Workflow Management Coalition – Deletion endorsed – 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have reviewed the deletion policy and still have no idea why the page was deleted. WfMC is a non-profit organization which produces technology standards, some standards you even list in wikipedia. Pages on those standards refer to WfMC but there is no page on the subject. So I added it. The cryptic removal note says "copyvio" which I assume means copyright violation and refers to a press release which has a substantially similar description of the coalition. The first paragraph was the same description that the coalition approves for use in all press releases about coalition activities. It is a well crafted paragraph which explain quickly and succinctly the working of the coalition. Am I to assume that you can not make Wikipedia articles about any subject which has been mentioned in a press release. I put significantly more work into the page which was original content as well. I don't see any indication that there was copyright violation. It is my first page creation on wikipedia, so it may be that I don't understand the rules, but I have re-read the gidelines many times. There are other pages on other similar organizations. There was nothing defamitory or anything that anyone would object to. It was objective and I believe would generally be helpful to people using the wikipedia. Goflow6206 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
OK well, I am learning. Thanks for the patience. Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) is a legitimate consortium which has had a defining effect on the information technology industry over the last 13 years. There are 300 member organizations spread across the world. There are local chapters in Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, and a number of other place. The standards are incorportated into dozens of commercial products, as well as a dozen or so open source workflow systems. There are many academic paper written on the subject of the subjects of comparing research implementations to the WfMC reference architecture. I will try to collect "evidence" of this notability. Seriously, the coalition is at the center of a lot of important research -- I realize being in a very specific field somethings are obvious but those outside of the field it is not so obvious. I have no interest in "advertisement" but in providing a clear succinct description of what the coalition is to those people looking for this information. But it is going to take some time until I get the proof that it is important enough. Until that time, wikipedia will have to do without a page on the Workflow Management Coalition.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ben Goertzel – Deletion endorsed, protection removed – 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This wikipedia page, which discussed me (Dr. Ben Goertzel), was deleted, I believe after a deletion request made by someone who is angry at my colleague Bruce Klein because of politics within the Immortality Institute. This individual has been vandalizing the agiri.org wiki site and spamming Bruce's colleagues for a few weeks recently. I am a PhD scientist with 17 years track record. I have about 75 refereed publications including 7 books with major scientific publishers, and am currently CEO of an AI software consulting company, Novamente LLC (whose Wikipedia page was also deleted, but I am focusing on getting mine restored first, as IMO the case why I merit a Wikipedia entry is even more obvious). I am also CEO of a bioinformatics software consulting company, Biomind LLC, which is currently helping to build a major portal site for the NIH, Immport, and has an ongoing relationship with the CDC which has resulted in a number of refereed co-authored publications in Pharmacogenomics. The wikipedia page on me was brief and not very extensive (a little more than a "stub", though), but there are plenty of other scientists with weaker publication records than me who have wikipedia pages, so I don't really see why mine should have been deleted. Apparently it was deleted simply because some individual who was mad at my colleague Bruce Klein requested it to be so. It was not a "self-promotion" page -- in fact I never edited that page. I encourage you to reinstate the page, or else discuss this matter with me at ben@goertzel.org. Thanks, Dr. Ben Goertzel 69.140.44.37 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:FieldTurf installations/ List of FieldTurf installations – CfD decision endorsed, merger is editorial decision – 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am bringing this article to deletion review because I want to get some sort of definitive ruling. I'd like to get your input before I vote. any ideas? Lovelac7 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion. What if we kept this as a category, but broadened the scope to Category:Artificial turf installations? That would avoid WP:AD and excessively long lists while keeping information useful to sports fans. What do you think? Lovelac7 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Brumski – Deletion endorsed – 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reason for deletion is in error - Nonsense/vandalism target is false Wavemaster447 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) This is a game popularized by KATG, or Keith and the Girl. It should not have been deleted as "nonsense."
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ass to mouth – Deletion overturned, relisting at AfD in editorial discretion – 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Keep voters made stronger arguments than delete voters and the article is verifiable. This is a widely used term/practice that should be covered in Wikipedia for comprehensiveness on topics relating to sexual practices and preferences. I request we Overturn deletion of this article. Johntex\ talk 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment from the Ass to mouth AfD nominator I am the nominator and I can assure everyone that was is claimed above as my "indiscriminate AfD proposals" have, in fact, been good faith noms per my best ability to understand and apply WP content policies to improve this Project. During the Ass to mouth AfD debate, it appeared to me that the majority of people arguing in favor of non-deletion were simply doing so based upon preference and not policy; that policy meant whatever the editor wanted it to be. That is very troubling to me for the future and quality of this Project. I also wanted to inform that the Deletion review nominator here shortly after Ass to mouth was deleted proposed what appears to me and others a weakening of WP:V at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:ANI and planned clarification. Thanks for hearing me out. CyberAnth 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3) – No consensus closure endorsed – 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn No offense to the closing admin, but this is a situation where the "votes" were counted and the fanboys were feared. These three articles clearly violate policy and had been given plenty of time to be corrected. What good is our policies on plot summaries if it can be so easily dismissed? I stated shortly before the AfD close, I could probably create some plot related Lost article, for no good reason and intentionally make it pointless, and people will still find a reason to keep it. This is not logical thinking. The original version of these three articles was something that conflicted with the individual episode articles. A mediation case was opened on which set of articles to keep. Individual episode articles were to be kept, but to help settle the dispute the mediation looked for a new reason to keep these pages. They found a new role for the articles, but so far those articles have yet to successfully obtain that new role, and no indication that anyone is interested in actually doing it. Keep arguments did nothing to address the policy issue. It's only a duplication of plot summary, something we have way to much of on Wikipedia. The logic for deletion was strong, and the logic for keep was flawed. This is the kind of close you get when people want to avoid a dispute with tons of fans who don't understand the policy, so I understand, but it's not an acceptable solution. Someone needs to step up to the plate and do what is needed. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Workflow Management Coalition – Deletion endorsed – 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have reviewed the deletion policy and still have no idea why the page was deleted. WfMC is a non-profit organization which produces technology standards, some standards you even list in wikipedia. Pages on those standards refer to WfMC but there is no page on the subject. So I added it. The cryptic removal note says "copyvio" which I assume means copyright violation and refers to a press release which has a substantially similar description of the coalition. The first paragraph was the same description that the coalition approves for use in all press releases about coalition activities. It is a well crafted paragraph which explain quickly and succinctly the working of the coalition. Am I to assume that you can not make Wikipedia articles about any subject which has been mentioned in a press release. I put significantly more work into the page which was original content as well. I don't see any indication that there was copyright violation. It is my first page creation on wikipedia, so it may be that I don't understand the rules, but I have re-read the gidelines many times. There are other pages on other similar organizations. There was nothing defamitory or anything that anyone would object to. It was objective and I believe would generally be helpful to people using the wikipedia. Goflow6206 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
OK well, I am learning. Thanks for the patience. Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) is a legitimate consortium which has had a defining effect on the information technology industry over the last 13 years. There are 300 member organizations spread across the world. There are local chapters in Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, and a number of other place. The standards are incorportated into dozens of commercial products, as well as a dozen or so open source workflow systems. There are many academic paper written on the subject of the subjects of comparing research implementations to the WfMC reference architecture. I will try to collect "evidence" of this notability. Seriously, the coalition is at the center of a lot of important research -- I realize being in a very specific field somethings are obvious but those outside of the field it is not so obvious. I have no interest in "advertisement" but in providing a clear succinct description of what the coalition is to those people looking for this information. But it is going to take some time until I get the proof that it is important enough. Until that time, wikipedia will have to do without a page on the Workflow Management Coalition.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ben Goertzel – Deletion endorsed, protection removed – 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This wikipedia page, which discussed me (Dr. Ben Goertzel), was deleted, I believe after a deletion request made by someone who is angry at my colleague Bruce Klein because of politics within the Immortality Institute. This individual has been vandalizing the agiri.org wiki site and spamming Bruce's colleagues for a few weeks recently. I am a PhD scientist with 17 years track record. I have about 75 refereed publications including 7 books with major scientific publishers, and am currently CEO of an AI software consulting company, Novamente LLC (whose Wikipedia page was also deleted, but I am focusing on getting mine restored first, as IMO the case why I merit a Wikipedia entry is even more obvious). I am also CEO of a bioinformatics software consulting company, Biomind LLC, which is currently helping to build a major portal site for the NIH, Immport, and has an ongoing relationship with the CDC which has resulted in a number of refereed co-authored publications in Pharmacogenomics. The wikipedia page on me was brief and not very extensive (a little more than a "stub", though), but there are plenty of other scientists with weaker publication records than me who have wikipedia pages, so I don't really see why mine should have been deleted. Apparently it was deleted simply because some individual who was mad at my colleague Bruce Klein requested it to be so. It was not a "self-promotion" page -- in fact I never edited that page. I encourage you to reinstate the page, or else discuss this matter with me at ben@goertzel.org. Thanks, Dr. Ben Goertzel 69.140.44.37 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:FieldTurf installations/ List of FieldTurf installations – CfD decision endorsed, merger is editorial decision – 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I am bringing this article to deletion review because I want to get some sort of definitive ruling. I'd like to get your input before I vote. any ideas? Lovelac7 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion. What if we kept this as a category, but broadened the scope to Category:Artificial turf installations? That would avoid WP:AD and excessively long lists while keeping information useful to sports fans. What do you think? Lovelac7 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Brumski – Deletion endorsed – 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reason for deletion is in error - Nonsense/vandalism target is false Wavemaster447 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) This is a game popularized by KATG, or Keith and the Girl. It should not have been deleted as "nonsense."
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ass to mouth – Deletion overturned, relisting at AfD in editorial discretion – 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Keep voters made stronger arguments than delete voters and the article is verifiable. This is a widely used term/practice that should be covered in Wikipedia for comprehensiveness on topics relating to sexual practices and preferences. I request we Overturn deletion of this article. Johntex\ talk 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment from the Ass to mouth AfD nominator I am the nominator and I can assure everyone that was is claimed above as my "indiscriminate AfD proposals" have, in fact, been good faith noms per my best ability to understand and apply WP content policies to improve this Project. During the Ass to mouth AfD debate, it appeared to me that the majority of people arguing in favor of non-deletion were simply doing so based upon preference and not policy; that policy meant whatever the editor wanted it to be. That is very troubling to me for the future and quality of this Project. I also wanted to inform that the Deletion review nominator here shortly after Ass to mouth was deleted proposed what appears to me and others a weakening of WP:V at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:ANI and planned clarification. Thanks for hearing me out. CyberAnth 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3) – No consensus closure endorsed – 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn No offense to the closing admin, but this is a situation where the "votes" were counted and the fanboys were feared. These three articles clearly violate policy and had been given plenty of time to be corrected. What good is our policies on plot summaries if it can be so easily dismissed? I stated shortly before the AfD close, I could probably create some plot related Lost article, for no good reason and intentionally make it pointless, and people will still find a reason to keep it. This is not logical thinking. The original version of these three articles was something that conflicted with the individual episode articles. A mediation case was opened on which set of articles to keep. Individual episode articles were to be kept, but to help settle the dispute the mediation looked for a new reason to keep these pages. They found a new role for the articles, but so far those articles have yet to successfully obtain that new role, and no indication that anyone is interested in actually doing it. Keep arguments did nothing to address the policy issue. It's only a duplication of plot summary, something we have way to much of on Wikipedia. The logic for deletion was strong, and the logic for keep was flawed. This is the kind of close you get when people want to avoid a dispute with tons of fans who don't understand the policy, so I understand, but it's not an acceptable solution. Someone needs to step up to the plate and do what is needed. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |