|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
David Krikorian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information Notability is able to be established as per this converstation User_talk:Sandstein#page_deleted:_David_Krikorian ryan8403 ( talk) 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC) References
ryan8403 ( talk) 23:17, 29 November 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. |
Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information Overturn Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty and the delete decision was faulty as there was no overwhelmingly consensus to delete. In fact, there was plenty of positive support to keep the article, but was treated by the admin who deleted as a canvassing of positive remarks. The Wiki entry on Rolando Gomez was deleted on a 2nd Afd, [32], supposedly, on lack of verifiable sources and because of alleged "canvassing" of positive votes--since when does Wiki penalize the public, including a U.S. Government official from the Dept. of Defense, a high official, the Deputy Chief Public Affairs of Operations, United States Air Force who verified information about an ex-employee, Gomez? This was canvassing? This official had first-hand knowledge with no gain to be made from a former employee. Gomez is a three-time author with chapters on him in two other books, all verifiable by Google Books, and listed here on Wikipedia by the University of Texas, San Antonio as notable [33] alumni. Gomez was deleted after passing the first deletion review several years ago due to what appears to be one already controversial admin's (Ryulong) personal vendetta More than enough reliable sources, including pdf's, scanned photos, press releases and more can "now be found' here on one source page, [34] and the new page includes verifiable, external source links from credible sources. I might add Gomez added the Wikipedia link in all his three books under the resources pages for all photographers. I'm still not sure, as enough sources were listed during the second AfD, why no one bothered to update the article, though it was suggested in the Afd process by several, because that was all it needed to remain listed--before the link to the sources (more sources) listed in this discussion. Wiki's own policy states that if an existing article can be improved to prevent deletion, it should be done, not deleted. That was recommend be several on the 2nd Afd. Even Wiki listed, and notable photographer Jerry Avenaim, [35] expressed his thoughts on the Gomez 2nd AfD, and even stated that he was a co-speaker with Gomez in San Diego at the Photo Imaging and Design Expo. I might add, on Avenaim's page, one of the reliable Wiki sources listed is a link to that photo expo where Gomez and Avenaim did two seminars/lectures together. Was the actual deletion because Ryulong doesn't like glamour photographers but loves celebrity photographers as he strives for more Barnstar awards on Wikipedia? I request this page be reinstated and revised with the credible sources noted before and the new source page [36] listed with new verifiable sources. Gomez is notable as noted on the University of Texas, San Antonio Wikipage entry, by the University School System, a State of Texas Public School system. Gomez's books are all listed on Amazon.com and Google Books and are carried in many book stores world-wide, including Barnes and Nobels, Borders, Books A Million, etc. Three books, authored, not ghost written or co-authored, are sufficient proof of his notability along with feature stories about him by other news writers in Leica World News, Rangefinder Magazine, Studio Photography, D-Pixx and other magazines about Gomez and his photography. I might add, Gomez was the cover story for Rangefinder (his photos, but authored by a reporter for Rangefinder), Sept. 2006 and D-Pixx (European magazine) and co-illustrated a cover story with Pulitzer prize winning photographer Eddie Adams for Parade magazine, circulation 30-million printed copies, the Dec. 19, 1999 issue--link is also found to that cover story with credits on the new source page provided. 32.176.53.168 ( talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Proof that Ryulong deleted the entries is hard to show as I saw it happen during the heated debate between him and another party. Ryulong quickly deleted the article but only placed it back into discussion when asked to do so--he was asked because he deleted an established article without any public discussion. Why would we ask him again when he's proven that he doesn't want the article by deleting entries as they were posted, discounting a credible source like Jerry Avenaim himself listed as notable on Wikipedi? Avenaim provided positive input in the discussion as did the Deputy Chief of Public Affairs of the United States Air Force, Jeff Whitted who included his government email address for verification. The Air Force official like Avenaim was accused of having something to gain, yet Gomez no longer works for Whitted and no one ever claimed what the official or the Air Force for that matter might gain or what Avenaim would gain. It's like a proven guilty till you can prove your innocence. It wasn't a case to prove the article didn't meet the guidelines, it was more a case that Ryulong was right and you'd have to prove him wrong but he held admin powers that would delete, block and stop anyone from coming forward including Avenaim and Whitted. In a nutshell, why would Ryulong even consider this now, when he a) deleted the article on his own without discussion or consensus, b) brought the article back for deletion discussion (2nd Afd) only after asked and never made positive recommendations nor did he act on new information that would save the article, c) he discredited everyone that made a positive stance for the article and d) even deleted some new entries of possible sources and took all positive arguments from other posters as canvassing and gave no merit on the accusation of canvassing. Gomez is a well-known and respected lecturer, author and instructor on photography with over 30 years experience with an email list of over 26,000 photographers on one of his website alone. His books have even made the Amazon.com top 1,000 best selling books, yet Ryulong treats the fact that Gomez' popularity with fans is canvassing. How can you have an AfD discussion if the minute people arrive to defend an entry they are accused of a canvassing act, including people listed notably here on Wikipedia with two of the same credible sources in their Wikipedia page? I see no point in asking Ryulong, which would be a second time on the same article. 72.191.15.133 ( talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
December 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. |
De Sitter invariant theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)| Actual AFD) Overturn The closing admin would not discuss the close when contacted by Geometry guy but instead responded with curt comment. Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty. People were still discussing it, and the delete decision was faulty. There was no consensus to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaszk ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) I don't buy it. This is not a rare case. Look at the discussion right above this one on Rolando Gomez. It's been closed now (as a keep), but read it--- it's instructive. Also read the article. His article went throught the exact same process: deletion, agony, submitting for deliberation, etc. Is anybody better off if there is no article on this person? Is Wikipedia running out of disk space? Do they want people to chip in for a new hard drive? I don't think closing admins are conscientious. I think "deletionism" is something that stupid and jealous people do because they are upset that "so and so has a wikipedia page and I don't" or "such and such has a wiki page and I don't like it". It's pure evil. It harms everybody. In this case, read the original DeSitter relativity article: aside from a few well intentioned mistakes, nothing in there was fringe. It only operated under the assumption that the reader already knows what the De Sitter algebra is. It reads as fringe only to people who don't like the theory. But then, what are these people doing overriding a bunch of references and the patient effort of the original author? "Global warming skeptical opinions" should definitely have a page. It shouldn't even be an issue. Don't these people remember that global warming itself was viewed just as skeptically only a few decades ago? Same with intelligent design, which by the way is often very different from creationism. I think it should take a unanimous opinion of, say, five uninvolved admins, to delete an article. Think about it. Deletion is no work. Creation is hard work. Why would you allow easy frivolous deletion? Likebox ( talk) 17:49, 6 December 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. |
Arnolds ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) I listed reasons at Talk:Arnolds as I was instructed by the "this is the delete debate, don't edit" template, but hey, that was deleted too. Short version: the Arnolds is a big enough franchise (30 stores across Finland) to have an article, per "Note that very notable chains do not necessarily exist in multiple countries." in WP:REST. Arnolds is notable. 88.115.125.10 ( talk) 10:39, 29 November 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. |
Awesome Color ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) This band is in criterias. See fr:Awesome Color and Allmusic ( album). Sorry I'm not en WP user, so I could not understand the reason for deletion. Xic667 ( talk) 12:37, 29 November 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. |
David Krikorian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information Notability is able to be established as per this converstation User_talk:Sandstein#page_deleted:_David_Krikorian ryan8403 ( talk) 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC) References
ryan8403 ( talk) 23:17, 29 November 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. |
Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information Overturn Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty and the delete decision was faulty as there was no overwhelmingly consensus to delete. In fact, there was plenty of positive support to keep the article, but was treated by the admin who deleted as a canvassing of positive remarks. The Wiki entry on Rolando Gomez was deleted on a 2nd Afd, [32], supposedly, on lack of verifiable sources and because of alleged "canvassing" of positive votes--since when does Wiki penalize the public, including a U.S. Government official from the Dept. of Defense, a high official, the Deputy Chief Public Affairs of Operations, United States Air Force who verified information about an ex-employee, Gomez? This was canvassing? This official had first-hand knowledge with no gain to be made from a former employee. Gomez is a three-time author with chapters on him in two other books, all verifiable by Google Books, and listed here on Wikipedia by the University of Texas, San Antonio as notable [33] alumni. Gomez was deleted after passing the first deletion review several years ago due to what appears to be one already controversial admin's (Ryulong) personal vendetta More than enough reliable sources, including pdf's, scanned photos, press releases and more can "now be found' here on one source page, [34] and the new page includes verifiable, external source links from credible sources. I might add Gomez added the Wikipedia link in all his three books under the resources pages for all photographers. I'm still not sure, as enough sources were listed during the second AfD, why no one bothered to update the article, though it was suggested in the Afd process by several, because that was all it needed to remain listed--before the link to the sources (more sources) listed in this discussion. Wiki's own policy states that if an existing article can be improved to prevent deletion, it should be done, not deleted. That was recommend be several on the 2nd Afd. Even Wiki listed, and notable photographer Jerry Avenaim, [35] expressed his thoughts on the Gomez 2nd AfD, and even stated that he was a co-speaker with Gomez in San Diego at the Photo Imaging and Design Expo. I might add, on Avenaim's page, one of the reliable Wiki sources listed is a link to that photo expo where Gomez and Avenaim did two seminars/lectures together. Was the actual deletion because Ryulong doesn't like glamour photographers but loves celebrity photographers as he strives for more Barnstar awards on Wikipedia? I request this page be reinstated and revised with the credible sources noted before and the new source page [36] listed with new verifiable sources. Gomez is notable as noted on the University of Texas, San Antonio Wikipage entry, by the University School System, a State of Texas Public School system. Gomez's books are all listed on Amazon.com and Google Books and are carried in many book stores world-wide, including Barnes and Nobels, Borders, Books A Million, etc. Three books, authored, not ghost written or co-authored, are sufficient proof of his notability along with feature stories about him by other news writers in Leica World News, Rangefinder Magazine, Studio Photography, D-Pixx and other magazines about Gomez and his photography. I might add, Gomez was the cover story for Rangefinder (his photos, but authored by a reporter for Rangefinder), Sept. 2006 and D-Pixx (European magazine) and co-illustrated a cover story with Pulitzer prize winning photographer Eddie Adams for Parade magazine, circulation 30-million printed copies, the Dec. 19, 1999 issue--link is also found to that cover story with credits on the new source page provided. 32.176.53.168 ( talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Proof that Ryulong deleted the entries is hard to show as I saw it happen during the heated debate between him and another party. Ryulong quickly deleted the article but only placed it back into discussion when asked to do so--he was asked because he deleted an established article without any public discussion. Why would we ask him again when he's proven that he doesn't want the article by deleting entries as they were posted, discounting a credible source like Jerry Avenaim himself listed as notable on Wikipedi? Avenaim provided positive input in the discussion as did the Deputy Chief of Public Affairs of the United States Air Force, Jeff Whitted who included his government email address for verification. The Air Force official like Avenaim was accused of having something to gain, yet Gomez no longer works for Whitted and no one ever claimed what the official or the Air Force for that matter might gain or what Avenaim would gain. It's like a proven guilty till you can prove your innocence. It wasn't a case to prove the article didn't meet the guidelines, it was more a case that Ryulong was right and you'd have to prove him wrong but he held admin powers that would delete, block and stop anyone from coming forward including Avenaim and Whitted. In a nutshell, why would Ryulong even consider this now, when he a) deleted the article on his own without discussion or consensus, b) brought the article back for deletion discussion (2nd Afd) only after asked and never made positive recommendations nor did he act on new information that would save the article, c) he discredited everyone that made a positive stance for the article and d) even deleted some new entries of possible sources and took all positive arguments from other posters as canvassing and gave no merit on the accusation of canvassing. Gomez is a well-known and respected lecturer, author and instructor on photography with over 30 years experience with an email list of over 26,000 photographers on one of his website alone. His books have even made the Amazon.com top 1,000 best selling books, yet Ryulong treats the fact that Gomez' popularity with fans is canvassing. How can you have an AfD discussion if the minute people arrive to defend an entry they are accused of a canvassing act, including people listed notably here on Wikipedia with two of the same credible sources in their Wikipedia page? I see no point in asking Ryulong, which would be a second time on the same article. 72.191.15.133 ( talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
December 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. |
De Sitter invariant theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)| Actual AFD) Overturn The closing admin would not discuss the close when contacted by Geometry guy but instead responded with curt comment. Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty. People were still discussing it, and the delete decision was faulty. There was no consensus to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaszk ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) I don't buy it. This is not a rare case. Look at the discussion right above this one on Rolando Gomez. It's been closed now (as a keep), but read it--- it's instructive. Also read the article. His article went throught the exact same process: deletion, agony, submitting for deliberation, etc. Is anybody better off if there is no article on this person? Is Wikipedia running out of disk space? Do they want people to chip in for a new hard drive? I don't think closing admins are conscientious. I think "deletionism" is something that stupid and jealous people do because they are upset that "so and so has a wikipedia page and I don't" or "such and such has a wiki page and I don't like it". It's pure evil. It harms everybody. In this case, read the original DeSitter relativity article: aside from a few well intentioned mistakes, nothing in there was fringe. It only operated under the assumption that the reader already knows what the De Sitter algebra is. It reads as fringe only to people who don't like the theory. But then, what are these people doing overriding a bunch of references and the patient effort of the original author? "Global warming skeptical opinions" should definitely have a page. It shouldn't even be an issue. Don't these people remember that global warming itself was viewed just as skeptically only a few decades ago? Same with intelligent design, which by the way is often very different from creationism. I think it should take a unanimous opinion of, say, five uninvolved admins, to delete an article. Think about it. Deletion is no work. Creation is hard work. Why would you allow easy frivolous deletion? Likebox ( talk) 17:49, 6 December 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. |
Arnolds ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) I listed reasons at Talk:Arnolds as I was instructed by the "this is the delete debate, don't edit" template, but hey, that was deleted too. Short version: the Arnolds is a big enough franchise (30 stores across Finland) to have an article, per "Note that very notable chains do not necessarily exist in multiple countries." in WP:REST. Arnolds is notable. 88.115.125.10 ( talk) 10:39, 29 November 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. |
Awesome Color ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) This band is in criterias. See fr:Awesome Color and Allmusic ( album). Sorry I'm not en WP user, so I could not understand the reason for deletion. Xic667 ( talk) 12:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |