Orca (supercar) – Edit history restored behind newly created article – 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was AFD closed as delete against consensus that it was notable and a real car project (it has appeared at multiple trade shows). Reason given was that article is unsourced, which was largely true, but that's a repairable defect for which AFD policy recommends tagging and repairing, not deleting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orca (supercar) (also, google search on "Orca C113" finds over 12,000 car enthusiast references...) Georgewilliamherbert 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Walking Cradles – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It's not an advertisement I see no difference in terms of written information between this page and the other shoe company pages I've seen on Wikipedia - which I researched and looked into before posting this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoe_companies Do you simply not allow information about small companies? Is that the issue? If so, please realize that the shoe industry is a very small world. The reason I'm putting this up on Wikipedia specifically is because of the number of designers-in-training that are ending up on our site, both from the US and internationally. It's far easier for them to be able to go down a list of shoe manufacturers and see if the company makes the kind of products they want to design than it is to go to each individual website, or such was my thinking. As you can see reading the article, the information presented specifically tells young designers what they need to know about this line. Isn't that part of the purpose of Wikipedia? If the size of the company is the issue, then I strongly feel you need to rethink that policy, particularly when you're talking about this sort of industry. My next entry was going to be on Ars Sutoria, but if Wikipedia is just going to delete it, then I won't waste my time.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Quikbook – Speedy deletion of copyvio material endorsed – 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article Quikbook was not made intentionally as spam. It's was legitimate information about a privately held Hotel booking company specializing in boutique hotels that's been in business for around 20 years. Some of the questionable marketing content could have been edited instead, but overall, listing the company is warranted. Independent articles mentioning the company have appeared in various publications over the years (ie. Washington Post, NY Times, Money Magazine, CNN.com). Its entry should be no less legitimate than some of its more generic competitors in the industry (travelocity, orbitz). 20:30 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Kings of Chaos – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I know that in the past the Kingsofchaos wikipedia article was littered with petty in game politics and things that could not be proven. However, the article at the time of deletion was in the process of a complete cleanup, including citation of notable sources. One of said sources was a major periodical, The Washington Post. Another of said sources was a video played on a local news channel. For these reasons I ask that the article be reinstated and in some way locked to prevent vandalism by petty KoC players that feel they should be a part of the article. Furthermore, much of the information that I and others added to the game history can be found in its changelog on its front page http://www.kingsofchaos.com/. Snoop0x7b 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of articles related to quackery – Renamed to ... related to scientific skepticism and listed at MfD – 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as a 'move to project space'. Arithmetically, that's a reasonable close. But it is logically quite unacceptable. The existence of this crap anywhere on Wikipedia offends:
The item has no possible use in project space, please overturn and delete -- Docg 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. As a Wikiproject, working on either referencing or removing the claims of debunkers, or indeed of quacks, this has merit. The lead states that it is for things that are subject of assertions from debunkers but does not imply that they are right. In project space, this is not actually a problem. Guy ( Help!) 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Project space is not a refuge for POV attacks that are unacceptable in the main Wikipedia. Allowing this list to stay creates a precedent which gives attack groups a back-door into Wikipedia. How about: Articles related to Communism (Hillary Clinton, New York Times, Stalin, Pol Pot, mass murder, etc.) or Articles related to Fascism (Hitler, genocide, George Bush, Republican Party, Fox News Channel, etc.) ? MaxPont 10:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Docg*** 1***) The list is against the neutrality of the encyclopedia as labeling people or subject matter as quack or quackery.
In the name of science, this list will follow in the foot steps of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. 2***) This list is against the seriousness of this project.
*What is scientific skepticism?* Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic aims to decide claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. This distinguishes the scientific skeptic from the professional scientist, who often concentrates her or his enquiry on verifying or falsifying hypotheses created by those within her or his field of science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favour before they could be accepted as having validity. 3***) This list is against the spirit of WP:BLP.
Simple problems have simple answers. The process of developing and improving this new list is underway. The comments made by many Wikipedians has and will conitune to strengthen the article. In the last 24 hours the list has gone thru some changes. The POV title can be changed with just one click. The topic is scientific, serious, and important. In the spirit and harmony of Wikipedia I merely ask this list remain and continue to sprout, expand, and strengthen its roots & beginnings on Wiki. As the information is updated the list will become more focused, directed, and centered for all to read, get informed, and educated. As I journey onward in the project, I will continue the collaboration process. Good will to all and god bless. Cheers from a true believer, advocate, and promoter of Wikipedia. -- QuackGuru 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Alert - these are the comments User:QuackGuru deleted above (his idea of collaboration.) with my comments reinserted.
Comment - Sorry for having to do this. -- Dematt 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
here and again here. I do not give permission to other editors to take my information and mix it with her/his comments. This caused confusion to who wrote what information. Please stop, respectively. I did not delete anyone else's comments. I removed my own comments that were mixed up the another editor's comments. These are my comments. I reinsertated my comments without the other editor's comments mixed in with my comments and left all the other comments alone and separate. I hope other editors will consider to remain civil. Thanks. -- QuackGuru 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
K12 Inc. – Deletion endorsed – 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This request is on behalf of User:Plin, who created the article. It has been deleted several times, most recently by myself, because it sounded like spam. I also discovered that it contained copyright violations from http://www.k12.com. However the creator insists that the article is his/her own work, and I offered to set up this DRV as a courtesy. I myself believe the article should stay deleted, not only because of the copyright violations, but because it sounds like spam. See discussions between myself and the user [5], [6]. Fang Aili talk 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Old School 2 – Page protection removed – 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Old School Dos Has Proof Of Existing Old School Dos has proof of existing. Un-protecting the page so it can be re-directed to Old School Dos would be helpful for anyone looking for information on Old School 2.-- WhereAmI 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Harry Potter in translation series – Deletion endorsed – 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
AfD debate was no consensus. User Proto recorded the result as delete SmokeyJoe 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that the history, discussion and discussion history are important? SmokeyJoe 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
The transwikification of the content without the history, and hence without the authorship, given that the authorship information is no longer available at wikipedia, is a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License. Am I wrong? SmokeyJoe 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Let us know if you find any. John Reaves 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Omar barnett – Speedily closed; no reason provided – 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_REASON Galdemway 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Orca (supercar) – Edit history restored behind newly created article – 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was AFD closed as delete against consensus that it was notable and a real car project (it has appeared at multiple trade shows). Reason given was that article is unsourced, which was largely true, but that's a repairable defect for which AFD policy recommends tagging and repairing, not deleting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orca (supercar) (also, google search on "Orca C113" finds over 12,000 car enthusiast references...) Georgewilliamherbert 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Walking Cradles – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It's not an advertisement I see no difference in terms of written information between this page and the other shoe company pages I've seen on Wikipedia - which I researched and looked into before posting this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoe_companies Do you simply not allow information about small companies? Is that the issue? If so, please realize that the shoe industry is a very small world. The reason I'm putting this up on Wikipedia specifically is because of the number of designers-in-training that are ending up on our site, both from the US and internationally. It's far easier for them to be able to go down a list of shoe manufacturers and see if the company makes the kind of products they want to design than it is to go to each individual website, or such was my thinking. As you can see reading the article, the information presented specifically tells young designers what they need to know about this line. Isn't that part of the purpose of Wikipedia? If the size of the company is the issue, then I strongly feel you need to rethink that policy, particularly when you're talking about this sort of industry. My next entry was going to be on Ars Sutoria, but if Wikipedia is just going to delete it, then I won't waste my time.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Quikbook – Speedy deletion of copyvio material endorsed – 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article Quikbook was not made intentionally as spam. It's was legitimate information about a privately held Hotel booking company specializing in boutique hotels that's been in business for around 20 years. Some of the questionable marketing content could have been edited instead, but overall, listing the company is warranted. Independent articles mentioning the company have appeared in various publications over the years (ie. Washington Post, NY Times, Money Magazine, CNN.com). Its entry should be no less legitimate than some of its more generic competitors in the industry (travelocity, orbitz). 20:30 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Kings of Chaos – Deletion endorsed – 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I know that in the past the Kingsofchaos wikipedia article was littered with petty in game politics and things that could not be proven. However, the article at the time of deletion was in the process of a complete cleanup, including citation of notable sources. One of said sources was a major periodical, The Washington Post. Another of said sources was a video played on a local news channel. For these reasons I ask that the article be reinstated and in some way locked to prevent vandalism by petty KoC players that feel they should be a part of the article. Furthermore, much of the information that I and others added to the game history can be found in its changelog on its front page http://www.kingsofchaos.com/. Snoop0x7b 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of articles related to quackery – Renamed to ... related to scientific skepticism and listed at MfD – 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as a 'move to project space'. Arithmetically, that's a reasonable close. But it is logically quite unacceptable. The existence of this crap anywhere on Wikipedia offends:
The item has no possible use in project space, please overturn and delete -- Docg 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. As a Wikiproject, working on either referencing or removing the claims of debunkers, or indeed of quacks, this has merit. The lead states that it is for things that are subject of assertions from debunkers but does not imply that they are right. In project space, this is not actually a problem. Guy ( Help!) 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Project space is not a refuge for POV attacks that are unacceptable in the main Wikipedia. Allowing this list to stay creates a precedent which gives attack groups a back-door into Wikipedia. How about: Articles related to Communism (Hillary Clinton, New York Times, Stalin, Pol Pot, mass murder, etc.) or Articles related to Fascism (Hitler, genocide, George Bush, Republican Party, Fox News Channel, etc.) ? MaxPont 10:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Docg*** 1***) The list is against the neutrality of the encyclopedia as labeling people or subject matter as quack or quackery.
In the name of science, this list will follow in the foot steps of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. 2***) This list is against the seriousness of this project.
*What is scientific skepticism?* Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic aims to decide claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. This distinguishes the scientific skeptic from the professional scientist, who often concentrates her or his enquiry on verifying or falsifying hypotheses created by those within her or his field of science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favour before they could be accepted as having validity. 3***) This list is against the spirit of WP:BLP.
Simple problems have simple answers. The process of developing and improving this new list is underway. The comments made by many Wikipedians has and will conitune to strengthen the article. In the last 24 hours the list has gone thru some changes. The POV title can be changed with just one click. The topic is scientific, serious, and important. In the spirit and harmony of Wikipedia I merely ask this list remain and continue to sprout, expand, and strengthen its roots & beginnings on Wiki. As the information is updated the list will become more focused, directed, and centered for all to read, get informed, and educated. As I journey onward in the project, I will continue the collaboration process. Good will to all and god bless. Cheers from a true believer, advocate, and promoter of Wikipedia. -- QuackGuru 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Alert - these are the comments User:QuackGuru deleted above (his idea of collaboration.) with my comments reinserted.
Comment - Sorry for having to do this. -- Dematt 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
here and again here. I do not give permission to other editors to take my information and mix it with her/his comments. This caused confusion to who wrote what information. Please stop, respectively. I did not delete anyone else's comments. I removed my own comments that were mixed up the another editor's comments. These are my comments. I reinsertated my comments without the other editor's comments mixed in with my comments and left all the other comments alone and separate. I hope other editors will consider to remain civil. Thanks. -- QuackGuru 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
K12 Inc. – Deletion endorsed – 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This request is on behalf of User:Plin, who created the article. It has been deleted several times, most recently by myself, because it sounded like spam. I also discovered that it contained copyright violations from http://www.k12.com. However the creator insists that the article is his/her own work, and I offered to set up this DRV as a courtesy. I myself believe the article should stay deleted, not only because of the copyright violations, but because it sounds like spam. See discussions between myself and the user [5], [6]. Fang Aili talk 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Old School 2 – Page protection removed – 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Old School Dos Has Proof Of Existing Old School Dos has proof of existing. Un-protecting the page so it can be re-directed to Old School Dos would be helpful for anyone looking for information on Old School 2.-- WhereAmI 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Harry Potter in translation series – Deletion endorsed – 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
AfD debate was no consensus. User Proto recorded the result as delete SmokeyJoe 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that the history, discussion and discussion history are important? SmokeyJoe 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
The transwikification of the content without the history, and hence without the authorship, given that the authorship information is no longer available at wikipedia, is a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License. Am I wrong? SmokeyJoe 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Let us know if you find any. John Reaves 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Omar barnett – Speedily closed; no reason provided – 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_REASON Galdemway 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |