List of birthday songs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

This list of traditional birthday songs around the world was headed for deletion based on being a possible copyright violation (though the validity of the copyright of Happy Birthday to You may be suspect) and being a lyrics database. I addressed both of these issues by editing it down to a simple list of countries and song titles, and started adding source citations. After a delete citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE (but not explaining how they applied other than to give a personal opinion about encyclopedic coverage, which would probably exclude the vast majority of lists on Wikipedia) and a delete based on a rather weak (IMO) argument that people could just find the information in the articles themselves (without indicating how to find those articles or why an index to those articles would be inappropriate), one commenter reversed their delete and argued to keep the rewritten article, and countered the immediately preceding delete argument. The closing admin said that he deleted because "the majority of the delete 'votes' were based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY," but careful reading of the discussion shows this not to be the case, and it is unclear that those arguing that before the rewrite would have applied that rationale after the rewrite. In fact, the "not a directory" issue was hardly discussed at all because the copyvio and lyrics issues overwhelmed that, and the article was deleted less than 21 hours after the rewrite. Due to lack of substantial discussion after the rewrite, I feel at the very least, a relist is warranted. DHowell ( talk) 05:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist as nom. DHowell ( talk) 05:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• I concur with the nominator and would overturn and relist. Stifle ( talk) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist While the final comment that argued deletion, may have had a good point, the majority of comments were based on a different article. With the weak argument of Benefix ignored, the post-rewrite comments amount to no consensus. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Hey! Who are you to talk about weak arguments? Themfromspace's vote and the deletion as a directory/guide are firmly grounded in policy, and if it applies to "the vast majority of lists on Wikipedia" then tough luck, go read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Index" is nothing more than a weasel word for directory IMO, that's why it's inappropriate. Endorse closure Benefix ( talk) 14:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Xe's a Wikipedia editor who has read your argument. Your argument mentioned none of the things that you have referred to here. Your argument, rather than the arguments made by other people that you are now attempting to appropriate as yours, was, in toto, "people who want to know about other birthday songs can look in the respective articles". And it was weak, having no foundation in deletion policy at all. Uncle G ( talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I'm sorry I didn't realize that we were being judged on individual contributions instead of the case for deletion as a whole. My argument was a supplement to the previous one, so I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it. My intention was simply to point out that nothing is lost by the deletion of this directory as the information will still be available from the individual articles (once written). Benefix ( talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn and relist The article changed over time and early commentators may not have been aware of the changes that occurred. JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn carefully and relist. Please don't restore the copyvio revisions. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Portal:SWIFT ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD))

OVERTURN - KEEP. Overturn - KEEP. SWIFT portal is not intended as a advertisement portal. Understand that SWIT is a non-profit cooperative organization created by national banks and banks in the 1970s in an effort to replace the un-secure and unreliable telex. Today all national banks and major financial institutions around the world are connected to SWIFT and use it for transfers of funds, actions, and numerous other financial instruments between themselves (e,g SWIFT code or aka BIC code for money transfers). As the UN is involved in International Politics, SWIFT is involved with the International Financial Community. The spirit behind the portal is to provide a coherent and accurate representation of SWIFT and all sub-entities that compose SWIFT. The SWIFT article makes an encyclopedic reference to SWIFT (date of creation, how the network works, etc.. - and not to mention not exactly accurate!!!) while as the portal provides a coherent view of other organizations linked (including the UN CEFACT, ISO, and other international Standards organizations) and which collaborate together with SWIFT (e.g. non-swift protocols such as FIX & FpmL used in trade initiation) in an effort to develop and improve the financial industry for the community and not out of self interest. It also provides a view of industry initiatives which are sponsored or initiated by SWIFT - such as SEPA or Giovanni 1 - in which SWIFT has collaborated with the European Union and the European Central Bank.

Few people are aware of SWIFT importance and role as the primary secure network that link the financial world together. As important for people to know (through the UN portal) about the UN's active role international politics, trying to ensure peaceful coexistence between different nation states, and various other agendas it maintains (e.g. genocide, health) it is important for people to understand SWIFT position in the financial industry (for port authorities, custodians, trade markets, stock markets, national banks, cooperates, SME, developing countries through its service bureau infrastructure, and more....) and how this one is supported by a non-profit entity who's mission to keep running a global financial network securely and resiliently - independent of any crisis. Yet this, I am sure pretty much no one is aware of! Explaining someone about SWIFT and they think your talking about a meat packaging company!

The contribution to Wikipedia is an effort to provide this information objectively and unbiased. Wording has been reviewed multiple times by friends and fellow writers to make sure that the writing did NOT promote SWIFT but was a source of unbiased information - not advertisement. Although it might seem a bit narrowly focused on SWIFT (albeit not much is available on this subject) I would encourage the admins to help me to further develop this portal in an effort to render the financial world and its workings more transparent. In this fashion I feel that the article can not offer the visibility or broadness that this portal is intended to offer. I urge to reconsider your choice in this matter and hope we can find a suitable solution for bother parties. Thank you

• Consensus of the discussion is clear. Endorse deletion I do already know of Swift, most particularly SWIFTNet E&I, and agree with the nominator that this topic isn't of sufficient general interest and importance to merit a portal. The MFD did not change the article contents related to SWIFT, just eliminated a gateway for getting to those articles. GRBerry 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, DRV is not round 2 of MFD. Stifle ( talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own close: the MFD was unanimous in favor of deletion; any information about SWIFT should be added to the article; DRV is not XFD round 2.-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse "SWIFT portal is not intended as a advertisement portal. Understand that SWIT is a non-profit cooperative organization created by national banks and banks in the 1970s in an effort to replace the un-secure and unreliable telex." The fact the company is a non-profit is irrelevant. Non-profits can advertise too. In fact, the whole idea of making people aware of something is the exact point of advertising. The consensus was clear and no new facts were brought to the table. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply