|
---|
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Cliff_Hanley,novelist has been replaced by Cliff_Hanley which is confusing as the novelist is dead and the artist lives.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. |
|
---|
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. |