|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Fails Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYN. Also not discussed at the is the WP:COI of the user and the copy vios of previous attempts( Design values, Architectural intentions) to insert this content, and the failed DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23. Copy vios ( http://www.aho.no/Utgivelser/Avhandlinger_elektronisk/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf and http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi7vcuGpAW8C ) Sole editor is Ivar Holm ( Gutt2007 ( talk · contribs) and 84.208.68.188 ( talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to "his own work". Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, nor is wikipedia to be used as Self-promotion. speedy delete Hu12 ( talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (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. |
endorse. Okay this is definitely not a clear-cut case. Firstly, DRV is not used to complain about process. Addendum It has been brought to my attention that they were not all deleted legitimately after a five-day PROD period. The few links I clicked on showed an uninvolved admin deleting after 5 days, as shown in the edit summary. Therefore I correct the statement I made above. However, I am going to invoke WP:IAR which is not something I've done often. These articles have no chance of survival at AfD, as evidenced by the creator's failure to provide any sources/evidence of notability/verifiability while the other AfDs were running. Re-opening it would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, or process, as they would have been deleted had they been brought up. This is my decision, but I understand that it is going to be a controversial one. Therefore, if an uninvolved admin feels they should overturn this decision, I give them full liberty to do so. However, please be sure that you are doing so because you feel the article can survive, and not purely because of process, because I am 100% sure that there is no chance that these articles will survive AfD. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
RGTraynor prodded this article and the other listed articles for deletion. Unfortunately the Prod wasn't viable as these articles have survived a prior bundled AfD (see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria). I removed the Prods explaining in the edit summary why, a short while after doing so
DragonflySixtyseven mass deleted all the articles. These deletions were totally out of process and were done on the grounds of the articles lack of verifiability and original research. These articles had been in existence for several years so why the rush to delete? Why couldn't the normal deletion policy be followed? Why the reluctance to send them to AfD?
|
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. |
In my understanding the criteria was met. Two guidelines were met from WP:Band. Clarification please on EXACTLY what more needs to be done. Blue Gillian ( talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (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. |
The singular name template was a very widely used template but when the TFD was placed on the template a notice to the fact was never transcluded to the articles affected - The public became only aware of the TFD when all instances of use where removed by a bot The plural name version also had a lack of a TFD notice on the template. Agathoclea ( talk) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (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 is an article with a number of sources that help asset its notability and it should be a stand-alone article rather than redirected to the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net. This article now has much more substance with backed references to establish that it should be a stand-alone article. 69.76.132.152 ( talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (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 on a song and related articles ( Replace Me, Kountry Gentleman, Whatcha Gonna' Do With It) were listed at AfD, where I believe that consensus very clearly developed to redirect the articles according to the guidelines quoted from WP:MUSIC. I do not believe that the AfD closure reflected any of the issues discussed within the conversation. I have discussed the matter with the deleting administrator ( here), but she declines to reconsider her decision unless approached by one of the editors who participated in the AfD. I'm perfectly happy to create the redirects myself (trusting that this would not be perceived as a WP:CSD#G4 issue), but I believe that the language of the closure should be revised to reflect the actual outcome of the debate. Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (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. |
Fails Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYN. Also not discussed at the is the WP:COI of the user and the copy vios of previous attempts( Design values, Architectural intentions) to insert this content, and the failed DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23. Copy vios ( http://www.aho.no/Utgivelser/Avhandlinger_elektronisk/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf and http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi7vcuGpAW8C ) Sole editor is Ivar Holm ( Gutt2007 ( talk · contribs) and 84.208.68.188 ( talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to "his own work". Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, nor is wikipedia to be used as Self-promotion. speedy delete Hu12 ( talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (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. |
endorse. Okay this is definitely not a clear-cut case. Firstly, DRV is not used to complain about process. Addendum It has been brought to my attention that they were not all deleted legitimately after a five-day PROD period. The few links I clicked on showed an uninvolved admin deleting after 5 days, as shown in the edit summary. Therefore I correct the statement I made above. However, I am going to invoke WP:IAR which is not something I've done often. These articles have no chance of survival at AfD, as evidenced by the creator's failure to provide any sources/evidence of notability/verifiability while the other AfDs were running. Re-opening it would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, or process, as they would have been deleted had they been brought up. This is my decision, but I understand that it is going to be a controversial one. Therefore, if an uninvolved admin feels they should overturn this decision, I give them full liberty to do so. However, please be sure that you are doing so because you feel the article can survive, and not purely because of process, because I am 100% sure that there is no chance that these articles will survive AfD. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
RGTraynor prodded this article and the other listed articles for deletion. Unfortunately the Prod wasn't viable as these articles have survived a prior bundled AfD (see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria). I removed the Prods explaining in the edit summary why, a short while after doing so
DragonflySixtyseven mass deleted all the articles. These deletions were totally out of process and were done on the grounds of the articles lack of verifiability and original research. These articles had been in existence for several years so why the rush to delete? Why couldn't the normal deletion policy be followed? Why the reluctance to send them to AfD?
|
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. |
In my understanding the criteria was met. Two guidelines were met from WP:Band. Clarification please on EXACTLY what more needs to be done. Blue Gillian ( talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (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. |
The singular name template was a very widely used template but when the TFD was placed on the template a notice to the fact was never transcluded to the articles affected - The public became only aware of the TFD when all instances of use where removed by a bot The plural name version also had a lack of a TFD notice on the template. Agathoclea ( talk) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (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 is an article with a number of sources that help asset its notability and it should be a stand-alone article rather than redirected to the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net. This article now has much more substance with backed references to establish that it should be a stand-alone article. 69.76.132.152 ( talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (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 on a song and related articles ( Replace Me, Kountry Gentleman, Whatcha Gonna' Do With It) were listed at AfD, where I believe that consensus very clearly developed to redirect the articles according to the guidelines quoted from WP:MUSIC. I do not believe that the AfD closure reflected any of the issues discussed within the conversation. I have discussed the matter with the deleting administrator ( here), but she declines to reconsider her decision unless approached by one of the editors who participated in the AfD. I'm perfectly happy to create the redirects myself (trusting that this would not be perceived as a WP:CSD#G4 issue), but I believe that the language of the closure should be revised to reflect the actual outcome of the debate. Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |