|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted for failing WP:CORP, based on the fact that the WritersUA company is not mentioned in many significant secondary sources. In the deletion discussion, people mentioned that the company represented a specialized technical niche (help documentation and user assistance documentation), and also mentioned that the only sources found for the material were blogs. I submit the following points for consideration:
Notice that WP:CORP does not exclude blogs, but instead allows for "reliable published works in all forms", with several listed exceptions. Notice also that corporate blogs, or technical blogs (or any blogs, for that matter) are not listed here as specific exceptions. WP:RS makes no specific mention of blogs as an unreliable source, only that self-published works may be unreliable. Since the blogs in question are not written by WritersUA, but are written about it, often by notable companies, it is fair to assume that these could be taken as a reliable source for this topic. A final point here is that blogs are increasingly being used as a primary method of information dissemination by large companies and organizations. To dismiss this article because it receives coverage from blogs to the near exclusion of coverage from other news sources is, I believe, a side-step of the spirit of the notability guideline. -- Whiteknight ( talk) ( books) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 removed without discussion from the Cillian Murphy article as an invalidly used non-free image, and was later deleted by an admin, again without any additional input from others, as a replaceqable fair use image, despite the fact that the article had only within the past two weeks achieved FA status with the image in it. John Carter ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It has just come to my attention that this image is part of a larger problem concerning the use of fair use images in the Cillian Murphy article, which somehow managed to get through Featured Article Review without a single person noticing that three of the image were in violation of Wikipedia's Fair Use image policy. There is now a disruptive edit war going on as to whether or not the existing images which have not yet been deleted should stay in the article. User:Wikidemo and User:Melty girl argue that the images are allowed because the article contains "critical commentary' about them, whereas I see absolutely no critical commentary about the images, and therefore feel that none of the fair use images should be allowed. Corvus cornix talk 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 for non-notability. I suggest the page be undeleted and replaced with the contents of User:Shritwod/Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi_(draft). This page contains, to date, 27 secondary independent citations and many primary citations. According to WP:ATA, the inclusion of a subject in secondary sources is a primary indicator of notability and trumps the opinions of individual editors. The article does need to be cleaned up and original research deleted, but the reasons for deletion due to non-notability are gone. There may have been the appearance of consensus originally, but those weighing in included employees of the subject and the subject himself. SaltyDawg ( talk) 15:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Update:Userfied version substantially improved, moved to mainspace by me. New AfD is by the usual editorial option. Xoloz ( talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Subsequently (but too late for the AfD decision) a WP:RS was located (peer reviewed article in _Mankind Quarterly_). [7] Re CoI, Google lists 3,390 for "capture bonding" -Keith -Henson vs 3,890 for "capture bonding". Keith Henson ( talk) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Grounds for deleting look rather weak. Restore? Its AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 for failing WP:CORP, based on the fact that the WritersUA company is not mentioned in many significant secondary sources. In the deletion discussion, people mentioned that the company represented a specialized technical niche (help documentation and user assistance documentation), and also mentioned that the only sources found for the material were blogs. I submit the following points for consideration:
Notice that WP:CORP does not exclude blogs, but instead allows for "reliable published works in all forms", with several listed exceptions. Notice also that corporate blogs, or technical blogs (or any blogs, for that matter) are not listed here as specific exceptions. WP:RS makes no specific mention of blogs as an unreliable source, only that self-published works may be unreliable. Since the blogs in question are not written by WritersUA, but are written about it, often by notable companies, it is fair to assume that these could be taken as a reliable source for this topic. A final point here is that blogs are increasingly being used as a primary method of information dissemination by large companies and organizations. To dismiss this article because it receives coverage from blogs to the near exclusion of coverage from other news sources is, I believe, a side-step of the spirit of the notability guideline. -- Whiteknight ( talk) ( books) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 removed without discussion from the Cillian Murphy article as an invalidly used non-free image, and was later deleted by an admin, again without any additional input from others, as a replaceqable fair use image, despite the fact that the article had only within the past two weeks achieved FA status with the image in it. John Carter ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It has just come to my attention that this image is part of a larger problem concerning the use of fair use images in the Cillian Murphy article, which somehow managed to get through Featured Article Review without a single person noticing that three of the image were in violation of Wikipedia's Fair Use image policy. There is now a disruptive edit war going on as to whether or not the existing images which have not yet been deleted should stay in the article. User:Wikidemo and User:Melty girl argue that the images are allowed because the article contains "critical commentary' about them, whereas I see absolutely no critical commentary about the images, and therefore feel that none of the fair use images should be allowed. Corvus cornix talk 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 for non-notability. I suggest the page be undeleted and replaced with the contents of User:Shritwod/Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi_(draft). This page contains, to date, 27 secondary independent citations and many primary citations. According to WP:ATA, the inclusion of a subject in secondary sources is a primary indicator of notability and trumps the opinions of individual editors. The article does need to be cleaned up and original research deleted, but the reasons for deletion due to non-notability are gone. There may have been the appearance of consensus originally, but those weighing in included employees of the subject and the subject himself. SaltyDawg ( talk) 15:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Update:Userfied version substantially improved, moved to mainspace by me. New AfD is by the usual editorial option. Xoloz ( talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Subsequently (but too late for the AfD decision) a WP:RS was located (peer reviewed article in _Mankind Quarterly_). [7] Re CoI, Google lists 3,390 for "capture bonding" -Keith -Henson vs 3,890 for "capture bonding". Keith Henson ( talk) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Grounds for deleting look rather weak. Restore? Its AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |