|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Company is Notable Virgil06 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Article was discovered to be "missing" and resubmitted. Resubmission was flagged for speedy delete. After more research it seems it was ORIGINALLY deleted because it was said to be non-notable and read like an ad. As a network marketing company, the company does not employ traditional advertising and companies in the industry can therefore achieve higher levels of success and still not draw mainstream media converage. The article is not spam and was written with strict adherence to the journalistic neutral point of view policy. Per the Wikipedia Notability requirements ( WP:CORP), "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." The compnay has introduced close to 30,000 representatives in 15 months of operation which IS notable in the network marketing industry and has received a public endorsement by Dr. Charles King, internationally recognized expert on network marketing and professor of marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Editing the article to remove questionable content is one thing, but it is no more a candidate for deletion than Sibu (company), Vemma, or Tahitian Noni, just to name a few.
|
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 207.82.44.3 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihonjoe#MoPo
|
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. |
Arguments for deletion TOO weak. 68.197.108.232 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Comments: I AM the individual in question. I did not write the article about myself. I do not appreciate having this article detailing political accusations towards me deleted (it makes it look like I did it myself and several of my opponents have accused me of this). My involvment in local politics, the extreme controversy and complication of the election (with respect to historical precedent), and the accusations leveled against me were fully cited in the form of newspaper articles. It appears from the comments that the article was deleted based upon lack of results in a Google search and bias towards self-published authors. If you'd like to remove the information about my status as a self-published author (WHICH I did not add) feel free to do that, rather than delete a good article. Also, I strongly question the idea that a Google search alone can bestow or revoke the notable status of an individual, I'm pretty sure that's history's job and you guys are just guessing. The short of it: ALL information in the article was verifiable, it was just deemed non-notable, which again I say was on the basis of a Google search with little consideration to the actual situation. Try reading the news articles. P.S. I had a Wikipedia account at some point and have no idea how to access it now (or how to use it really) (full disclosure). Also, I can be reached at clotito@gmail.com for comment. I will be going back and deleting my email address from these discussions at a later date, which doesn't seem unreasonable. EDIT: HERE is a far better basis for notability, at least in this case: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Christopher+Lotito%22+pequannock&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 EDIT: In response to commenters supporting deletion, questioning notability, and in general requesting more information: Ok, once more, my argument for notability, as the defining factor in one of the most unique elections in the history of Pequannock Township NJ. NOT an argument for notability as an author, business person, or any other hat I may tend to wear. This argument is based off of the definitions presented in your article about "notability" on Wikipedia: "Multiple" "Independent" and "Reliable" "Published Works" have established "Non-Trivial" information detailing my roll as one of the two factors which caused on of the most disputed elections in my town, drawing public comment from newspapers, politicians, regular citizens, and even state officials. In non-Wikipedia-speak, that is, multiple articles were published in regional (not local) newspapers explaining that because of my youth and legal accusations made against me, that there were a much higher than usual number of write-ins in the school board election and that my legal status as a viable candidate was also in question. This article is not directory information. It is information about a person of historical significance. It would most likely be of interest only to residents of Pequannock, Pequannock historians, and those studying law or politics in New Jersey, however this point is of no concern as notability is NOT subjective. In fact, notability has already been permanently and expertly bestowed by several journalists (Rob Ratish, Gene Myers, etc) who decided that this topic was important enough to write articles about for their respective newspapers: The Star Ledger, The Record, and The Argus (to name a couple). That is pretty much the basis of my argument. I've already stated why I want this less than flattering article about myself preserved, however I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Hit Bull Win Steakfor making a good point about ways I can prove to my opponents that I didn't have this article deleted. If these efforst are futile, I will probably use that, so thanks. Before commenting, please be sure to read both the original Wikipedia article AS WELL AS the link to newspaper archives that I have provided as a much better and more objective method of verifying notability than a Google search. Also of note is the Wikipedia article on notability, which has been paraphrased in my general direction despite the fact that many of the commenters here seem not to be familiar with it.
|
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 deletion for unknown reasons. The article I wrote on the software company Audiokinetic Inc. was deleted, but I do not know who deleted it or for what reasons. I am willing to rewrite the article to correct any faults and suit Wikipedia's standards. I would like to contact the administrator who deleted it via his or her talk page, but I don't know how to figure out which one did it. I'd be grateful for any advice. Kitsune Raynard 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information. I'll try to resolve this. Kitsune Raynard 19:07, 20 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. |
Because of the merge of {{ Infobox British television}} to {{ Infobox Television}}, a whole slew of images became unlinked and were subsequently automatically deleted by bots after seven days. I request this is reverted. I'm starting with these, I'm sure i'll find more later, and will add them here as well. TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:19, 20 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. |
All the categories under this have been tagged to be listified and deleted, howvere there was no consensus to delete and this should be overturned. There were more people in support of keeping than there were of deleteing or listing. Roughly 41 to 33 but I may have lost count, there are so many on both sides! Mr. Stabs 13:14, 20 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. |
There was a clear majority for retention of the main list. I appreciate that this is not a vote, but a good reason is needed to ignore a majority. The claim that it was because many supporters agreed with IZAK is odd; IZAK's reasoning was so sound that further argumentation would be of scant value. It may be that the closing admin was confused because there were a number of subsidiary lists also up for deletion, and many people supported the retention of the main list but not the subsidiaries. Newport 13:13, 20 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 feel the admin acted against the consensus of the Wikipedians when it was deleted. It clearly passes a google test for reliable sources. However, if you want, I can remove some of the unsourced tracks and only put in the released singles (until a sourced tracklist is released). Tom Danson 10:38, 20 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. |
Following the close of the WP:DRV on Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, 1ne deleted Category:Wikipedians born in 1989, apparently against concensus. Ryulong undeleted the category and 1ne deleted it again. The summaries in the log were:
Given that everyone in that category is 17 or 18 years old, the WP:CHILD based arguments that lead to the deletion of the 1993 category don't appear to apply. 1ne expressly says his reason for deleting the category was WP:IAR in this post. Although I'm not a huge fan of the "Wikipedians born in" categories, there does not seem to be a concensus to delete all of them. WjB scribe 10:07, 20 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 am asking for review of my own actions. I restored this in August under special circumstances and in just the last few days, several people (including a couple other admins) have jumped on me saying that doing so was horrible and asking that it be immediately re-deleted. This category, and its dated subcategories, are collectively used on slightly less than 50,000 articles, primarily through association with {{ fact}}. The category is very similar to, but distinct from, Category:Articles lacking sources which is associated to {{ unreferenced}}. (In case it is unclear, "fact" is applied to solitary unsourced statements in otherwise healthy articles, while "unreferenced" is a banner applied to articles that are generically without sources.) Timeline:
Congratulations if you followed all that. So in summary, the category was deleted 8 months ago at CFD and unilaterally restored 7 months ago following a closely related DRV (all the same arguments applied in my opinion). This restoration was discussed at ANI at the time and unchallenged. Subsequently the category survived another CFD (6 months ago). And now there are calls that it should be "immediately deleted" because despite the ANI discussion and subsequent CFD, the appropriate "process" was not followed to justify undeletion several steps ago. Frankly, I am bringing this here because I want to wash my hands of it. I'd ask people Endorse the undeletion, and oppose the kind of process obsession that led to these much delayed calls for deletion. At the absolute worst there ought to be a fresh deletion discussion given both that the last CFD was closed keep and that the dated subcategories didn't even exist at the time of prior discussions. Though I have said as much, several individuals have persisted in calling for immediate deletion. Dragons flight 06:43, 20 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. |
Article was sourced, person was notable. The subject of the article was a prominent person in the first Serbian Revolution. There was a movie made about him, and a book. There are a school and a street named after him in Serbia. The article was only a stub, and I had intentionas of including more content from the full serbian wikipedia article about him, after having it professionally translated. There are two english language wikipedia articles which already inlcuded this person in them as being a famous person. There were listed in the article's see also section, and were cited on my hangon template. Jerry lavoie 12:50, 20 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. |
Company is Notable Virgil06 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Article was discovered to be "missing" and resubmitted. Resubmission was flagged for speedy delete. After more research it seems it was ORIGINALLY deleted because it was said to be non-notable and read like an ad. As a network marketing company, the company does not employ traditional advertising and companies in the industry can therefore achieve higher levels of success and still not draw mainstream media converage. The article is not spam and was written with strict adherence to the journalistic neutral point of view policy. Per the Wikipedia Notability requirements ( WP:CORP), "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." The compnay has introduced close to 30,000 representatives in 15 months of operation which IS notable in the network marketing industry and has received a public endorsement by Dr. Charles King, internationally recognized expert on network marketing and professor of marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Editing the article to remove questionable content is one thing, but it is no more a candidate for deletion than Sibu (company), Vemma, or Tahitian Noni, just to name a few.
|
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 207.82.44.3 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihonjoe#MoPo
|
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. |
Arguments for deletion TOO weak. 68.197.108.232 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Comments: I AM the individual in question. I did not write the article about myself. I do not appreciate having this article detailing political accusations towards me deleted (it makes it look like I did it myself and several of my opponents have accused me of this). My involvment in local politics, the extreme controversy and complication of the election (with respect to historical precedent), and the accusations leveled against me were fully cited in the form of newspaper articles. It appears from the comments that the article was deleted based upon lack of results in a Google search and bias towards self-published authors. If you'd like to remove the information about my status as a self-published author (WHICH I did not add) feel free to do that, rather than delete a good article. Also, I strongly question the idea that a Google search alone can bestow or revoke the notable status of an individual, I'm pretty sure that's history's job and you guys are just guessing. The short of it: ALL information in the article was verifiable, it was just deemed non-notable, which again I say was on the basis of a Google search with little consideration to the actual situation. Try reading the news articles. P.S. I had a Wikipedia account at some point and have no idea how to access it now (or how to use it really) (full disclosure). Also, I can be reached at clotito@gmail.com for comment. I will be going back and deleting my email address from these discussions at a later date, which doesn't seem unreasonable. EDIT: HERE is a far better basis for notability, at least in this case: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Christopher+Lotito%22+pequannock&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 EDIT: In response to commenters supporting deletion, questioning notability, and in general requesting more information: Ok, once more, my argument for notability, as the defining factor in one of the most unique elections in the history of Pequannock Township NJ. NOT an argument for notability as an author, business person, or any other hat I may tend to wear. This argument is based off of the definitions presented in your article about "notability" on Wikipedia: "Multiple" "Independent" and "Reliable" "Published Works" have established "Non-Trivial" information detailing my roll as one of the two factors which caused on of the most disputed elections in my town, drawing public comment from newspapers, politicians, regular citizens, and even state officials. In non-Wikipedia-speak, that is, multiple articles were published in regional (not local) newspapers explaining that because of my youth and legal accusations made against me, that there were a much higher than usual number of write-ins in the school board election and that my legal status as a viable candidate was also in question. This article is not directory information. It is information about a person of historical significance. It would most likely be of interest only to residents of Pequannock, Pequannock historians, and those studying law or politics in New Jersey, however this point is of no concern as notability is NOT subjective. In fact, notability has already been permanently and expertly bestowed by several journalists (Rob Ratish, Gene Myers, etc) who decided that this topic was important enough to write articles about for their respective newspapers: The Star Ledger, The Record, and The Argus (to name a couple). That is pretty much the basis of my argument. I've already stated why I want this less than flattering article about myself preserved, however I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Hit Bull Win Steakfor making a good point about ways I can prove to my opponents that I didn't have this article deleted. If these efforst are futile, I will probably use that, so thanks. Before commenting, please be sure to read both the original Wikipedia article AS WELL AS the link to newspaper archives that I have provided as a much better and more objective method of verifying notability than a Google search. Also of note is the Wikipedia article on notability, which has been paraphrased in my general direction despite the fact that many of the commenters here seem not to be familiar with it.
|
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 deletion for unknown reasons. The article I wrote on the software company Audiokinetic Inc. was deleted, but I do not know who deleted it or for what reasons. I am willing to rewrite the article to correct any faults and suit Wikipedia's standards. I would like to contact the administrator who deleted it via his or her talk page, but I don't know how to figure out which one did it. I'd be grateful for any advice. Kitsune Raynard 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information. I'll try to resolve this. Kitsune Raynard 19:07, 20 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. |
Because of the merge of {{ Infobox British television}} to {{ Infobox Television}}, a whole slew of images became unlinked and were subsequently automatically deleted by bots after seven days. I request this is reverted. I'm starting with these, I'm sure i'll find more later, and will add them here as well. TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:19, 20 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. |
All the categories under this have been tagged to be listified and deleted, howvere there was no consensus to delete and this should be overturned. There were more people in support of keeping than there were of deleteing or listing. Roughly 41 to 33 but I may have lost count, there are so many on both sides! Mr. Stabs 13:14, 20 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. |
There was a clear majority for retention of the main list. I appreciate that this is not a vote, but a good reason is needed to ignore a majority. The claim that it was because many supporters agreed with IZAK is odd; IZAK's reasoning was so sound that further argumentation would be of scant value. It may be that the closing admin was confused because there were a number of subsidiary lists also up for deletion, and many people supported the retention of the main list but not the subsidiaries. Newport 13:13, 20 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 feel the admin acted against the consensus of the Wikipedians when it was deleted. It clearly passes a google test for reliable sources. However, if you want, I can remove some of the unsourced tracks and only put in the released singles (until a sourced tracklist is released). Tom Danson 10:38, 20 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. |
Following the close of the WP:DRV on Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, 1ne deleted Category:Wikipedians born in 1989, apparently against concensus. Ryulong undeleted the category and 1ne deleted it again. The summaries in the log were:
Given that everyone in that category is 17 or 18 years old, the WP:CHILD based arguments that lead to the deletion of the 1993 category don't appear to apply. 1ne expressly says his reason for deleting the category was WP:IAR in this post. Although I'm not a huge fan of the "Wikipedians born in" categories, there does not seem to be a concensus to delete all of them. WjB scribe 10:07, 20 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 am asking for review of my own actions. I restored this in August under special circumstances and in just the last few days, several people (including a couple other admins) have jumped on me saying that doing so was horrible and asking that it be immediately re-deleted. This category, and its dated subcategories, are collectively used on slightly less than 50,000 articles, primarily through association with {{ fact}}. The category is very similar to, but distinct from, Category:Articles lacking sources which is associated to {{ unreferenced}}. (In case it is unclear, "fact" is applied to solitary unsourced statements in otherwise healthy articles, while "unreferenced" is a banner applied to articles that are generically without sources.) Timeline:
Congratulations if you followed all that. So in summary, the category was deleted 8 months ago at CFD and unilaterally restored 7 months ago following a closely related DRV (all the same arguments applied in my opinion). This restoration was discussed at ANI at the time and unchallenged. Subsequently the category survived another CFD (6 months ago). And now there are calls that it should be "immediately deleted" because despite the ANI discussion and subsequent CFD, the appropriate "process" was not followed to justify undeletion several steps ago. Frankly, I am bringing this here because I want to wash my hands of it. I'd ask people Endorse the undeletion, and oppose the kind of process obsession that led to these much delayed calls for deletion. At the absolute worst there ought to be a fresh deletion discussion given both that the last CFD was closed keep and that the dated subcategories didn't even exist at the time of prior discussions. Though I have said as much, several individuals have persisted in calling for immediate deletion. Dragons flight 06:43, 20 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. |
Article was sourced, person was notable. The subject of the article was a prominent person in the first Serbian Revolution. There was a movie made about him, and a book. There are a school and a street named after him in Serbia. The article was only a stub, and I had intentionas of including more content from the full serbian wikipedia article about him, after having it professionally translated. There are two english language wikipedia articles which already inlcuded this person in them as being a famous person. There were listed in the article's see also section, and were cited on my hangon template. Jerry lavoie 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |