15 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted as no sources although it listed 3. Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 22:11, 15 July 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. |
This article was nominated for its 4th AFD on 7/4, but the 3rd AFD was accidentally put on the AFD day log. This was not corrected. The error was finally realized and relisted, but Ryulong closed it within 20 minutes, then refused to re-open it. Consensus is totally unclear because this was not properly listed. It's true that the AFD was "open" for 11 days, but only people who had the article watchlisted or otherwise visited the article would see the AFD, this leads to a very skewed consensus that is not useful in saying consensus was to delete an article. Without proper listing, it would be easy to manipulate the system to generate "consensus" deletes or even keeps for articles by controlling who's likely to know about them, and those consensus are not very meaningful. The community needs to be notified that an article is actually on AFD, and have a few days to respond, if the AFD is to be fully valid. This needs to be relisted properly so we can see what consensus actually is, but Ryulong refuses. This is not "process for the sake of process" - I have no idea what consensus would have been after 5 days of AFD. We shouldn't delete articles on such shaky ground. W.marsh 19:52, 15 July 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. |
This article existed since 2005, but was deleted with the reason "Speedy deleted per (CSD a7), was an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject.. using TW)". Isn't having 380,000 members an assertion of notability? Aren't bestseller books ( Body Clutter, " Sink Reflections") an assertion of notability? The article also contained external links to The FLY Show on World Talk Radio (but the link was dead), and an article on FlyLady by the author Karen Kohlhaas. Aren't these assertion of notability? How else do you "assert" notability of such a group? FlyLady has been given non-trivial coverage by almost every single notable newspaper in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.google.co.in/archivesearch?q=flylady The article had been tagged with speedy deletion earlier as well, but the tag was removed by an administrator saying that it does not qualify as speedy (I can't remember the name of the administrator, because the article has been deleted and history is not available). Then why was it deleted this time? If there are no references in the article, shouldn't it be tagged with {{ unreferenced}} instead of being speedy-deleted? Thank you for your consideration. 202.54.176.11 09:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
14 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It's a notable subject and, as such, it should have an article here. It is not an attack page at all! A.Z. 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most voters don't think it is an attack page. A.Z. 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I hope the AfD's closer will admit that he did not explain his close perfectly: saying that one ignored a certain argument as soon as it was seen is not the best way to elaborate one's position. Technically, however, I think there is no doubt that the closer was within his discretion to ignore "IAR" keeps once it was clear that the IAR invocation was without the necessary wide support it would demand in order to be upheld as valid. In any case, in light of nominator's willingness to compromise, here is a result that reflects the consensus below. The deletion is endorsed as correct. The redirect now in place is clearly proper. A history undeletion will allow any attempts to merge relevant material back to the main article; if the "plot section" is still unduly large thereafter, a recreation/un-merge (with sources attesting to the importance and innovative nature of the work's plot) would be reasonable. If such a recreation were then AfD'ed, the article's advocates would better understand the need to cite policy and sources in making their case, as it is clear that an IAR argument against WP:NOT would only fail here. There will probably be another AfD on this question in a while (which satisfied those who requested overturning here), but I hope this DRV closure will result in substantial improvements to the "Plot of..." text before that time, and that all parties will leave IAR and meta-analytic concerns aside, and focus on the value of the article then at hand. As this DRV involves many folks who obviously care a great deal about wiki-policy issues, I will be happy to discuss this closure at greater length upon request. – Xoloz 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This closing ran roughshod over Wikipedia policies and practices in a way that disenfranchised Wikipedia editors who were engaged in a serious discussion over whether to keep this article. The discussion was lengthy, lively and focused on principles, policy and facts, with a lot of back-and-forth discussion from many editors who took the time to seriously consider the matter. By my count, a total of 38 editors took a position on whether the article should be kept or deleted. A majority, but not a big majority, was in favor of deletion or merger — 21 editors (including one who had conditions for keeping that weren't met by changes in the article). A total of 17 editors were in favor of keeping the article, including one editor who changed a delete vote to a keep vote. The delete position was favored by 55 percent, which is not a very large majority (a change of two votes from delete to keep would have eliminated the majority). In order to assert that there was a consensus, not just a majority, to close, it seems to me that the closing admin would need to drastically assign less weight to an enormous number of the "keep" arguments. Much of the discussion centered on my argument that Wikipedia editors have wide latitude to ignore certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The policy I recommended ignoring in this case was Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOT#PLOT. The closing administrator, User:Kurykh, decided this argument was so inappropriate that it should be ignored. In his closing statement, the administrator said:
This decision was out of process for these reasons: Although it isn't my main argument, it's worth noting that this statement and decision violated Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, specifically items 1 ["Whether consensus has been achieved"], 2 ["Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants"] and 4 ["When in doubt, don't delete."]. The "?!" was not just insulting, but in no way even respected the judgment of participants. User:Everyking questioned the administrator on his talk page. The closing admin's response on Everyking,'s talk page was at this diff
In other words, a close vote that would otherwise be a no-consensus close was in fact a consensus to delete because numerous arguments against or ignoring Wikipedia policy were simply removed from consideration. The assumption seems to be that only arguments referring to Wikipedia policy could be considered in a deletion discussion. This despite the fact that WP:IAR is, in fact, Wikipedia policy. Again, Kurykh's comment indicates no respect for the judgment of editors he is supposed to use his authority to serve. Wikipedia editors may ignore all rules when they think there is good reason and their authority for doing so is WP:IAR, a policy. This policy should be considered carefully and must be applied carefully, but it must not be ignored or denigrated by closing administrators in considering deletion discussions. One of the limits on WP:IAR that prevents it from creating anarchy on Wikipedia is that the community as a whole prefers having some rules, and so any action taken under WP:IAR can be checked by administrators and, ultimately, by consensus. Deletion discussions are obviously consensus-based forums. The duties of administrators in closing discussions is a combination of fairly and in an unbiased way assessing what the consensus was and ruling with that consensus unless the consensus violates certain Wikipedia policies. Under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus administrators are directed to three policies, and only three, that should automatically negate consensus. (Other policies can require deletion of information or entire articles without even going to the deletion-discussion process at all, so that violation of copyright or libel laws, for instance, can override consensus). The three policies that automatically override consensus are mentioned here:
If consensus was not allowed to override any policy, then there would be no reason to point out only these three, or at the very least, the the passage would be worded differently because a no-override policy could be stated in a much simpler way. WP:NOT was not one of the policies that can't be overridden by a consensus (or, a lack of consensus, because that reverts to "keep"). The administrator's comments, both in closing the discussion and in commenting on it at Everyking's talk page display bias — taking sides in the discussion rather than fairly assessing in a disinterested way what the consensus was. As the "Rough consensus" section states:
According to the "Rough consensus" section, disregarding comments seems to be generally limited to bad faith comments, mistaken coments and comments that refer to aspects of the article that have been substantially changed by the time the discussion is closed. I wouldn't criticize a closing administrator for disregarding arguments or comments made in ignorance of Wikipedia policies. When Kurykh said on Everyking's talk page, "In my analysis of the article, I disregarded Noroton's "IAR keep" argument almost instantly, and hence also dismissed the "per Noroton" arguments with it." he showed how he overstepped the bounds of a closing administrator. If we are to have WP:IAR in Wikipedia at all, then we must be able to use it in deletion discussions, which rely on consensus. I wouldn't argue that IAR should overrule those Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia specifically states overrule consensus. But if consensus CAN overrule other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then an explicit reference to WP:IAR is valid and, it seems to me, can be used to further bolster an argument to ignore those other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In disregarding appeals to WP:IAR, Kurykh negated Wikipedian's ability to use that rule at all. There may be an argument to be made that there was something wrong about using WP:IAR in deletion discussions or in this particular way in this discussion, but I haven't heard it. Oddly, while Kurykh was disregarding appeals to WP:IAR he was simultaneously using not another policy, not even a guideline, but Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an ESSAY with NO official Wikipedia standing as his justification for disregarding the arguments of a large number of the editors seriously involved in that discussion. Kurykh, in his closing comment stated: "Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA." The use of the question mark and exclamation marks beside "WP:IAR" indicates both a lack of seriousness in considering the discussion (as also shown in his comments to Everyking) and a contempt for the editors who made up a large part of the deletion discussion. If nothing else, other editors should tell Kurykh that as a closing administrator he should avoid disparaging the efforts of serious Wikipedia editors in the discussions he's closing. The deletion should be overruled as out of process because the discussion did not reach consensus, and no-consensus conclusions are automatic keeps. Serious appeals to WP:IAR cannot be summarily ignored by a closing administrator and essays cannot be used to overturn consensus or the right of Wikipedians to appeal to a Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not just important, it is extremely important. A lack of consensus is a decision in itself, and if Wikipedia editors are to be given the respect they deserve, a no-consensus result must be respected just as much as consensus in terms of closing discussions. As Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with consensus tells us:
This is precisely the mistake Kurykh made Noroton 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
13 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This has been deleted by AfD, has had a DRV which clearly indicated the consensus was to endorse deletion, but it got undeleted anyway. The article has three references: one is to the site's website itself and two are just passing mentions of the site. And based on the Wired article, Pownce appears to be in a closed beta (at least as of less than three weeks ago). There is nothing in this article that even implies notability save for the person who started it. Undeletion was improper, it should be deleted again. Corvus cornix 23:55, 13 July 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. |
This is (was) an article about a child, now 3 years old, who developed meningococcal septicaemia aged six months, which led to her having all four limbs amputated, and who was not expected to survive, yet she did. The article was speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow and again by User:Swatjester with the comments " WP:BLP and WP:NOT", by which, I believe, they meant that the publicity from having such an article in our encyclopedia would be painful or harmful to the child, her parents, and other living persons mentioned in the article. However, I believe those two fine administrators were either unaware of or did not have the time to look at (SJ says he doesn't even now), http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/, the public web page maintained and regularly updated by the baby's parents which tells the child's story, with photos and videos, including a television appearance, provides a specific link to search Google for others, maintains a trust raising funds for the child, asks companies to sponsor specific projects, and thanks contributors, so apparently the trust is successful. In short, it seems that the parents believe that additional publicity for the child isn't a bad thing, but a good thing, in fact it helps them provide for the child's non-negligible expenses. They aren't ashamed of their daughter's handicap, as much as they are proud of the child's achievements in overcoming it. I don't think the intent of WP:BLP is for us to think we are wiser than they and protect them from publicity in spite of themselves. For what it's worth, I do believe the child is sufficiently notable to have an article due to multiple independent and continuing news and documentary coverage (see that Google link for example), but that part can be discussed at a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if people like, I am merely addressing the WP:BLP speedy deletion reason here. BTW, this was mentioned in a certain larger arbitration case which got somewhat heated, but I hope can be avoided here, so this discussion not be equally heated. Let's talk about the article, not the editors involved. Could everyone try really hard? AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 13 July 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. |
First, as Kubigula noted in the AFD, additional references were added midway through the AFD and opinions expressed before that should be discounted. After that point, 2 users (Kubigula and me) opined that the amount of source material was sufficient to keep the article, and 1 user (17Drew) opined the opposite. 2 others users (Giggy and SalaSkan) !voted delete without giving any indication that they examined the sources at all. AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and drive-by votes that add nothing to the discussion should be given no weight. I do think this is a borderline case given the lack of depth of the two sources whose subject is this band. However among the users who opined after additional references were added to the article, and who gave an opinion that was based on looking at the sources, it was 2 to 1 to keep. The result of the AFD should have been keep or no consensus. Overturn and restore the revisions that Neil deleted when he closed the AFD. Pan Dan 15:22, 13 July 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. |
This place was deleted as a hoax/nonsense article, when it clearly is absolutely not one. It's a place-name of several merely obscure little villages: one in Northumberland, one in East Riding of Yorkshire, and another in the Scottish Borders. This was deleted wrongly. His Third Grace 3Pd 11:22, 13 July 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. |
A notable text editor. The first afd shows a strong response to keep the article (6 out of 9 vote for keep). The second afd has only 2 votes, which are "weak delete". There is not enough strong reason for deletion. minghong 10:17, 13 July 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. |
A lot of my solid reasons can be primarily found in User talk:NawlinWiki#My reply concerning "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story". To expound that, its references have been added. Also, this article is not a crystal-balling stuff as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media documentation as well as an upcoming feature film. Why does Wikipedia fail to acknowledge its upcoming documentary film about itself? Plus, Nic Hill, who is the director of that Wikidocumentary, has his own userpage here a la User:UDP and he has been trying pretty hard to woo several users to his announcements about his daily workings on this film like for instance from this talk taken from User:Deiz's talk page. Go ahead and prove me wrong if Jimmy Wales does not recognised this Wikipedia feature film when you asked him about it! What is more, some other foreign Wikipedias already has this upcoming film article in their place, these include the French Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia, and even the Indonesian Wikipedia has a special Wikipedian page about it! But regrettably not in this Wikipedia at all albeit it is hugely well-known and no one seems to bother about it. Pole Heinz Tower 08:57, 13 July 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. |
Addresses all reasons for previous deletion. Over 10 published citations are now used. Animesouth 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment At the very least, this should not have been a Speedy Deletion. 15 new citations created an article which allows it to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since the article the article's deletion prevents it from being reviewed, the citations are listed below:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
- I'm concerned the veracity of this article's existance is being at least partly clouded by past interpersonal issues between users shown in various comments left, and would request more parties look at the picture in here. I see lots of badfaith presumptions executing here when I lurk around other articles' history sections and edit summaries, both by Animesouth(which I've openly criticised the behavior myself) and many other users as well. This seems like it's still leftover remnants from wether or not Anime_South was to be included in the List of anime conventions. -This deletion seems peculiar in the face of some other anime conventions that still have articles and are strikingly similar. Some other users, such as Monocrat voiced similar concerns during the FIRST deletion back in January. Since then, similarly written articles for anime conventions continue to exist. -If there's COI in the edits made by Animesouth, fine, revert them if so necessary. But I don't see a COI in the article's original creation. And (with respect to other anime convention articles) comparatively speaking, I see no notability problems with the last iteration of the article. The only thing I saw that should be removed is some things edited by Animesouth which are just too far into original research, and weak citations like blogs. Lets actually get into specifics. Below I shall state what I think needs to go as of last entry before deletion:
-Also, all remaining references being used as citations that are being hosted by Anime_South itself on their domain lack any kind of link on their own webpage which hampers the veracity of using them as citations. There isn't any information or linking in the NEWS section that discusses these on their webpage, or an IN THE PRESS section, which leads one to think those citations are only being hosted for Wikipedia's benefit. That narrows the scope of the cites usability significantly. -Let me reiterate, I see no reason this article should be deleted especially considering the establishment of OTHER anime convention articles which have not or never been nominated for deletion in line with the reasons listed on Anime_South's first deletion. But I have no problem recognising that Animesouth's edits and contributions should be held with the highest of scrutiny to WP:COI. RCHM 23:15, 14 July 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 only assisting the creation of this deletion review per request on my talk page. Hence, I have no opinion regarding the article in question. The editor who challenges the deletion, Loriendark, said this regarding the deletion:
This page was deleted by NawlinWiki with this rationale:
As stated before, I abstain from commenting on the merits of this case. Kurykh 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Foomartini 07:59, 14 July 2007
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
12 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unknown to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittym ( 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. |
As editor of the current page I assert that it is not a repost of deleted material. It perhaps has a common subject. But the current article contains none of the original articles material as was used as criteria to delete the original page. Incidentally I agree with the action to delete the original page, it was very short on factual content or verifiable citation. I respectfully request that the page be restored. Yogidude 13:13, 12 July 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 deleted due to "BLP concerns"; when asked, deleting admin cited "exceptional circumstances" warranting its deletion that apparently can't be disclosed. As the editor who created the article, I recall no contentious or libelous information on the article, and without any idea of what was originally wrong with the article, I cannot recreate it to conform to whichever policy it ostensibly violated. I thus move for undeletion and clarification on what is wrong with the article so I can fix it. ryan d 11:41, 12 July 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. |
not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. article is neutal and factual. it discusses a web based business in a factual manner but is not promotional as such - such articles are allowed by the guidelines 87.112.22.106 09:30, 12 July 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. |
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence Should be relisted for the following reasons: (1) User Rfwoolf was compiling evidence for possible RfC. (2) User who submitted for deletion was the subject of said RfC. (3) Debate was closed less than a day after it started. (4) The debate was 6-4 to keep (all from registered users) when it was abruptly closed.
Proposed Compromise The more I think about it, the more stupid this discussion seems to me. I'm not calling any single editor one of us, just all of us collectively are going about this stupidly because of the yes/no nature of the discussion. The current "vote" tally seems to be 9 endorse, 8 overturn which shows that there are strong sentiment on both sides of this question. A point that has popped up a couple of times in this discussion has been "Should be an RFC, not in userspace". How about we just offer to Rfwoolf to restore his text if and only if he intends to turn it into an RFC in short order (i.e. within 3 days or a week?). If an RFC is not created within that period of time, the page will be redeleted as a speedy using the original MfD and this discussion as justification. The man has a right to issue an RFC. I think the consensus is clear that, absent an RFC, the page should not exist in userspace. (I disagree with that consensus but I'm more interested in compromise than in insisting on my personal POV). -- Richard 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. I'm not particularly interested in reading an article about "anal stretching" myself, but I'm also not happy about admins misusing CSD, either. CSD is supposed to be for clearcut, noncontroversial deletions. Yet Radiant, with full knowledge that a debate had begun in which several people had already rejected the proposition that the page was an attack page, went ahead and speedied it. I also agree that it was not an "attack page" as defined by G10. An attack page is not any page that happens to be critical of someone, but one that is virulent. "That admin is an arsehole with a tiny mind who should shut the fuck up" would be an example of a G10 attack page. Laying out one's case in a reasonably civil matter is not, because then fair-minded people can differ about whether it is constructive criticism, free discourse, or an attack. I myself think it's perfectly fine to tell your side of the story about a dispute on a userpage, as long as you remain civil about it. CBM commented above that evidence pages are routinely deleted under G10. On the other hand, many aren't. My take is that evidence pages that are rants are not protected from G10. But just as you don't get a free pass by calling an attack page an "evidence" page, evidence pages are not automatically attack pages that can legitimately be speedy deleted. I'm also not swayed by the argument that this is a pseudo-RFC that shouldn't be kept around indefinitely, and Rwoolf should put up or shut up. First off, I don't have a problem with him telling his side of the story, whether it's in the form of an evidence page or not, as long as he does so civilly. And even if this case does not become an RFC, he may want to piggyback his case onto someone else's RFC. Let's be real here, it's only a matter of time before an RFC about an admin as controversial as Guy gets certified. A vocal faction of the community believes that Guy does the Lord's work, putting troublemakers in their place. Many others feel that he is an abrasive, rougish admin. If Rwoolf were to put this up on RFC and fail to get it certified, it would not be due to a lack of dissent, but because dissenters are waiting for a more appealing issue than "anal stretching" to make their stand. In closing, let me say that neither party has covered themselves in glory in this affair. Rwoolf has been dogged in his push to get his article, and it's not clear that he would be willing to accept an ultimate verdict from the community that this topic is unsuitable. On the other hand, I think some of Guy's actions have not helped. First, in the original AFD there was enough support for the article to at least raise the possibility that a better referenced, better written entry might pass, which raises the question whether the topic should be indefinitely salted. Also, some of the participants argued that the relevant information is already in "butt plug," so why isn't there at least a protected redirect? It also appears that Guy deleted Rwoolf's draft version for being in the wrong namespace; why not just move it into his userspace? Also, while the evidence page reflects one side of the story - which Rwoolf actually noted in his introduction - Guy has apparently not even considered taking up Rwoolf's offer to let him respond on the page. Also, while I understand being uncomfortable with having a page of criticism hanging around, Guy's reaction has been counterproductive. If Guy had kept his cool, this subpage would still be languishing in obscurity, and anyone who stumbled across it probably would have laughed it off as the griping of a tendentious editor with a strange obsession about anal stretching. Instead, by lashing out with profanities, he has disturbed editors concerned about incivility, and in pushing to get it deleted, he has attracted far more attention to it than Rwoolf's own efforts. -- Groggy Dice T | C 17:30, 16 July 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. |
Published Secondary Sources. Two articles in (printed) college newspapers discussing the term directly. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/02/03/Columns/Andrew.Stein.06.If.Being.Awkward.Is.Cool.Im.Miles.Davis-1598494.shtml and more recently, http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/04/27/Opinion/Break.Out.Of.Your.Shell-2885641.shtml These are secondary sources about the term, not merely articles using the term. This is not analysis or synthesis of primary material on my part. They satisfy both the neologism and notability guidelines. The coverage is:
The February deletion review presented ample further evidence (in addition to the sufficient evidence above) of notability "in another manner" (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability#fn_6). The wiki article should be composed of information from secondary sources (i.e., the two college newspaper articles) and include more than the mere definition, but also a description of where it is commonly found (the articles mention college campuses around the country), and its notoriety (as also described in both articles). - Anonymous 12 July 2007
|
| 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. |
legitimate signed licensed band StacieVan 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
11 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Not a prroper application of speedy deletion criteria. As I pointed out at User_talk:CBM#Your_deletion_of_Joy_basu, the criteria cited (A7) explicitly states that it is not to be applied to articles where there is controversy about whether notability has been asserted or which have been put through AfD and kept. Both of these exmptions applied to this article. Concerns about referencing are to be handled at AfD, not by speedy deletion (this article did cite reputable sources to establish notability). I request a overturn as deletion was against established policy regarding speedy deletion. Loom91 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Fifth, the article had withstood a previous AfD. Seeing this in the edit history should have given anyone pause about using a speedy. And it violates clear policy: from WP:DP, "In practice this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in 'keep' or 'no consensus' should not be speedily deleted." In view of all this, I urge the admin to simply correct his own mistake. DGG ( talk) 17:51, 12 July 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. |
Was placed in a second nomination for AfD one day after the first AFD was closed as no consensus. First AFD is here, second is here. I have no opinion, so I am abstaining from any discussion. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 11 July 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. |
No consensus for deletion. Opinion was evenly divided between Evolution/Creationism regulars (who were all for keeping) and CFD regulars (who were all for deletion). On a request for reconsideration, the closing Admin refused, claiming that the "delete" side had the stronger arguments, but the "keep" side dispute this claim, the basis for which is insufficiently clear-cut to count as anything more than the closing Admin's personal opinion.
Hrafn42 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn42 18:01, 11 July 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. |
This is in response to a article that was originally put up for deletion by Kariteh and the subsequent refusal to delete it. I would like to reopen the discussion to either put it up for deletion or at least reflect errors I beleive are prevalent in the article discussed here and related articles connected with it. I'll start with a quote from the deletion discussion on June 27, 2007. reliable sources for this being considered a series by fans include the following three professional reviews: [17] And here is my response. This site is by no means staffed by professionals (with the excpetion of Kurt) almost all the "reviews/overviews" are written by dedicated fans, I should know as I wrote for him and the site. As I've pointed out in the discussion pages on both Gaia series and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games there is no official proof regarding these loose connections as a "trilogy or series" of games that are loosely related only by thematic element alone. If deletion isn't warranted, by the very least commenting that the HG101 article was "Fan Written" and expresses the limited research and opinions of the article writer has to be considered and subsequently shown in the related articles, otherwise it would be akin to saying this is cold, hard, indisputable proof that this associated link is undeniable proof, and as I was slated to originally write that article I would never make that assumption based on the relative lack of facts pointing to any connections with those games, there is no such thing as the "Soul Blazer Trilogy", or even the "Soul Blazer Saga" / "Gaia Series" at the very least changes need to be made to reflect this point in the related articles, instead as Kariteh pointed out, all the information presented as Fact, is indeed assumption based on erroneous information gathered off the internet at other incorrect fansites. I can say these "facts" are not checked throughouly on the articles on HG101, but only to the best of their ability by the volunteer staff who offer their time to write these articles out of the love for the games alone and nothing more. A quick check of the message boards of the site will proove my point to its fullest. Anyway due what you will, but I truly ask that if nothing more the articles are edited and cleaned up to show what is fact and not mere speculation and fan assumption. Last note, even though some games have "code names" given to them within development, doesn't mean they are specifically part of a certain series (this is in reference to the above statement about Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma being known internally as Soul Blazer 2/3 respectively) and as such some older video game magazines such as Electronic Gaming Monthly were not known for their veracious fact checking in the early days and were known to call a game by a incorrect name, which someone has mistakenly called it for many years since and created such errors like these two mentioned here. And in that spirit I would hope that something is done to correct these errors, so the Wikipedia pages are correct or at least point out that these are not undisputed facts only what is (erronoeously) believed to be the long held "truth" regarding these games, but which is in fact the same recycled misinformation over and over again, which people are led to beleive is the 100% truth, due to years of fallacy and error. Thanks. BLang30 14:46, 11 July 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 original article, Fran Merida, was created and deleted several times, using the rationale CSD G4. That section states: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via a deletion discussion or deletion review, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted". Now when you compare the article that I created with the previous ones, there is a big difference - for example, the revision that was ultimately deleted in AFD consisted of an infobox and the following sentence: "Francisco Merida Perez (born March 4 1990) is a footballer, currently playing for Arsenal." The version I created, on the other hand, had reliable sources (including Sky Sports, an independent, reliable source) and also I feel that I asserted notability - but in any case it was significantly different from the version that was shot down in AFD, in my opinion. I think that if the article is relisted on AFD, I can provide sufficient arguments that the player is notable, but in any case it should not have been speedied. ugen64 08:58, 11 July 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 don't like putting up deletion reviews, but sometimes "no consensus" closes need more of a justification. There is a majority consensus for delete even if you were just to count !votes. But, alone, the discussions for delete rely on more tangible reasons (or interpretation of said) and, hence, show a stronger consensus for removal of the list even if they weren't a numeric majority. There were two legitimate "weak keeps", but the other "keep" !votes consisted of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and "why delete it?" This list should have been deleted, and put with all its predecessors in the list of songs graveyard. Bulldog123 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
10 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Real organization, here are sources Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) The page for the Free People's Movement was deleted apparently (after little discussion) for a lack of independent sources and because the website seemed to be down. The organization is very real, and in the interest of getting the page back up I'll list the following proofs: 1. A New York indymedia article documenting a recent action by the Free People's Movement, including pictures, is available here: http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/88126.html A video of that same event is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ3GjcKi2wQ#GU5U2spHI_4 And the FPM itself has an article on its website explaining the action and including lots of pictures here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?318 (There are clearly multiple people there, so the previous absurd claim about "one guy living in his mom's basement" is proven false). 2. A Pittsburgh indymedia article documenting another recent action by the Free People's Movement, again including pictures, is available here: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/27365.php Another event: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/calendar/event_display_detail.php?event_id=1505 3. A .pdf of a publication from the U.S.-based Communist League which includes a long article (for the most part attacking the organization) is available here: http://www.comleague.org/cli/pdf/wr/wr2007q1.pdf 4. The website of one of the Branches of the FPM, with an active blog, videos and pictures proving its existance: http://www.fpm-mgl.org/ct/ 5. There was mention of a Revolutionary Youth website being a hoax; but the person who said it had the website wrong. It is not http://www.ry-jr.org but rather http://www.ry-jr.info 6. Myspace group for a Branch of the organization in Boston with 69 members: http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=103456259&MyToken=7a4a5471-6f6e-4623-89f0-94b737522a19 7. Account of 2006 political attacks on the FPM and its members, included the arrest of one of its members (Francisco Acevedo) which was covered by every mainstream and alternative newspaper in Hartford Connecticut several times (google search "Franscisco Acevedo") is available here: http://rebeldeporlapaz.gnn.tv/blogs/17391/Defend_the_Free_People_s_Movement_and_its_members 8. Documented proof of someone who went through the process of joining the FPM on one of the biggest political forums on the internet: http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54442.html 9. Entry on the FPM in the Government and politics research guide: http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774503101/ 10. Yet another page documented a protest carried out by the FPM: http://www.freethefive.org/posadaprotest.htm 11. Blog entry by someone who says "I am not a supporter of the Free People's Movement" on the FPM: http://callmeanxious.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/defend-the-free-peoples-movement/ 12. FPM manifesto in an online book store: www.cafepress.com/rebelion.101278812 13. Odd entry on political flag website including the FPM's flag way back in 2005: http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/cu%7D.html#fpm 14. Article written on the Free People's Movement and communism in general: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=602002&sid=79c6daf767ac7cf4369843a8a959b3cf 15. Thread on LibCom discussing the Communist League and Free People's Movement: http://libcom.org/node/8825 16. Page on political parties listing the FPM as an "international organization": http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/parties.htm#F 17. Discussion on the Free People's Movement and their response to Hurricane Katrina: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t49980.html 18. List of political parties containing the FPM: http://www.dhs.wash.k12.ut.us/~gwhicker/index_files/American%20Government/Ch%205%20Sec%201.pdf 19. This contact page http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 shows the Solomon Islands mailing address of being "care of Charles Ravinago", this article says Ravinago is a leader in the Solomon Islands' branch: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?290 , and there's an article about FPM members in the SOlomon Islands running for election here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?219 , on this page: http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/s/solomons/solomons2006.txt you can see results of the election, with Charles Ravinago getting 1.1% of the votes. 20. Again, the http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 contact page shows several concrete mailing addresses in different countries around the world, and a concrete office in Pittsburgh with a phone number. 21. Finally, there are tons of pictures of the FPM website showing its multiple members in several different activities.. instead of finding links for all of them, I urge you to browse the website http://www.fpm-mgl.org or check out their myspace page http://www.myspace.com/freepeoplesmovement which has a number of pictures of different events, with captions explaining them, and giving times and dates. In conclusion, this is obviously a real organization, and it's notable for a number of reasons, from arrests of its members, to actions its carried out, to standing in elections in the Solomon Islands, etc. etc. And finally, in the way of anecdotal evidence, I know this organization is real because I've worked with it before, and plan to again. Please bring the page back. Action was taken too quickly, and it shouldn't have been deleted. Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't let your ideology get in the way of common sense. Redflagflying 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(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 last DRV of this article was speedily closed without allowing any discussion beforehand. I feel this article hasn't had a decent DRV yet. All the previous ones have either been plagued with trolls (some even changed other user's comments), or sock puppets and were in general basic non-discussion votes. As per the subject, myg0t, I feel it has obtained more than adequate notability (particularly related to the HL2 source leak) and is now definately verifiable. See the previous DRV for a list of magazines this group has been featured in (note, the small discussion in the previous DRV was made after it was closed and was later moved into the archive). Since the article has been deleted for some time, there is no cache of what it used to be. I've taken the liberty of creating my own proposed version of it User:Android Mouse/myg0t which has every sentence and detail cited. I'd like to ask everyone to disregard the previous DRVs because of their faults I've outlined above. Don't let personal opinions get in the way. Your and my own opinions of this group are irrelevant to this discussion. Android Mouse 18:19, 10 July 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 are lists of people from Michigan, so there should be a list of Diabetics, with listed sources, of course. Antonio Diaper Boy Martin 07:43, 10 July 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. |
This is his bio at OWW, the go to site for wrestlers bios. If read you will see that he has faced other wrestlers who have Wiki entrys. How, logically can the wrestlers he faces have entries yet he is denied? If he was jsut a run of the mill indy wrestler I would say sure delete but it was brought to my attention that he is indeed a Heavyweight Champion and has faced other wrestlers such as Colt Cabana, that the average person would not know, and is notable for such. In conclusion, he is a wrestler of note but one USER who pushed for his deletion (repeatedly breaking rules to do so) was found to be biased against American Indy Wrestlers having left this statement "I've messaged two admins, the closing admin last time and and admin who works with the WP:PW and so can bitch slap any indy fans. Darrenhusted 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wildthing61476"" His influence should not be allowed in any discussion if it is found that the article should be undeleted or put back up for deletion since he is biased. And for him to drag the Admin who works with him on the Wrestling Wiki is a slap in the face to all Users because it is abuse of his position in my opinion. --EdWood 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
Now I shall return to doing my edits on Doo Wop groups. --EdWood 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
9 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Another "notability" issue. I wrote the article, cited sources, and the film even has an IMDB entry. If anything, I'd like the article's history restored to see that I wasn't just trying to advertise the film. VoltronForce 22:46, 9 July 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. |
|
This article got deleted for non-notability. However, the following independent reliable sources establish its notability:
Number 3 and 4 were considered in the deletion discussion, but apperently weren't enough to convince people of Toki Pona's reliability (maybe because they're not in English). Number 2 already existed at the time of the deletion discussion, but apperently wasn't known to anyone involved in the discussion, and hence wasn't considered. Number 1 only got published today. The fact that Toki Pona has been mentioned in at least five independent reliable sources, of which two (number 1 and 2) cover it in much detail, should suffice for establishing its notability. Marcoscramer 16:14, 9 July 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. |
Frontman of Bay Area rap group The Team. Signed to a major label ( Black Wall Street Records/ Capitol Records), the only member of the group to have a major deal. He is more notable than the other three members Mayne Mannish, Kaz Kyzah, and Jungle, yet their pages simply redirect to the group's, while his article is deleted and protected. Unprotect, because I believe I can make a page with more affirmation of notability. Also, the page for his upcoming debut album, Theater Music, is still standing. Tom Danson 14:22, 9 July 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. |
Unprotect. Original Deletion appears to have focussed on his Personal Development blog and not factored in his background as creator of a multi-award winning game and role as President of the Association of Shareware Professionals. I have entered proposed text into the Talk page. Irrevenant [ talk ] 11:36, 9 July 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. |
New information/reasons available to undelete Timway (reasons that have not been mentioned)
Algorithms8 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
8 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Numerous Itemized Notability and Verifiability links provided. More can be added UserChitra (I'm raising this DR on behalf of UserChitra who has not been able to follow the DR instructions. I am not a party to this matter and nothing should be infered by my conduct) Mike33 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not wish to create any article. All I requested in the first place was to have the summary page restored so that future users could create pages. UserChitra 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
7 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nominator is incorrect to delete it for the reason of non-notable as the article is within WP:BIO under the criteria of Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis as D1 Grand Prix is one of the two highest professional level drifting series in the world with a huge worldwide fan following and Fukuda was in 2004 as a top 10 finisher and has appeared at exhibition and pointscoring events in both the US and UK. Willirennen 23:26, 7 July 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 article, if it recieves more attention from the WikiCommunity, can become reliable. Defender 911 22:08, 7 July 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. |
Undelete - the image had a fair use rationale that was accepted for months until Picaroon9288 took it upon him/herself to remove it and then delete the image. Ridiculously out of process. If there's a problem with the fair use rationale then the admin should address it through channels instead of a series of unilateral and borderline underhanded actions. Otto4711 17:41, 7 July 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 under CSD T1, which specifiesd that the template be "divisive" and "Inflamatory". I fail to see what is divisive about "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone" Overturn DES (talk) 16:34, 7 July 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. |
Consensus to keep the article on this wrestler was ignored. 5 keep votes to 4 deletes. While the closing admin used long and convoluted arguments to ignore the keeps, the same admin didn't apply the same standards to the delete votes that were WP:JUSTAPOLICY. -- Oakshade 16:01, 7 July 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. |
This page shouldn't have been deleted. It's obscure, not a hoax article or nonsense, and it's not unencyclopedic. No reason to delete this article, especially considering its notability too. Skycrest502 12:03, 7 July 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. |
Why was this deleted? David Cate is an employee of Kingsport Times-News Idav 09:34, 7 July 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. |
AFD closed less than 24 hours on a weak consensus because the article itself was only 2 days old. Overcoming the irony here, allowing the AfD to continue while others work on the article is not at cross purposes. Suggest relist and allow to run its course. InkSplotch 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Page move: Re-titled article as 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion which is the common naming convention (not "official") for other runway incursion articles (see 1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion or 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion). Hope this isn't a problem, thanks. Lipsticked Pig 06:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
6 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was non-bias and described the service very well and was in my opinion a non-criteria for a speedy deletion. Ke5crz 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While this DRV discussion was ongoing, the article was recreated. I have listed it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pownce. Corvus cornix 20:03, 8 July 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. |
This page was deleted several times because the content was spam (see here). However, a user recently created the article Benjamin 'Ben' Stewart about a television character, and I wasn't able to move it to this title, which I think would be a better page name for it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:58, July 6, 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. |
Orphaned talk page not actually orphaned... or maybe it was before, but it no longer is. Please undelete the talk page; it will be mighty useful in improving article content. Thanks! 65.112.197.16 18:52, 6 July 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. |
Speedied in the middle of a deletion discussion for CSD:A7, but movies are not currently included under A7. Request restoration pending a full AFD. Stifle ( talk) 18:17, 6 July 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. |
|
Page was deleted (by User:Renata3) as non-notable and copyright violation. Creating user claims to be the original author, so copyright issue is negligible but replaced by conflict-of-interest question. ;-) Have requested confirmation of identity from the editor in question (update: confirmed, see below), and am personally prepared to work with him to take care over COI. User recreated page after its (speedy) deletion, appears to have taken due care to present only factual information. "Juce C++" gets about 52,200 results on google, and there is a favourable review by The Register (that's a well-known UK technology site, for you lot on the wrong side of the Atlantic ;-P). In my opinion, this makes for significant independent coverage.
NB: As discussed on WP:COI, a COI is not grounds for deletion in itself. tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
5 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The debate doesnt appear to be a consensus at the time of close. The closing rationale is that the article has no encyclopedic content however the article already had one sourced element of notability added during the Afd (google's cache doesnt include this addition) and I had provided evidence that there were more sources which could be used. John Vandenberg 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
So WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV all trump consensus and consensus trumps other Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:Notability. Butseriouslyfolks makes the point that the article had unverified information in it, and that the closing decision should be upheld because the violation of WP:V justifies it. He's convinced me that his position is correct unless the WP:V violation can be fixed. Under Deletion Review rules, if new information comes forward justifying the article, that can be grounds for overturning the original deletion. That is now the case. I've researched and found citations to meet the WP:V objection. See User:Noroton/GoetzVerified This version at my user space has footnotes for everything. I've deleted information that I could not verify. Therefore there is no longer a WP:V violation. The article may not meet notability standards, but the consensus of the AfD was to ignore that in this case. The closing administrator should completely discount all arguments in this discussion based on Notability violations because notability rules can't trump a consensus to keep. The closing administrator should completely discount arguments in this discussion based on lack of verifiability because I've now shown verifiability. As soon as the article is restored, I will add the footnotes establishing verifiability. If the closing administreator upholds the original closure, I will re-establish a new article on the same subject that meets WP:V. Noroton 16:36, 10 July 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. |
|
This page has been deleted for 2 years now, its an active movement, its been deleted for false reasons every time. I just created the page, put a hangon notice, and it was deleted AGAIN. Check out the last argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW All the discussion was removed also, to cover up why it was removed. This is censorship to stop mens rights, there is no other reason to contest it other than you disagree with it. - IronWolve 21:14, 5 July 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. |
Tragic loss, article should have been merged, not deleted Reynolds45 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
4 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a legitimate publishing company that is notable because it is known for taking in smaller publishers and bringing their books to a wide audience. They are also notable as the publisher of the 1,000 places to see before you die series. [1] This company has been mentioned in thousands of book reviews, and other articles covering the books they and their imprints publish. It is notable within the publishing industry for entry into use of video to promote it's books. [2] I had barely created the page and was gathering additional information to add when it was speedily deleted apparently by a bot. I would like it restored so that work can continue on it. Rtphokie 19:37, 4 July 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. |
|
Conspicuous by its absence; this is a legitimate visual effects company (see [42]); articles for other visual effects companies exist in Wikipedia. Content was submitted in good faith but might have been seen as POV or advertising (I can't tell as the history is not available). The marketing manager for the company (for which I work) would like the page restored so that it can be edited from its current press release style into a sound, NPOV Wikipedia article. — Paul G 17:04, 4 July 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. |
copyright Jwroland 10:07, 4 July 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. |
Completely inappropriate closure. By "votes" alone, consensus was not established in any way. The vast majority of the deletion support was based on misleading comments by the nom that the template was used to delete articles. Deletion admin also cites WP:CREEP, despite that it is common to have individual cleanup tags such as this (see Category:Notability and importance templates). The template was also being used to date and track articles for a new review process being developed. We date maintenance tags all the time, and we give individual messages regarding specific cleanup tags all the time. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, there was anything but a consensus to delete. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't anything is arguing that tagging unreferenced episode articles as such is a bad idea. The main objections in the old TFD seemed to be over the implication of a deadline and the appearance resembling that of a deletion tag. Thus, I propose, instead of going through all the DRV bureaucracy, we instead make a new template, along the lines of {{ unreferenced}}, to fill the same task but in a different way. This template would clearly be a cleanup template (unlike the very prod-like {{ notability}} or this template), but would allow for the management and cleanup of episode articles. I've started work on this template at User:A Man In Black/epref, and I encourage any help from the participants in this DRV. I haven't bulleted this comment because it's an alternate proposal from undeleting or endorsing. If this sounds good to everyone, we can just say "Let's do AMIB's thing" and forget all about the old template, deleting or merging or restoring or whatever. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If you are joining this discussion after reading about it in a message Matthew placed on numerous series talk pages, please note that some of the text in that message is incorrect. Episode articles are not "at risk with this template" - they are handled under the WP:EPISODE guideline. This template is for notification purposes only, alerting editors to a review process which can proceed regardless of its presence. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Comment: There was significant discussion and debate at the TfD. It seems like the concerns have been addressed and a work around has been established. I think it is time to let this template go and move on with the work of improving the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thus the template should not have been deleted, but suggestions presented for modification. That said suggestions have been made above to modify another template for the purpose, which might provide a compromise. NOTE. The 'purpose' is simply to a) identify articles relating to television which do not meet Wikipedia's own guidelines for inclusion, b) provide links and encouragement to editors to help them improve or merge the articles c) provide a format for review (not deletion) of said articles. We have never proposed deletion, since we believe Wikipedia is enriched by GOOD articles about television, but most shows create GOOD articles by merging episodes together (ie. one good season article rather than two dozen near-empty episode articles or, more commonly, two dozen episode articles which breach copyright by overlong plots and which fail WP:TRIVIA). Gwinva 08:12, 5 July 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. |
After an AfD dicussion in which I closed delete, the author of the page asked if the page could be made better. I improved on it a bit here, and I think this marginally meets guidelines now. Sr 13 07:11, 4 July 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. |
This was closed as keep. However, none of the arguments to keep were really much of an argument at all, just that the existence of users in it means that it should exist, which cannot be the case. Furthermore, two of the keep arguments were refuted, such as by stating that Category:WikiProject Video games members is superior in terms of encyclopedia-building. This left a stronger argument for deletion, so overturn and delete. Core desat 05:48, 4 July 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. |
Complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia standards, policies Jenolen speak it! 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) At Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_26#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg, closing admin argues: The result was delete. I don't think there is any doubt that the image was provided by CBS to the media outlets referenced, however, we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided. It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use. I certainly disagree that the consensus opinion was to delete. I certainly take issue with the idea that CBS provides press kit photos to only a few media outlets, not to all legitimate media outlets. I cannot image a situation which requires me to physically be in possesion of a photograph from a "press kit," which these days, is usually electronic and/or on-line, in order for an image to be useable on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if the uploader "claims" the image comes from a press kit; the image DOES come from press material, and therefore, its deletion on grounds that "it doesn't come from a press kit" is not valid. And if an image comes from another website, so what? We know who the copyright holder OF THE IMAGE is! It doesn't make a difference whether or not it was downloaded from CBS.com, NPR.org, SeattleTimes.com, photos.ap.com, whatever -- that's a delivery method. The image itself, it should be noted, is clearly and unambiguosly the copyrighted property of CBS. Its resolution was reduced, and it was being used in full compliance with all ten points of WP:NFCC. The argument we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided could (and perhaps someday will) be applied to EVERY press-kit style photo. But in fact, we do know that this image was provided to multiple media outlets (links were provided), with no indication anywhere that there is any standard or practice that CBS promtional images are limited to only a few select websites. To buy the argument that this is a promotional image, as the closing admin seems to do, but then to delete it anyway doesn't make any sense. Finally, the argument that this could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to might make some sense, if there was ever any example or indication given that this has ever happened. This is so contrary to the standard practice in the promotional photo world that's it's difficult to understand how anyone could allege this with a straight face. As pointed out in the original deletion discussion, the image was used on NPR.org, which, as far as I know, is a part of the non-profit NPR radio network. The "fear" that this image is somehow exclusive, paid content being used by all of the example sites given in the deletion should be put to rest by its inclusion there. Jenolen speak it! 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
However, if you review the discussion Jenolen speak it! was the only voice in support of keeping the image... Then how come no other editor bothered to put a "DELETE" in front of their comments? There's only a "SPEEDY KEEP" from me...Yes, yes, I know this is not a vote, but NO ONE, other than the original nominator, made a cogent argument for deleting the image, they only replied to my initial evidence as to why it should be kept. Also: A consensus isn't required to delete an image? Just to keep it? If an editor nominates something for deletion, and one other editor thinks it should be kept, isn't this usually considered a "no consensus" situation? Since when does "no consensus" default to "delete"? What happened to actually taking a look at the evidence, and making a rational decision? I think it takes more than just the allegation of misuse -- the image nominator offered NO support to his claim that the image was, somehow, maybe exclusive content. And I offered several pieces of evidence that the image was NOT some kind of heretofore unheard of "paid promotional material". Again, there was zero evidence offered by the nominator -- just a nomination that talks about how this "might" be something we can't use. Well, I'd like to think our standards are a little higher than that. And, I hate to bring this up, but what if the editor is nominating images uploaded by a particular user out of spite? That certainly could be what's happening here. I should point out that I'm no flagrant abuser of our image policy -- every single image I've every uploaded has been completely legal and within policy at the time I uploaded it. Sure, I know policies change, requiring subsequent deletion of previously acceptable material, but c'mon... This is way, way out of whack. Jenolen speak it! 06:05, 4 July 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. |
Page was changed to eliminate bias and simply served to be informative in regards to a new invention but was still deleted. I have nothing to do with the product but feel that it is useful knowledge for anyone, especially amputees. I only wrote it for the public benefit -- including several acquaintences of mine who are interested in the invention. Bronco allan 03:30, 4 July 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 don't understand this. This was speedy closed, having been open for less than a day, by a user who has no indication on his user page that he is an admin with the reason given WP:IAR??. The review states "one of the worst games to come out for the Xbox this year." How is that sufficiently notable to warrant a speedy keep? I think this AfD should run its course. Bridgeplayer 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
3 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Daverotherham
deletion started for leader of one of Jersey's political parties by secretary of Jersey's other political party RichardColgate 00:32, 4 July 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. |
|
Overturn and restore There was no consensus to delete this category. The legitimacy of categories for family categories has long been established, so there was no justification for the closer to override the debate. Sumahoy 22:10, 3 July 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. |
|
Overturn renaming to Category:Americans convicted of murder and restore to the standard name Category:American murderers. There was no consensus for this renaming to a form which is not consistent with the category's 44 siblings of murderer-categories or numerous American siblings. There have been several discussions on the issue of adding the word "convicted" to crime related categories, and the reasons why it is not appropriate have been set out in this debate and others. There was no justification for this arbitary admin override of convention, precedent and debate. Sumahoy 22:04, 3 July 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. |
Evilclown93 thought that my Fiesta Online article was a very short article and speedily deleted it. His reason: "Very short article providing little or no context (A1)." My argument is that I was testing my article out. After I saw that my article came out good, I started to add more content. While I was editing the content, Evilclown93 deleted it. C.Fred thought my article had unverified sources and he deleted my article. Then he said it was empty. His reason: "CSD G1: Patent Nonsense" and "CSD A3: No content". I gave him my sources on his talk page and he still hasn't talked to me yet about whether or not they have been approved yet. My article was empty because he deleted it. I went to his talk page after he deleted my content....though I should've tagged my article. Mike Rosoft thought my article lacked significance. His reason: "No claim of notability - online RPG (WP:CSD#A7)." How does my article lack significance? If it does, tell me how to fix it. There are two other articles that are on wikipedia that show information on online games. They haven't been deleted yet. I don't know how to tag them. Why say that my article is insignificant? Wikipedia is a place where people can read about things. Why not games? Many people love to read about games. FisherQueen said that my article was too short and it lacked reliable sources. Reason: "WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability" and "WP:CSD#A1, a very short article lacking context". Ok, read my arguements on the last 3 admins. All three admins accuse my article of being short and lacking both reliable sources and significance. I've talked to each of them. Two of them still haven't replied back to my recent message. Fisher Queen wants to block me. Why can't I have my article approved? There are two articles that talk about online games, 9Dragons and GunZ the Duel. The source I am using is Outspark located at http://outspark.com. Why is this source unreliable? It's a professional gaming company! Windrider07 21:33, 3 July 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 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. |
|
This image was speedy deleted by an admin, Angr, who apparently was a troublemaker and was kicked out of Wikipedia. I didn't notice until now, because I haven't been logging on lately. I can't find any record of anyone discussing this deletion; for all I know it was Angr's unilateral decision. It was not copyright violation, for reasons explained in the fair use justification. There is no other image of Richard C. Casey available. Hyphen5 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
2 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Restore There was patently nothing close to a semblance of a consensus that this category should be deleted, as there had not been in the previous discussion, or in the one before that. The discussion was moving strongly towards retention, with many answered reasons put forward for retention. The same admin had deleted it before, and his heated closure notice is not objective or a reflection of the clearly expressed will of the community. The category should be restored, though with the name in the correct form, which would be Category:Fictional wealthy characters. The repetition of incorrect closures in this case is quite alarming. Choalbaton 21:34, 2 July 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. |
This article is still linked to in the SMS language entry. While its value may be somewhat dubious, it is the only list I have found with a GFDL license and that in itself is useful. PaigePhault 17:34, 2 July 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 should be discussion before deleting an image on the grounds the rationale needs improvement. Addhoc 16:27, 2 July 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 think there's enough material in this article to at least merit a formal deletion discussion; was speedy deleted by Doc glasgow. Apparently he's been on vacation. Andrew73 12:49, 2 July 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. |
Cliff_Hanley,novelist has been replaced by Cliff_Hanley which is confusing as the novelist is dead and the artist lives. Cliffhanley 10:09, 2 July 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. |
At 13 out of 34 participants opining that the article should be deleted,I do not believe that there was any consensus on deleting this article. The deleting admin is open to do a transwiki of this article, however I do not believe that there is any consensus for that either. As far as the content of the article is concerned, I argue that it is encyclopedic on the basis that Encarta has a similar, more expanded module in their software that compliments their languages article. Thanks. -- Chris S. 07:32, 2 July 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 having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States - N 16:48, 24 June 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 article was originally deleted for NN the article as it was originally reposted still failed this check however I do believe I fixed this issue after Pablothegreat85 flagged the article for that same short-coming Wantmy442 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have re looked at the article and realize now I only pointed out the notability on the talk page which has now been deleted but forgot to reference them in the article given a chance I would fix that. The notability fixes would include reference to the fact that the hosts of the show have been mentioned in many books including but not limited to
I hope this is of some help. Wantmy442 19:44, 2 July 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 page is relevant to those who want to know more about a major entertainer who sold 1 billion records. Imagine if you and I were in a Starbucks and I asked you what your all-time favourite CDs were. Do you think your list would tell me something about you? Of course it would. At an interview, prospective employees often ask what your hobbies and interests are. Why do you think they do that? If you answered I’m a huge Bruce Lee fan and I love boxing, kung fu, and Zen meditation. Do you think that would say something about who you are? Same with a list of books Elvis Presley liked. Elvis has an enormous fan base (probably not many Wikipedia moderators) and people want to know more about him, what made him tick, what made him so charismatic. This list of books tells so much about Elvis that I’m staggered that it is not considered to be good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I’m flummoxed, stumped puzzled and mystified. If the religious right is behind Wikipedia’s refusal to post “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” then please forgive me for my impertinence. Bruce7777777 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
1 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The June 22 proposed deletion of this user box was rejected (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN). I am not challenging the keep decision. I am challenging the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway. There was no consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox, for instance {{userbox|logo=[[Image:NoUNsmall.png|40px]]|info=This user wants the [[United Nations]] to be '''dissolved'''}}". Pursuant to the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway, s/he edited the userbox and User:Dmcdevit then ran a robot that replaced the transclusion of the userbox on all of the user pages which displayed it with userbox code. Among other things, this action partially and selectively depopulated Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. I have asked both Tony Sidaway and Dmcdevit to reverse their actions as being inconsistent with the consensus of the June 22 original deletion discussion and they have refused. -- DieWeisseRose 22:40, 1 July 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. |
|
Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif Deleted for not having a fair use rationale. I'll write it. Kotepho 20:28, 1 July 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. |
This article was deleted on a second nomination with virtually no participation and essentially dismissing the arguments of the first debate. The second nominator, User:Chealer, seemed to think that the primary point in the original debate was whether the distribution had users, whereas in fact the debate centered on its notability as an example of secure computing. The consensus (see in particular the comments of User:Jamyskis and User:Phr) was that in fact this was indeed notable. Chealer, however, ignored this argument entirely, minimized the significance of the article's "historical value", made an ambiguous statement about Google hits, and asserted precisely the argument which I, the original nominator, had advanced in the first deletion debate (namely, that this Linux distribution is dead and therefore not notable) and which was refuted. The second debate itself attracted only two other participants, who disagreed, and the one ( User:Goldenglove) who voted for deletion gave the two invalid reasons that the article was poorly linked-to, and was "not so great". I think this was an improper conclusion of consensus given the relatively active debate in the first nomination, and that the article should be undeleted. Ryan Reich 18:06, 1 July 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. |
|
Reliable source 1 Reliable source 2 This should redirect to Greg Parker. He is not notable because of his talent, smarts, business success, inventions, or even smashing good looks, and has enemies and rivals out to get him. He is notable because of his ability to make himself notable. He is all media. And reporting on him means reporting what the media reports about him. In the iPhone coverage, the epithet "iLoser" became of rather common use to refer to him, and since reliable sources - both of which I provide do not push bias or POV - identify and report as the epithet being used to refer to him, its all kosher like Nathan's frankfurter. Cerejota 17:39, 1 July 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. |
It was flagged as a copyright violation probably because the single line description of the company comes from their website, and the bot compares the first line of the article with the first line of the webpage listed as the source. The line was referenced as coming from the webpage, and the entire article was just three sentences. The entire article reads as follows: "[Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation]. [1] [The company began as a spinoff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Marc Raibert developed robots that ambulate like animals]. [Boston Dynamics was incorporated in 1992.]" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:39, 1 July 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 not very satisfied with the discussion. 3 people say "listcruft", 2 people say "useful", all of which are apparently invalid reasons. Some people wanted it to be merged back into Pentax K mount, but the closing admin says that article is too long already. End result: deletion with misgivings. Could we possibly relist and have a slightly more in depth discussion about what to do with it? The notion of dismissing any argument of "usefulness" is just dumb. Let's find a real reason to either delete or keep it. Stevage 13:52, 1 July 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 article was deleted for being a neologism, even though this accusation wasn't properly explained. I quote: "The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately." Actually there were no arguments for WP:NEO - it was stated, but not argued (check the log). This administrator was wrong to rule in favour of delete when there was certainly not consensus, and the delete side didn't come up with any arguments as to why it was in breach of WP:NEO. Even if you agree with that administrator's actions in the former case, I have some new sources that weren't made available in that deletion debate. Consider the below... how could something that's been talked about for over 30 years and has books, plays, tshirts and numerous articles about it be considered a neologism?
|
| 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. |
Highly notable magazine. It's the oldest continously published anarchist magazine (since 1898) and the second oldest in the world. Have ha several notable people writing for it like Gustav Hedenvind-Eriksson, Hinke Bergegren, Ivan Oljelund, Moa Martinson (as Helga Johansson), Harry Martinson, C.J. Björklund, Carl-Emil Englund, Erik Asklund, Eyvind Johnson, Jan Fridegård, Ivar Lo Johansson, Artur Lundkvist, Vilhelm Moberg, Albert Jensen, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Nils Ferlin, Helmer Grundström and Eva X Moberg Liftarn 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
-
^ ROUGHOL, ISABELLE (2007-06-22).
"Santa Cruz named one of the 1000 places to see before you die". Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-07-04.
{{ cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=( help) -
^ DEUTSCH, CLAUDIA (2006-08-03).
"Publishers Try to Sell Words With Moving Pictures". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-04.
{{ cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=( help)
15 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted as no sources although it listed 3. Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 22:11, 15 July 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. |
This article was nominated for its 4th AFD on 7/4, but the 3rd AFD was accidentally put on the AFD day log. This was not corrected. The error was finally realized and relisted, but Ryulong closed it within 20 minutes, then refused to re-open it. Consensus is totally unclear because this was not properly listed. It's true that the AFD was "open" for 11 days, but only people who had the article watchlisted or otherwise visited the article would see the AFD, this leads to a very skewed consensus that is not useful in saying consensus was to delete an article. Without proper listing, it would be easy to manipulate the system to generate "consensus" deletes or even keeps for articles by controlling who's likely to know about them, and those consensus are not very meaningful. The community needs to be notified that an article is actually on AFD, and have a few days to respond, if the AFD is to be fully valid. This needs to be relisted properly so we can see what consensus actually is, but Ryulong refuses. This is not "process for the sake of process" - I have no idea what consensus would have been after 5 days of AFD. We shouldn't delete articles on such shaky ground. W.marsh 19:52, 15 July 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. |
This article existed since 2005, but was deleted with the reason "Speedy deleted per (CSD a7), was an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject.. using TW)". Isn't having 380,000 members an assertion of notability? Aren't bestseller books ( Body Clutter, " Sink Reflections") an assertion of notability? The article also contained external links to The FLY Show on World Talk Radio (but the link was dead), and an article on FlyLady by the author Karen Kohlhaas. Aren't these assertion of notability? How else do you "assert" notability of such a group? FlyLady has been given non-trivial coverage by almost every single notable newspaper in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.google.co.in/archivesearch?q=flylady The article had been tagged with speedy deletion earlier as well, but the tag was removed by an administrator saying that it does not qualify as speedy (I can't remember the name of the administrator, because the article has been deleted and history is not available). Then why was it deleted this time? If there are no references in the article, shouldn't it be tagged with {{ unreferenced}} instead of being speedy-deleted? Thank you for your consideration. 202.54.176.11 09:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
14 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It's a notable subject and, as such, it should have an article here. It is not an attack page at all! A.Z. 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most voters don't think it is an attack page. A.Z. 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I hope the AfD's closer will admit that he did not explain his close perfectly: saying that one ignored a certain argument as soon as it was seen is not the best way to elaborate one's position. Technically, however, I think there is no doubt that the closer was within his discretion to ignore "IAR" keeps once it was clear that the IAR invocation was without the necessary wide support it would demand in order to be upheld as valid. In any case, in light of nominator's willingness to compromise, here is a result that reflects the consensus below. The deletion is endorsed as correct. The redirect now in place is clearly proper. A history undeletion will allow any attempts to merge relevant material back to the main article; if the "plot section" is still unduly large thereafter, a recreation/un-merge (with sources attesting to the importance and innovative nature of the work's plot) would be reasonable. If such a recreation were then AfD'ed, the article's advocates would better understand the need to cite policy and sources in making their case, as it is clear that an IAR argument against WP:NOT would only fail here. There will probably be another AfD on this question in a while (which satisfied those who requested overturning here), but I hope this DRV closure will result in substantial improvements to the "Plot of..." text before that time, and that all parties will leave IAR and meta-analytic concerns aside, and focus on the value of the article then at hand. As this DRV involves many folks who obviously care a great deal about wiki-policy issues, I will be happy to discuss this closure at greater length upon request. – Xoloz 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This closing ran roughshod over Wikipedia policies and practices in a way that disenfranchised Wikipedia editors who were engaged in a serious discussion over whether to keep this article. The discussion was lengthy, lively and focused on principles, policy and facts, with a lot of back-and-forth discussion from many editors who took the time to seriously consider the matter. By my count, a total of 38 editors took a position on whether the article should be kept or deleted. A majority, but not a big majority, was in favor of deletion or merger — 21 editors (including one who had conditions for keeping that weren't met by changes in the article). A total of 17 editors were in favor of keeping the article, including one editor who changed a delete vote to a keep vote. The delete position was favored by 55 percent, which is not a very large majority (a change of two votes from delete to keep would have eliminated the majority). In order to assert that there was a consensus, not just a majority, to close, it seems to me that the closing admin would need to drastically assign less weight to an enormous number of the "keep" arguments. Much of the discussion centered on my argument that Wikipedia editors have wide latitude to ignore certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The policy I recommended ignoring in this case was Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOT#PLOT. The closing administrator, User:Kurykh, decided this argument was so inappropriate that it should be ignored. In his closing statement, the administrator said:
This decision was out of process for these reasons: Although it isn't my main argument, it's worth noting that this statement and decision violated Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, specifically items 1 ["Whether consensus has been achieved"], 2 ["Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants"] and 4 ["When in doubt, don't delete."]. The "?!" was not just insulting, but in no way even respected the judgment of participants. User:Everyking questioned the administrator on his talk page. The closing admin's response on Everyking,'s talk page was at this diff
In other words, a close vote that would otherwise be a no-consensus close was in fact a consensus to delete because numerous arguments against or ignoring Wikipedia policy were simply removed from consideration. The assumption seems to be that only arguments referring to Wikipedia policy could be considered in a deletion discussion. This despite the fact that WP:IAR is, in fact, Wikipedia policy. Again, Kurykh's comment indicates no respect for the judgment of editors he is supposed to use his authority to serve. Wikipedia editors may ignore all rules when they think there is good reason and their authority for doing so is WP:IAR, a policy. This policy should be considered carefully and must be applied carefully, but it must not be ignored or denigrated by closing administrators in considering deletion discussions. One of the limits on WP:IAR that prevents it from creating anarchy on Wikipedia is that the community as a whole prefers having some rules, and so any action taken under WP:IAR can be checked by administrators and, ultimately, by consensus. Deletion discussions are obviously consensus-based forums. The duties of administrators in closing discussions is a combination of fairly and in an unbiased way assessing what the consensus was and ruling with that consensus unless the consensus violates certain Wikipedia policies. Under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus administrators are directed to three policies, and only three, that should automatically negate consensus. (Other policies can require deletion of information or entire articles without even going to the deletion-discussion process at all, so that violation of copyright or libel laws, for instance, can override consensus). The three policies that automatically override consensus are mentioned here:
If consensus was not allowed to override any policy, then there would be no reason to point out only these three, or at the very least, the the passage would be worded differently because a no-override policy could be stated in a much simpler way. WP:NOT was not one of the policies that can't be overridden by a consensus (or, a lack of consensus, because that reverts to "keep"). The administrator's comments, both in closing the discussion and in commenting on it at Everyking's talk page display bias — taking sides in the discussion rather than fairly assessing in a disinterested way what the consensus was. As the "Rough consensus" section states:
According to the "Rough consensus" section, disregarding comments seems to be generally limited to bad faith comments, mistaken coments and comments that refer to aspects of the article that have been substantially changed by the time the discussion is closed. I wouldn't criticize a closing administrator for disregarding arguments or comments made in ignorance of Wikipedia policies. When Kurykh said on Everyking's talk page, "In my analysis of the article, I disregarded Noroton's "IAR keep" argument almost instantly, and hence also dismissed the "per Noroton" arguments with it." he showed how he overstepped the bounds of a closing administrator. If we are to have WP:IAR in Wikipedia at all, then we must be able to use it in deletion discussions, which rely on consensus. I wouldn't argue that IAR should overrule those Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia specifically states overrule consensus. But if consensus CAN overrule other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then an explicit reference to WP:IAR is valid and, it seems to me, can be used to further bolster an argument to ignore those other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In disregarding appeals to WP:IAR, Kurykh negated Wikipedian's ability to use that rule at all. There may be an argument to be made that there was something wrong about using WP:IAR in deletion discussions or in this particular way in this discussion, but I haven't heard it. Oddly, while Kurykh was disregarding appeals to WP:IAR he was simultaneously using not another policy, not even a guideline, but Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an ESSAY with NO official Wikipedia standing as his justification for disregarding the arguments of a large number of the editors seriously involved in that discussion. Kurykh, in his closing comment stated: "Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA." The use of the question mark and exclamation marks beside "WP:IAR" indicates both a lack of seriousness in considering the discussion (as also shown in his comments to Everyking) and a contempt for the editors who made up a large part of the deletion discussion. If nothing else, other editors should tell Kurykh that as a closing administrator he should avoid disparaging the efforts of serious Wikipedia editors in the discussions he's closing. The deletion should be overruled as out of process because the discussion did not reach consensus, and no-consensus conclusions are automatic keeps. Serious appeals to WP:IAR cannot be summarily ignored by a closing administrator and essays cannot be used to overturn consensus or the right of Wikipedians to appeal to a Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not just important, it is extremely important. A lack of consensus is a decision in itself, and if Wikipedia editors are to be given the respect they deserve, a no-consensus result must be respected just as much as consensus in terms of closing discussions. As Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with consensus tells us:
This is precisely the mistake Kurykh made Noroton 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
13 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This has been deleted by AfD, has had a DRV which clearly indicated the consensus was to endorse deletion, but it got undeleted anyway. The article has three references: one is to the site's website itself and two are just passing mentions of the site. And based on the Wired article, Pownce appears to be in a closed beta (at least as of less than three weeks ago). There is nothing in this article that even implies notability save for the person who started it. Undeletion was improper, it should be deleted again. Corvus cornix 23:55, 13 July 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. |
This is (was) an article about a child, now 3 years old, who developed meningococcal septicaemia aged six months, which led to her having all four limbs amputated, and who was not expected to survive, yet she did. The article was speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow and again by User:Swatjester with the comments " WP:BLP and WP:NOT", by which, I believe, they meant that the publicity from having such an article in our encyclopedia would be painful or harmful to the child, her parents, and other living persons mentioned in the article. However, I believe those two fine administrators were either unaware of or did not have the time to look at (SJ says he doesn't even now), http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/, the public web page maintained and regularly updated by the baby's parents which tells the child's story, with photos and videos, including a television appearance, provides a specific link to search Google for others, maintains a trust raising funds for the child, asks companies to sponsor specific projects, and thanks contributors, so apparently the trust is successful. In short, it seems that the parents believe that additional publicity for the child isn't a bad thing, but a good thing, in fact it helps them provide for the child's non-negligible expenses. They aren't ashamed of their daughter's handicap, as much as they are proud of the child's achievements in overcoming it. I don't think the intent of WP:BLP is for us to think we are wiser than they and protect them from publicity in spite of themselves. For what it's worth, I do believe the child is sufficiently notable to have an article due to multiple independent and continuing news and documentary coverage (see that Google link for example), but that part can be discussed at a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if people like, I am merely addressing the WP:BLP speedy deletion reason here. BTW, this was mentioned in a certain larger arbitration case which got somewhat heated, but I hope can be avoided here, so this discussion not be equally heated. Let's talk about the article, not the editors involved. Could everyone try really hard? AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 13 July 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. |
First, as Kubigula noted in the AFD, additional references were added midway through the AFD and opinions expressed before that should be discounted. After that point, 2 users (Kubigula and me) opined that the amount of source material was sufficient to keep the article, and 1 user (17Drew) opined the opposite. 2 others users (Giggy and SalaSkan) !voted delete without giving any indication that they examined the sources at all. AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and drive-by votes that add nothing to the discussion should be given no weight. I do think this is a borderline case given the lack of depth of the two sources whose subject is this band. However among the users who opined after additional references were added to the article, and who gave an opinion that was based on looking at the sources, it was 2 to 1 to keep. The result of the AFD should have been keep or no consensus. Overturn and restore the revisions that Neil deleted when he closed the AFD. Pan Dan 15:22, 13 July 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. |
This place was deleted as a hoax/nonsense article, when it clearly is absolutely not one. It's a place-name of several merely obscure little villages: one in Northumberland, one in East Riding of Yorkshire, and another in the Scottish Borders. This was deleted wrongly. His Third Grace 3Pd 11:22, 13 July 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. |
A notable text editor. The first afd shows a strong response to keep the article (6 out of 9 vote for keep). The second afd has only 2 votes, which are "weak delete". There is not enough strong reason for deletion. minghong 10:17, 13 July 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. |
A lot of my solid reasons can be primarily found in User talk:NawlinWiki#My reply concerning "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story". To expound that, its references have been added. Also, this article is not a crystal-balling stuff as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media documentation as well as an upcoming feature film. Why does Wikipedia fail to acknowledge its upcoming documentary film about itself? Plus, Nic Hill, who is the director of that Wikidocumentary, has his own userpage here a la User:UDP and he has been trying pretty hard to woo several users to his announcements about his daily workings on this film like for instance from this talk taken from User:Deiz's talk page. Go ahead and prove me wrong if Jimmy Wales does not recognised this Wikipedia feature film when you asked him about it! What is more, some other foreign Wikipedias already has this upcoming film article in their place, these include the French Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia, and even the Indonesian Wikipedia has a special Wikipedian page about it! But regrettably not in this Wikipedia at all albeit it is hugely well-known and no one seems to bother about it. Pole Heinz Tower 08:57, 13 July 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. |
Addresses all reasons for previous deletion. Over 10 published citations are now used. Animesouth 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment At the very least, this should not have been a Speedy Deletion. 15 new citations created an article which allows it to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since the article the article's deletion prevents it from being reviewed, the citations are listed below:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
- I'm concerned the veracity of this article's existance is being at least partly clouded by past interpersonal issues between users shown in various comments left, and would request more parties look at the picture in here. I see lots of badfaith presumptions executing here when I lurk around other articles' history sections and edit summaries, both by Animesouth(which I've openly criticised the behavior myself) and many other users as well. This seems like it's still leftover remnants from wether or not Anime_South was to be included in the List of anime conventions. -This deletion seems peculiar in the face of some other anime conventions that still have articles and are strikingly similar. Some other users, such as Monocrat voiced similar concerns during the FIRST deletion back in January. Since then, similarly written articles for anime conventions continue to exist. -If there's COI in the edits made by Animesouth, fine, revert them if so necessary. But I don't see a COI in the article's original creation. And (with respect to other anime convention articles) comparatively speaking, I see no notability problems with the last iteration of the article. The only thing I saw that should be removed is some things edited by Animesouth which are just too far into original research, and weak citations like blogs. Lets actually get into specifics. Below I shall state what I think needs to go as of last entry before deletion:
-Also, all remaining references being used as citations that are being hosted by Anime_South itself on their domain lack any kind of link on their own webpage which hampers the veracity of using them as citations. There isn't any information or linking in the NEWS section that discusses these on their webpage, or an IN THE PRESS section, which leads one to think those citations are only being hosted for Wikipedia's benefit. That narrows the scope of the cites usability significantly. -Let me reiterate, I see no reason this article should be deleted especially considering the establishment of OTHER anime convention articles which have not or never been nominated for deletion in line with the reasons listed on Anime_South's first deletion. But I have no problem recognising that Animesouth's edits and contributions should be held with the highest of scrutiny to WP:COI. RCHM 23:15, 14 July 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 only assisting the creation of this deletion review per request on my talk page. Hence, I have no opinion regarding the article in question. The editor who challenges the deletion, Loriendark, said this regarding the deletion:
This page was deleted by NawlinWiki with this rationale:
As stated before, I abstain from commenting on the merits of this case. Kurykh 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Foomartini 07:59, 14 July 2007
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
12 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unknown to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittym ( 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. |
As editor of the current page I assert that it is not a repost of deleted material. It perhaps has a common subject. But the current article contains none of the original articles material as was used as criteria to delete the original page. Incidentally I agree with the action to delete the original page, it was very short on factual content or verifiable citation. I respectfully request that the page be restored. Yogidude 13:13, 12 July 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 deleted due to "BLP concerns"; when asked, deleting admin cited "exceptional circumstances" warranting its deletion that apparently can't be disclosed. As the editor who created the article, I recall no contentious or libelous information on the article, and without any idea of what was originally wrong with the article, I cannot recreate it to conform to whichever policy it ostensibly violated. I thus move for undeletion and clarification on what is wrong with the article so I can fix it. ryan d 11:41, 12 July 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. |
not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. article is neutal and factual. it discusses a web based business in a factual manner but is not promotional as such - such articles are allowed by the guidelines 87.112.22.106 09:30, 12 July 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. |
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence Should be relisted for the following reasons: (1) User Rfwoolf was compiling evidence for possible RfC. (2) User who submitted for deletion was the subject of said RfC. (3) Debate was closed less than a day after it started. (4) The debate was 6-4 to keep (all from registered users) when it was abruptly closed.
Proposed Compromise The more I think about it, the more stupid this discussion seems to me. I'm not calling any single editor one of us, just all of us collectively are going about this stupidly because of the yes/no nature of the discussion. The current "vote" tally seems to be 9 endorse, 8 overturn which shows that there are strong sentiment on both sides of this question. A point that has popped up a couple of times in this discussion has been "Should be an RFC, not in userspace". How about we just offer to Rfwoolf to restore his text if and only if he intends to turn it into an RFC in short order (i.e. within 3 days or a week?). If an RFC is not created within that period of time, the page will be redeleted as a speedy using the original MfD and this discussion as justification. The man has a right to issue an RFC. I think the consensus is clear that, absent an RFC, the page should not exist in userspace. (I disagree with that consensus but I'm more interested in compromise than in insisting on my personal POV). -- Richard 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. I'm not particularly interested in reading an article about "anal stretching" myself, but I'm also not happy about admins misusing CSD, either. CSD is supposed to be for clearcut, noncontroversial deletions. Yet Radiant, with full knowledge that a debate had begun in which several people had already rejected the proposition that the page was an attack page, went ahead and speedied it. I also agree that it was not an "attack page" as defined by G10. An attack page is not any page that happens to be critical of someone, but one that is virulent. "That admin is an arsehole with a tiny mind who should shut the fuck up" would be an example of a G10 attack page. Laying out one's case in a reasonably civil matter is not, because then fair-minded people can differ about whether it is constructive criticism, free discourse, or an attack. I myself think it's perfectly fine to tell your side of the story about a dispute on a userpage, as long as you remain civil about it. CBM commented above that evidence pages are routinely deleted under G10. On the other hand, many aren't. My take is that evidence pages that are rants are not protected from G10. But just as you don't get a free pass by calling an attack page an "evidence" page, evidence pages are not automatically attack pages that can legitimately be speedy deleted. I'm also not swayed by the argument that this is a pseudo-RFC that shouldn't be kept around indefinitely, and Rwoolf should put up or shut up. First off, I don't have a problem with him telling his side of the story, whether it's in the form of an evidence page or not, as long as he does so civilly. And even if this case does not become an RFC, he may want to piggyback his case onto someone else's RFC. Let's be real here, it's only a matter of time before an RFC about an admin as controversial as Guy gets certified. A vocal faction of the community believes that Guy does the Lord's work, putting troublemakers in their place. Many others feel that he is an abrasive, rougish admin. If Rwoolf were to put this up on RFC and fail to get it certified, it would not be due to a lack of dissent, but because dissenters are waiting for a more appealing issue than "anal stretching" to make their stand. In closing, let me say that neither party has covered themselves in glory in this affair. Rwoolf has been dogged in his push to get his article, and it's not clear that he would be willing to accept an ultimate verdict from the community that this topic is unsuitable. On the other hand, I think some of Guy's actions have not helped. First, in the original AFD there was enough support for the article to at least raise the possibility that a better referenced, better written entry might pass, which raises the question whether the topic should be indefinitely salted. Also, some of the participants argued that the relevant information is already in "butt plug," so why isn't there at least a protected redirect? It also appears that Guy deleted Rwoolf's draft version for being in the wrong namespace; why not just move it into his userspace? Also, while the evidence page reflects one side of the story - which Rwoolf actually noted in his introduction - Guy has apparently not even considered taking up Rwoolf's offer to let him respond on the page. Also, while I understand being uncomfortable with having a page of criticism hanging around, Guy's reaction has been counterproductive. If Guy had kept his cool, this subpage would still be languishing in obscurity, and anyone who stumbled across it probably would have laughed it off as the griping of a tendentious editor with a strange obsession about anal stretching. Instead, by lashing out with profanities, he has disturbed editors concerned about incivility, and in pushing to get it deleted, he has attracted far more attention to it than Rwoolf's own efforts. -- Groggy Dice T | C 17:30, 16 July 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. |
Published Secondary Sources. Two articles in (printed) college newspapers discussing the term directly. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/02/03/Columns/Andrew.Stein.06.If.Being.Awkward.Is.Cool.Im.Miles.Davis-1598494.shtml and more recently, http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/04/27/Opinion/Break.Out.Of.Your.Shell-2885641.shtml These are secondary sources about the term, not merely articles using the term. This is not analysis or synthesis of primary material on my part. They satisfy both the neologism and notability guidelines. The coverage is:
The February deletion review presented ample further evidence (in addition to the sufficient evidence above) of notability "in another manner" (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability#fn_6). The wiki article should be composed of information from secondary sources (i.e., the two college newspaper articles) and include more than the mere definition, but also a description of where it is commonly found (the articles mention college campuses around the country), and its notoriety (as also described in both articles). - Anonymous 12 July 2007
|
| 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. |
legitimate signed licensed band StacieVan 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
11 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Not a prroper application of speedy deletion criteria. As I pointed out at User_talk:CBM#Your_deletion_of_Joy_basu, the criteria cited (A7) explicitly states that it is not to be applied to articles where there is controversy about whether notability has been asserted or which have been put through AfD and kept. Both of these exmptions applied to this article. Concerns about referencing are to be handled at AfD, not by speedy deletion (this article did cite reputable sources to establish notability). I request a overturn as deletion was against established policy regarding speedy deletion. Loom91 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Fifth, the article had withstood a previous AfD. Seeing this in the edit history should have given anyone pause about using a speedy. And it violates clear policy: from WP:DP, "In practice this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in 'keep' or 'no consensus' should not be speedily deleted." In view of all this, I urge the admin to simply correct his own mistake. DGG ( talk) 17:51, 12 July 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. |
Was placed in a second nomination for AfD one day after the first AFD was closed as no consensus. First AFD is here, second is here. I have no opinion, so I am abstaining from any discussion. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 11 July 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. |
No consensus for deletion. Opinion was evenly divided between Evolution/Creationism regulars (who were all for keeping) and CFD regulars (who were all for deletion). On a request for reconsideration, the closing Admin refused, claiming that the "delete" side had the stronger arguments, but the "keep" side dispute this claim, the basis for which is insufficiently clear-cut to count as anything more than the closing Admin's personal opinion.
Hrafn42 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn42 18:01, 11 July 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. |
This is in response to a article that was originally put up for deletion by Kariteh and the subsequent refusal to delete it. I would like to reopen the discussion to either put it up for deletion or at least reflect errors I beleive are prevalent in the article discussed here and related articles connected with it. I'll start with a quote from the deletion discussion on June 27, 2007. reliable sources for this being considered a series by fans include the following three professional reviews: [17] And here is my response. This site is by no means staffed by professionals (with the excpetion of Kurt) almost all the "reviews/overviews" are written by dedicated fans, I should know as I wrote for him and the site. As I've pointed out in the discussion pages on both Gaia series and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games there is no official proof regarding these loose connections as a "trilogy or series" of games that are loosely related only by thematic element alone. If deletion isn't warranted, by the very least commenting that the HG101 article was "Fan Written" and expresses the limited research and opinions of the article writer has to be considered and subsequently shown in the related articles, otherwise it would be akin to saying this is cold, hard, indisputable proof that this associated link is undeniable proof, and as I was slated to originally write that article I would never make that assumption based on the relative lack of facts pointing to any connections with those games, there is no such thing as the "Soul Blazer Trilogy", or even the "Soul Blazer Saga" / "Gaia Series" at the very least changes need to be made to reflect this point in the related articles, instead as Kariteh pointed out, all the information presented as Fact, is indeed assumption based on erroneous information gathered off the internet at other incorrect fansites. I can say these "facts" are not checked throughouly on the articles on HG101, but only to the best of their ability by the volunteer staff who offer their time to write these articles out of the love for the games alone and nothing more. A quick check of the message boards of the site will proove my point to its fullest. Anyway due what you will, but I truly ask that if nothing more the articles are edited and cleaned up to show what is fact and not mere speculation and fan assumption. Last note, even though some games have "code names" given to them within development, doesn't mean they are specifically part of a certain series (this is in reference to the above statement about Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma being known internally as Soul Blazer 2/3 respectively) and as such some older video game magazines such as Electronic Gaming Monthly were not known for their veracious fact checking in the early days and were known to call a game by a incorrect name, which someone has mistakenly called it for many years since and created such errors like these two mentioned here. And in that spirit I would hope that something is done to correct these errors, so the Wikipedia pages are correct or at least point out that these are not undisputed facts only what is (erronoeously) believed to be the long held "truth" regarding these games, but which is in fact the same recycled misinformation over and over again, which people are led to beleive is the 100% truth, due to years of fallacy and error. Thanks. BLang30 14:46, 11 July 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 original article, Fran Merida, was created and deleted several times, using the rationale CSD G4. That section states: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via a deletion discussion or deletion review, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted". Now when you compare the article that I created with the previous ones, there is a big difference - for example, the revision that was ultimately deleted in AFD consisted of an infobox and the following sentence: "Francisco Merida Perez (born March 4 1990) is a footballer, currently playing for Arsenal." The version I created, on the other hand, had reliable sources (including Sky Sports, an independent, reliable source) and also I feel that I asserted notability - but in any case it was significantly different from the version that was shot down in AFD, in my opinion. I think that if the article is relisted on AFD, I can provide sufficient arguments that the player is notable, but in any case it should not have been speedied. ugen64 08:58, 11 July 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 don't like putting up deletion reviews, but sometimes "no consensus" closes need more of a justification. There is a majority consensus for delete even if you were just to count !votes. But, alone, the discussions for delete rely on more tangible reasons (or interpretation of said) and, hence, show a stronger consensus for removal of the list even if they weren't a numeric majority. There were two legitimate "weak keeps", but the other "keep" !votes consisted of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and "why delete it?" This list should have been deleted, and put with all its predecessors in the list of songs graveyard. Bulldog123 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
10 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Real organization, here are sources Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) The page for the Free People's Movement was deleted apparently (after little discussion) for a lack of independent sources and because the website seemed to be down. The organization is very real, and in the interest of getting the page back up I'll list the following proofs: 1. A New York indymedia article documenting a recent action by the Free People's Movement, including pictures, is available here: http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/88126.html A video of that same event is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ3GjcKi2wQ#GU5U2spHI_4 And the FPM itself has an article on its website explaining the action and including lots of pictures here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?318 (There are clearly multiple people there, so the previous absurd claim about "one guy living in his mom's basement" is proven false). 2. A Pittsburgh indymedia article documenting another recent action by the Free People's Movement, again including pictures, is available here: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/27365.php Another event: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/calendar/event_display_detail.php?event_id=1505 3. A .pdf of a publication from the U.S.-based Communist League which includes a long article (for the most part attacking the organization) is available here: http://www.comleague.org/cli/pdf/wr/wr2007q1.pdf 4. The website of one of the Branches of the FPM, with an active blog, videos and pictures proving its existance: http://www.fpm-mgl.org/ct/ 5. There was mention of a Revolutionary Youth website being a hoax; but the person who said it had the website wrong. It is not http://www.ry-jr.org but rather http://www.ry-jr.info 6. Myspace group for a Branch of the organization in Boston with 69 members: http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=103456259&MyToken=7a4a5471-6f6e-4623-89f0-94b737522a19 7. Account of 2006 political attacks on the FPM and its members, included the arrest of one of its members (Francisco Acevedo) which was covered by every mainstream and alternative newspaper in Hartford Connecticut several times (google search "Franscisco Acevedo") is available here: http://rebeldeporlapaz.gnn.tv/blogs/17391/Defend_the_Free_People_s_Movement_and_its_members 8. Documented proof of someone who went through the process of joining the FPM on one of the biggest political forums on the internet: http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54442.html 9. Entry on the FPM in the Government and politics research guide: http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774503101/ 10. Yet another page documented a protest carried out by the FPM: http://www.freethefive.org/posadaprotest.htm 11. Blog entry by someone who says "I am not a supporter of the Free People's Movement" on the FPM: http://callmeanxious.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/defend-the-free-peoples-movement/ 12. FPM manifesto in an online book store: www.cafepress.com/rebelion.101278812 13. Odd entry on political flag website including the FPM's flag way back in 2005: http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/cu%7D.html#fpm 14. Article written on the Free People's Movement and communism in general: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=602002&sid=79c6daf767ac7cf4369843a8a959b3cf 15. Thread on LibCom discussing the Communist League and Free People's Movement: http://libcom.org/node/8825 16. Page on political parties listing the FPM as an "international organization": http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/parties.htm#F 17. Discussion on the Free People's Movement and their response to Hurricane Katrina: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t49980.html 18. List of political parties containing the FPM: http://www.dhs.wash.k12.ut.us/~gwhicker/index_files/American%20Government/Ch%205%20Sec%201.pdf 19. This contact page http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 shows the Solomon Islands mailing address of being "care of Charles Ravinago", this article says Ravinago is a leader in the Solomon Islands' branch: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?290 , and there's an article about FPM members in the SOlomon Islands running for election here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?219 , on this page: http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/s/solomons/solomons2006.txt you can see results of the election, with Charles Ravinago getting 1.1% of the votes. 20. Again, the http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 contact page shows several concrete mailing addresses in different countries around the world, and a concrete office in Pittsburgh with a phone number. 21. Finally, there are tons of pictures of the FPM website showing its multiple members in several different activities.. instead of finding links for all of them, I urge you to browse the website http://www.fpm-mgl.org or check out their myspace page http://www.myspace.com/freepeoplesmovement which has a number of pictures of different events, with captions explaining them, and giving times and dates. In conclusion, this is obviously a real organization, and it's notable for a number of reasons, from arrests of its members, to actions its carried out, to standing in elections in the Solomon Islands, etc. etc. And finally, in the way of anecdotal evidence, I know this organization is real because I've worked with it before, and plan to again. Please bring the page back. Action was taken too quickly, and it shouldn't have been deleted. Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't let your ideology get in the way of common sense. Redflagflying 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(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 last DRV of this article was speedily closed without allowing any discussion beforehand. I feel this article hasn't had a decent DRV yet. All the previous ones have either been plagued with trolls (some even changed other user's comments), or sock puppets and were in general basic non-discussion votes. As per the subject, myg0t, I feel it has obtained more than adequate notability (particularly related to the HL2 source leak) and is now definately verifiable. See the previous DRV for a list of magazines this group has been featured in (note, the small discussion in the previous DRV was made after it was closed and was later moved into the archive). Since the article has been deleted for some time, there is no cache of what it used to be. I've taken the liberty of creating my own proposed version of it User:Android Mouse/myg0t which has every sentence and detail cited. I'd like to ask everyone to disregard the previous DRVs because of their faults I've outlined above. Don't let personal opinions get in the way. Your and my own opinions of this group are irrelevant to this discussion. Android Mouse 18:19, 10 July 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 are lists of people from Michigan, so there should be a list of Diabetics, with listed sources, of course. Antonio Diaper Boy Martin 07:43, 10 July 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. |
This is his bio at OWW, the go to site for wrestlers bios. If read you will see that he has faced other wrestlers who have Wiki entrys. How, logically can the wrestlers he faces have entries yet he is denied? If he was jsut a run of the mill indy wrestler I would say sure delete but it was brought to my attention that he is indeed a Heavyweight Champion and has faced other wrestlers such as Colt Cabana, that the average person would not know, and is notable for such. In conclusion, he is a wrestler of note but one USER who pushed for his deletion (repeatedly breaking rules to do so) was found to be biased against American Indy Wrestlers having left this statement "I've messaged two admins, the closing admin last time and and admin who works with the WP:PW and so can bitch slap any indy fans. Darrenhusted 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wildthing61476"" His influence should not be allowed in any discussion if it is found that the article should be undeleted or put back up for deletion since he is biased. And for him to drag the Admin who works with him on the Wrestling Wiki is a slap in the face to all Users because it is abuse of his position in my opinion. --EdWood 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
Now I shall return to doing my edits on Doo Wop groups. --EdWood 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
9 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Another "notability" issue. I wrote the article, cited sources, and the film even has an IMDB entry. If anything, I'd like the article's history restored to see that I wasn't just trying to advertise the film. VoltronForce 22:46, 9 July 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. |
|
This article got deleted for non-notability. However, the following independent reliable sources establish its notability:
Number 3 and 4 were considered in the deletion discussion, but apperently weren't enough to convince people of Toki Pona's reliability (maybe because they're not in English). Number 2 already existed at the time of the deletion discussion, but apperently wasn't known to anyone involved in the discussion, and hence wasn't considered. Number 1 only got published today. The fact that Toki Pona has been mentioned in at least five independent reliable sources, of which two (number 1 and 2) cover it in much detail, should suffice for establishing its notability. Marcoscramer 16:14, 9 July 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. |
Frontman of Bay Area rap group The Team. Signed to a major label ( Black Wall Street Records/ Capitol Records), the only member of the group to have a major deal. He is more notable than the other three members Mayne Mannish, Kaz Kyzah, and Jungle, yet their pages simply redirect to the group's, while his article is deleted and protected. Unprotect, because I believe I can make a page with more affirmation of notability. Also, the page for his upcoming debut album, Theater Music, is still standing. Tom Danson 14:22, 9 July 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. |
Unprotect. Original Deletion appears to have focussed on his Personal Development blog and not factored in his background as creator of a multi-award winning game and role as President of the Association of Shareware Professionals. I have entered proposed text into the Talk page. Irrevenant [ talk ] 11:36, 9 July 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. |
New information/reasons available to undelete Timway (reasons that have not been mentioned)
Algorithms8 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
8 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Numerous Itemized Notability and Verifiability links provided. More can be added UserChitra (I'm raising this DR on behalf of UserChitra who has not been able to follow the DR instructions. I am not a party to this matter and nothing should be infered by my conduct) Mike33 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not wish to create any article. All I requested in the first place was to have the summary page restored so that future users could create pages. UserChitra 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
7 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nominator is incorrect to delete it for the reason of non-notable as the article is within WP:BIO under the criteria of Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis as D1 Grand Prix is one of the two highest professional level drifting series in the world with a huge worldwide fan following and Fukuda was in 2004 as a top 10 finisher and has appeared at exhibition and pointscoring events in both the US and UK. Willirennen 23:26, 7 July 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 article, if it recieves more attention from the WikiCommunity, can become reliable. Defender 911 22:08, 7 July 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. |
Undelete - the image had a fair use rationale that was accepted for months until Picaroon9288 took it upon him/herself to remove it and then delete the image. Ridiculously out of process. If there's a problem with the fair use rationale then the admin should address it through channels instead of a series of unilateral and borderline underhanded actions. Otto4711 17:41, 7 July 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 under CSD T1, which specifiesd that the template be "divisive" and "Inflamatory". I fail to see what is divisive about "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone" Overturn DES (talk) 16:34, 7 July 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. |
Consensus to keep the article on this wrestler was ignored. 5 keep votes to 4 deletes. While the closing admin used long and convoluted arguments to ignore the keeps, the same admin didn't apply the same standards to the delete votes that were WP:JUSTAPOLICY. -- Oakshade 16:01, 7 July 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. |
This page shouldn't have been deleted. It's obscure, not a hoax article or nonsense, and it's not unencyclopedic. No reason to delete this article, especially considering its notability too. Skycrest502 12:03, 7 July 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. |
Why was this deleted? David Cate is an employee of Kingsport Times-News Idav 09:34, 7 July 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. |
AFD closed less than 24 hours on a weak consensus because the article itself was only 2 days old. Overcoming the irony here, allowing the AfD to continue while others work on the article is not at cross purposes. Suggest relist and allow to run its course. InkSplotch 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Page move: Re-titled article as 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion which is the common naming convention (not "official") for other runway incursion articles (see 1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion or 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion). Hope this isn't a problem, thanks. Lipsticked Pig 06:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
6 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was non-bias and described the service very well and was in my opinion a non-criteria for a speedy deletion. Ke5crz 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While this DRV discussion was ongoing, the article was recreated. I have listed it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pownce. Corvus cornix 20:03, 8 July 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. |
This page was deleted several times because the content was spam (see here). However, a user recently created the article Benjamin 'Ben' Stewart about a television character, and I wasn't able to move it to this title, which I think would be a better page name for it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:58, July 6, 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. |
Orphaned talk page not actually orphaned... or maybe it was before, but it no longer is. Please undelete the talk page; it will be mighty useful in improving article content. Thanks! 65.112.197.16 18:52, 6 July 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. |
Speedied in the middle of a deletion discussion for CSD:A7, but movies are not currently included under A7. Request restoration pending a full AFD. Stifle ( talk) 18:17, 6 July 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. |
|
Page was deleted (by User:Renata3) as non-notable and copyright violation. Creating user claims to be the original author, so copyright issue is negligible but replaced by conflict-of-interest question. ;-) Have requested confirmation of identity from the editor in question (update: confirmed, see below), and am personally prepared to work with him to take care over COI. User recreated page after its (speedy) deletion, appears to have taken due care to present only factual information. "Juce C++" gets about 52,200 results on google, and there is a favourable review by The Register (that's a well-known UK technology site, for you lot on the wrong side of the Atlantic ;-P). In my opinion, this makes for significant independent coverage.
NB: As discussed on WP:COI, a COI is not grounds for deletion in itself. tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
5 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The debate doesnt appear to be a consensus at the time of close. The closing rationale is that the article has no encyclopedic content however the article already had one sourced element of notability added during the Afd (google's cache doesnt include this addition) and I had provided evidence that there were more sources which could be used. John Vandenberg 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
So WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV all trump consensus and consensus trumps other Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:Notability. Butseriouslyfolks makes the point that the article had unverified information in it, and that the closing decision should be upheld because the violation of WP:V justifies it. He's convinced me that his position is correct unless the WP:V violation can be fixed. Under Deletion Review rules, if new information comes forward justifying the article, that can be grounds for overturning the original deletion. That is now the case. I've researched and found citations to meet the WP:V objection. See User:Noroton/GoetzVerified This version at my user space has footnotes for everything. I've deleted information that I could not verify. Therefore there is no longer a WP:V violation. The article may not meet notability standards, but the consensus of the AfD was to ignore that in this case. The closing administrator should completely discount all arguments in this discussion based on Notability violations because notability rules can't trump a consensus to keep. The closing administrator should completely discount arguments in this discussion based on lack of verifiability because I've now shown verifiability. As soon as the article is restored, I will add the footnotes establishing verifiability. If the closing administreator upholds the original closure, I will re-establish a new article on the same subject that meets WP:V. Noroton 16:36, 10 July 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. |
|
This page has been deleted for 2 years now, its an active movement, its been deleted for false reasons every time. I just created the page, put a hangon notice, and it was deleted AGAIN. Check out the last argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW All the discussion was removed also, to cover up why it was removed. This is censorship to stop mens rights, there is no other reason to contest it other than you disagree with it. - IronWolve 21:14, 5 July 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. |
Tragic loss, article should have been merged, not deleted Reynolds45 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
4 July 2007
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a legitimate publishing company that is notable because it is known for taking in smaller publishers and bringing their books to a wide audience. They are also notable as the publisher of the 1,000 places to see before you die series. [1] This company has been mentioned in thousands of book reviews, and other articles covering the books they and their imprints publish. It is notable within the publishing industry for entry into use of video to promote it's books. [2] I had barely created the page and was gathering additional information to add when it was speedily deleted apparently by a bot. I would like it restored so that work can continue on it. Rtphokie 19:37, 4 July 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. |
|
Conspicuous by its absence; this is a legitimate visual effects company (see [42]); articles for other visual effects companies exist in Wikipedia. Content was submitted in good faith but might have been seen as POV or advertising (I can't tell as the history is not available). The marketing manager for the company (for which I work) would like the page restored so that it can be edited from its current press release style into a sound, NPOV Wikipedia article. — Paul G 17:04, 4 July 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. |
copyright Jwroland 10:07, 4 July 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. |
Completely inappropriate closure. By "votes" alone, consensus was not established in any way. The vast majority of the deletion support was based on misleading comments by the nom that the template was used to delete articles. Deletion admin also cites WP:CREEP, despite that it is common to have individual cleanup tags such as this (see Category:Notability and importance templates). The template was also being used to date and track articles for a new review process being developed. We date maintenance tags all the time, and we give individual messages regarding specific cleanup tags all the time. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, there was anything but a consensus to delete. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't anything is arguing that tagging unreferenced episode articles as such is a bad idea. The main objections in the old TFD seemed to be over the implication of a deadline and the appearance resembling that of a deletion tag. Thus, I propose, instead of going through all the DRV bureaucracy, we instead make a new template, along the lines of {{ unreferenced}}, to fill the same task but in a different way. This template would clearly be a cleanup template (unlike the very prod-like {{ notability}} or this template), but would allow for the management and cleanup of episode articles. I've started work on this template at User:A Man In Black/epref, and I encourage any help from the participants in this DRV. I haven't bulleted this comment because it's an alternate proposal from undeleting or endorsing. If this sounds good to everyone, we can just say "Let's do AMIB's thing" and forget all about the old template, deleting or merging or restoring or whatever. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If you are joining this discussion after reading about it in a message Matthew placed on numerous series talk pages, please note that some of the text in that message is incorrect. Episode articles are not "at risk with this template" - they are handled under the WP:EPISODE guideline. This template is for notification purposes only, alerting editors to a review process which can proceed regardless of its presence. -- Ckatz chat spy 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Comment: There was significant discussion and debate at the TfD. It seems like the concerns have been addressed and a work around has been established. I think it is time to let this template go and move on with the work of improving the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thus the template should not have been deleted, but suggestions presented for modification. That said suggestions have been made above to modify another template for the purpose, which might provide a compromise. NOTE. The 'purpose' is simply to a) identify articles relating to television which do not meet Wikipedia's own guidelines for inclusion, b) provide links and encouragement to editors to help them improve or merge the articles c) provide a format for review (not deletion) of said articles. We have never proposed deletion, since we believe Wikipedia is enriched by GOOD articles about television, but most shows create GOOD articles by merging episodes together (ie. one good season article rather than two dozen near-empty episode articles or, more commonly, two dozen episode articles which breach copyright by overlong plots and which fail WP:TRIVIA). Gwinva 08:12, 5 July 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. |
After an AfD dicussion in which I closed delete, the author of the page asked if the page could be made better. I improved on it a bit here, and I think this marginally meets guidelines now. Sr 13 07:11, 4 July 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. |
This was closed as keep. However, none of the arguments to keep were really much of an argument at all, just that the existence of users in it means that it should exist, which cannot be the case. Furthermore, two of the keep arguments were refuted, such as by stating that Category:WikiProject Video games members is superior in terms of encyclopedia-building. This left a stronger argument for deletion, so overturn and delete. Core desat 05:48, 4 July 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. |
Complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia standards, policies Jenolen speak it! 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) At Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_26#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg, closing admin argues: The result was delete. I don't think there is any doubt that the image was provided by CBS to the media outlets referenced, however, we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided. It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use. I certainly disagree that the consensus opinion was to delete. I certainly take issue with the idea that CBS provides press kit photos to only a few media outlets, not to all legitimate media outlets. I cannot image a situation which requires me to physically be in possesion of a photograph from a "press kit," which these days, is usually electronic and/or on-line, in order for an image to be useable on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if the uploader "claims" the image comes from a press kit; the image DOES come from press material, and therefore, its deletion on grounds that "it doesn't come from a press kit" is not valid. And if an image comes from another website, so what? We know who the copyright holder OF THE IMAGE is! It doesn't make a difference whether or not it was downloaded from CBS.com, NPR.org, SeattleTimes.com, photos.ap.com, whatever -- that's a delivery method. The image itself, it should be noted, is clearly and unambiguosly the copyrighted property of CBS. Its resolution was reduced, and it was being used in full compliance with all ten points of WP:NFCC. The argument we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided could (and perhaps someday will) be applied to EVERY press-kit style photo. But in fact, we do know that this image was provided to multiple media outlets (links were provided), with no indication anywhere that there is any standard or practice that CBS promtional images are limited to only a few select websites. To buy the argument that this is a promotional image, as the closing admin seems to do, but then to delete it anyway doesn't make any sense. Finally, the argument that this could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to might make some sense, if there was ever any example or indication given that this has ever happened. This is so contrary to the standard practice in the promotional photo world that's it's difficult to understand how anyone could allege this with a straight face. As pointed out in the original deletion discussion, the image was used on NPR.org, which, as far as I know, is a part of the non-profit NPR radio network. The "fear" that this image is somehow exclusive, paid content being used by all of the example sites given in the deletion should be put to rest by its inclusion there. Jenolen speak it! 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
However, if you review the discussion Jenolen speak it! was the only voice in support of keeping the image... Then how come no other editor bothered to put a "DELETE" in front of their comments? There's only a "SPEEDY KEEP" from me...Yes, yes, I know this is not a vote, but NO ONE, other than the original nominator, made a cogent argument for deleting the image, they only replied to my initial evidence as to why it should be kept. Also: A consensus isn't required to delete an image? Just to keep it? If an editor nominates something for deletion, and one other editor thinks it should be kept, isn't this usually considered a "no consensus" situation? Since when does "no consensus" default to "delete"? What happened to actually taking a look at the evidence, and making a rational decision? I think it takes more than just the allegation of misuse -- the image nominator offered NO support to his claim that the image was, somehow, maybe exclusive content. And I offered several pieces of evidence that the image was NOT some kind of heretofore unheard of "paid promotional material". Again, there was zero evidence offered by the nominator -- just a nomination that talks about how this "might" be something we can't use. Well, I'd like to think our standards are a little higher than that. And, I hate to bring this up, but what if the editor is nominating images uploaded by a particular user out of spite? That certainly could be what's happening here. I should point out that I'm no flagrant abuser of our image policy -- every single image I've every uploaded has been completely legal and within policy at the time I uploaded it. Sure, I know policies change, requiring subsequent deletion of previously acceptable material, but c'mon... This is way, way out of whack. Jenolen speak it! 06:05, 4 July 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. |
Page was changed to eliminate bias and simply served to be informative in regards to a new invention but was still deleted. I have nothing to do with the product but feel that it is useful knowledge for anyone, especially amputees. I only wrote it for the public benefit -- including several acquaintences of mine who are interested in the invention. Bronco allan 03:30, 4 July 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 don't understand this. This was speedy closed, having been open for less than a day, by a user who has no indication on his user page that he is an admin with the reason given WP:IAR??. The review states "one of the worst games to come out for the Xbox this year." How is that sufficiently notable to warrant a speedy keep? I think this AfD should run its course. Bridgeplayer 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
3 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Daverotherham
deletion started for leader of one of Jersey's political parties by secretary of Jersey's other political party RichardColgate 00:32, 4 July 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. |
|
Overturn and restore There was no consensus to delete this category. The legitimacy of categories for family categories has long been established, so there was no justification for the closer to override the debate. Sumahoy 22:10, 3 July 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. |
|
Overturn renaming to Category:Americans convicted of murder and restore to the standard name Category:American murderers. There was no consensus for this renaming to a form which is not consistent with the category's 44 siblings of murderer-categories or numerous American siblings. There have been several discussions on the issue of adding the word "convicted" to crime related categories, and the reasons why it is not appropriate have been set out in this debate and others. There was no justification for this arbitary admin override of convention, precedent and debate. Sumahoy 22:04, 3 July 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. |
Evilclown93 thought that my Fiesta Online article was a very short article and speedily deleted it. His reason: "Very short article providing little or no context (A1)." My argument is that I was testing my article out. After I saw that my article came out good, I started to add more content. While I was editing the content, Evilclown93 deleted it. C.Fred thought my article had unverified sources and he deleted my article. Then he said it was empty. His reason: "CSD G1: Patent Nonsense" and "CSD A3: No content". I gave him my sources on his talk page and he still hasn't talked to me yet about whether or not they have been approved yet. My article was empty because he deleted it. I went to his talk page after he deleted my content....though I should've tagged my article. Mike Rosoft thought my article lacked significance. His reason: "No claim of notability - online RPG (WP:CSD#A7)." How does my article lack significance? If it does, tell me how to fix it. There are two other articles that are on wikipedia that show information on online games. They haven't been deleted yet. I don't know how to tag them. Why say that my article is insignificant? Wikipedia is a place where people can read about things. Why not games? Many people love to read about games. FisherQueen said that my article was too short and it lacked reliable sources. Reason: "WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability" and "WP:CSD#A1, a very short article lacking context". Ok, read my arguements on the last 3 admins. All three admins accuse my article of being short and lacking both reliable sources and significance. I've talked to each of them. Two of them still haven't replied back to my recent message. Fisher Queen wants to block me. Why can't I have my article approved? There are two articles that talk about online games, 9Dragons and GunZ the Duel. The source I am using is Outspark located at http://outspark.com. Why is this source unreliable? It's a professional gaming company! Windrider07 21:33, 3 July 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 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. |
|
This image was speedy deleted by an admin, Angr, who apparently was a troublemaker and was kicked out of Wikipedia. I didn't notice until now, because I haven't been logging on lately. I can't find any record of anyone discussing this deletion; for all I know it was Angr's unilateral decision. It was not copyright violation, for reasons explained in the fair use justification. There is no other image of Richard C. Casey available. Hyphen5 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
2 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Restore There was patently nothing close to a semblance of a consensus that this category should be deleted, as there had not been in the previous discussion, or in the one before that. The discussion was moving strongly towards retention, with many answered reasons put forward for retention. The same admin had deleted it before, and his heated closure notice is not objective or a reflection of the clearly expressed will of the community. The category should be restored, though with the name in the correct form, which would be Category:Fictional wealthy characters. The repetition of incorrect closures in this case is quite alarming. Choalbaton 21:34, 2 July 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. |
This article is still linked to in the SMS language entry. While its value may be somewhat dubious, it is the only list I have found with a GFDL license and that in itself is useful. PaigePhault 17:34, 2 July 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 should be discussion before deleting an image on the grounds the rationale needs improvement. Addhoc 16:27, 2 July 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 think there's enough material in this article to at least merit a formal deletion discussion; was speedy deleted by Doc glasgow. Apparently he's been on vacation. Andrew73 12:49, 2 July 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. |
Cliff_Hanley,novelist has been replaced by Cliff_Hanley which is confusing as the novelist is dead and the artist lives. Cliffhanley 10:09, 2 July 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. |
At 13 out of 34 participants opining that the article should be deleted,I do not believe that there was any consensus on deleting this article. The deleting admin is open to do a transwiki of this article, however I do not believe that there is any consensus for that either. As far as the content of the article is concerned, I argue that it is encyclopedic on the basis that Encarta has a similar, more expanded module in their software that compliments their languages article. Thanks. -- Chris S. 07:32, 2 July 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 having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States - N 16:48, 24 June 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 article was originally deleted for NN the article as it was originally reposted still failed this check however I do believe I fixed this issue after Pablothegreat85 flagged the article for that same short-coming Wantmy442 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have re looked at the article and realize now I only pointed out the notability on the talk page which has now been deleted but forgot to reference them in the article given a chance I would fix that. The notability fixes would include reference to the fact that the hosts of the show have been mentioned in many books including but not limited to
I hope this is of some help. Wantmy442 19:44, 2 July 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 page is relevant to those who want to know more about a major entertainer who sold 1 billion records. Imagine if you and I were in a Starbucks and I asked you what your all-time favourite CDs were. Do you think your list would tell me something about you? Of course it would. At an interview, prospective employees often ask what your hobbies and interests are. Why do you think they do that? If you answered I’m a huge Bruce Lee fan and I love boxing, kung fu, and Zen meditation. Do you think that would say something about who you are? Same with a list of books Elvis Presley liked. Elvis has an enormous fan base (probably not many Wikipedia moderators) and people want to know more about him, what made him tick, what made him so charismatic. This list of books tells so much about Elvis that I’m staggered that it is not considered to be good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I’m flummoxed, stumped puzzled and mystified. If the religious right is behind Wikipedia’s refusal to post “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” then please forgive me for my impertinence. Bruce7777777 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
1 July 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The June 22 proposed deletion of this user box was rejected (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN). I am not challenging the keep decision. I am challenging the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway. There was no consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox, for instance {{userbox|logo=[[Image:NoUNsmall.png|40px]]|info=This user wants the [[United Nations]] to be '''dissolved'''}}". Pursuant to the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway, s/he edited the userbox and User:Dmcdevit then ran a robot that replaced the transclusion of the userbox on all of the user pages which displayed it with userbox code. Among other things, this action partially and selectively depopulated Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. I have asked both Tony Sidaway and Dmcdevit to reverse their actions as being inconsistent with the consensus of the June 22 original deletion discussion and they have refused. -- DieWeisseRose 22:40, 1 July 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. |
|
Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif Deleted for not having a fair use rationale. I'll write it. Kotepho 20:28, 1 July 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. |
This article was deleted on a second nomination with virtually no participation and essentially dismissing the arguments of the first debate. The second nominator, User:Chealer, seemed to think that the primary point in the original debate was whether the distribution had users, whereas in fact the debate centered on its notability as an example of secure computing. The consensus (see in particular the comments of User:Jamyskis and User:Phr) was that in fact this was indeed notable. Chealer, however, ignored this argument entirely, minimized the significance of the article's "historical value", made an ambiguous statement about Google hits, and asserted precisely the argument which I, the original nominator, had advanced in the first deletion debate (namely, that this Linux distribution is dead and therefore not notable) and which was refuted. The second debate itself attracted only two other participants, who disagreed, and the one ( User:Goldenglove) who voted for deletion gave the two invalid reasons that the article was poorly linked-to, and was "not so great". I think this was an improper conclusion of consensus given the relatively active debate in the first nomination, and that the article should be undeleted. Ryan Reich 18:06, 1 July 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. |
|
Reliable source 1 Reliable source 2 This should redirect to Greg Parker. He is not notable because of his talent, smarts, business success, inventions, or even smashing good looks, and has enemies and rivals out to get him. He is notable because of his ability to make himself notable. He is all media. And reporting on him means reporting what the media reports about him. In the iPhone coverage, the epithet "iLoser" became of rather common use to refer to him, and since reliable sources - both of which I provide do not push bias or POV - identify and report as the epithet being used to refer to him, its all kosher like Nathan's frankfurter. Cerejota 17:39, 1 July 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. |
It was flagged as a copyright violation probably because the single line description of the company comes from their website, and the bot compares the first line of the article with the first line of the webpage listed as the source. The line was referenced as coming from the webpage, and the entire article was just three sentences. The entire article reads as follows: "[Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation]. [1] [The company began as a spinoff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Marc Raibert developed robots that ambulate like animals]. [Boston Dynamics was incorporated in 1992.]" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:39, 1 July 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 not very satisfied with the discussion. 3 people say "listcruft", 2 people say "useful", all of which are apparently invalid reasons. Some people wanted it to be merged back into Pentax K mount, but the closing admin says that article is too long already. End result: deletion with misgivings. Could we possibly relist and have a slightly more in depth discussion about what to do with it? The notion of dismissing any argument of "usefulness" is just dumb. Let's find a real reason to either delete or keep it. Stevage 13:52, 1 July 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 article was deleted for being a neologism, even though this accusation wasn't properly explained. I quote: "The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately." Actually there were no arguments for WP:NEO - it was stated, but not argued (check the log). This administrator was wrong to rule in favour of delete when there was certainly not consensus, and the delete side didn't come up with any arguments as to why it was in breach of WP:NEO. Even if you agree with that administrator's actions in the former case, I have some new sources that weren't made available in that deletion debate. Consider the below... how could something that's been talked about for over 30 years and has books, plays, tshirts and numerous articles about it be considered a neologism?
|
| 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. |
Highly notable magazine. It's the oldest continously published anarchist magazine (since 1898) and the second oldest in the world. Have ha several notable people writing for it like Gustav Hedenvind-Eriksson, Hinke Bergegren, Ivan Oljelund, Moa Martinson (as Helga Johansson), Harry Martinson, C.J. Björklund, Carl-Emil Englund, Erik Asklund, Eyvind Johnson, Jan Fridegård, Ivar Lo Johansson, Artur Lundkvist, Vilhelm Moberg, Albert Jensen, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Nils Ferlin, Helmer Grundström and Eva X Moberg Liftarn 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
-
^ ROUGHOL, ISABELLE (2007-06-22).
"Santa Cruz named one of the 1000 places to see before you die". Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-07-04.
{{ cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=( help) -
^ DEUTSCH, CLAUDIA (2006-08-03).
"Publishers Try to Sell Words With Moving Pictures". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-04.
{{ cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=( help)