographies, and some noted WP:AUTOBIO, which did not apply to the article in its AfD'd form nor requires or suggests deletion anyway. The subject meets WP:BIO/WP:CORP (depending on your point of view) because of the mutliple non-trivial mentions, so the assertions that the subject is non-"notable" fails to hold any water. This leaves only one truly compelling argument - that this is simply news reporting and not an article, but may have been based more on a belief that the AP and German sources were primary rather than secondary sources (a fine disagreement, by any stretch), and was hardly agreed upon anyway - certainly no consensus existed for that belief. Meanwhile, the keep suggestions included noting that the subject meets various "notability" standards and that, contrary to the closing admin's somewhat bizarre assertion that the sources don't meet our standards for reliability, that the sources more than certainly met what we need. The community doesn't appear to like this guy, that much is clear. That does not mean we need to get our own biases in the way of keeping up with our standards. Those were ignored today, and we need to overturn and undelete this article. badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm curious why such a notable company was just plain deleted without any review, and I suspect that the reason JzG gave for the deletion is false.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Notable Kojiro Takenashi 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) The technology was horribly difficult to dig up any google results on, and I think in this instance the general 'google rule' doesn't really apply here, as information on it seems to be mostly confined to print. It's a fairly unique and convenient A/V distribution technology in its own right, and the lack of informative, online resources only galvanizes the need for a good Wikipedia article on the subject. -- Kojiro Takenashi 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |