|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted. I would like these two deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY. I'm not familiar with these articles, couldn't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz. Some discussion at User_talk:Joe_Decker#Bedford_Modern_School.2C_sockpuppets_and_WP:DRV Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Richard Howe (officer) Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
See above for Richard Howe (officer) Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Herbert Roff Newton Notability would seem to depend on how significant we see the role of Deputy Lieutenant for a county. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted solely because the list in its present form was "an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness". No editor acknowledged the possibility that the list could be rebuilt with more rigid and strict criteria (including possibly, being limited to notable smartphones that have an article already, etc.), and divisions based on either era or shipped version. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:40, 7 November 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. | |||
This was closed as a non-admin closure, although consensus was far from clear. There was only one !vote to redirect, which doesn't seem appropriate, since it's an implausible search term not mentioned anywhere in the target article. Paul_012 ( talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC) PS I'm not necessarily contesting the outcome; this is more of a procedural request, since I don't think consensus was clear then. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Deletion Review should not be used:
| |||
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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Even though it had been outlined how this song does not meet notability criteria per WP:NSONGS, none of the "keep" voters had rationales complying with notability criteria for songs, and thus their rationales were unconvincing. To be specific, it states Coverage of a song within the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. All but one "keep" voter completely overlooked this. There is also a note saying The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. Aside from album reviews, this only gets brief mentions in sources. This is the part that was completely overlooked by all voters. One voter did acknowledge there were mostly album sources, but overlooked the fact that the non-album review sources only mentioned the song briefly. I told this to the non-admin who closed the discussion, but the closer stood by the decision to keep. Given the notability criteria outlined above and how Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, this should NOT have been closed as a "keep" when it clearly failed the inclusion criteria. This should be overturned to redirect, though no prejudice against deletion of article. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:56, 7 November 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted. I would like these two deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY. I'm not familiar with these articles, couldn't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz. Some discussion at User_talk:Joe_Decker#Bedford_Modern_School.2C_sockpuppets_and_WP:DRV Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Richard Howe (officer) Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
See above for Richard Howe (officer) Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Herbert Roff Newton Notability would seem to depend on how significant we see the role of Deputy Lieutenant for a county. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted solely because the list in its present form was "an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness". No editor acknowledged the possibility that the list could be rebuilt with more rigid and strict criteria (including possibly, being limited to notable smartphones that have an article already, etc.), and divisions based on either era or shipped version. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:40, 7 November 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it. | |||
This was closed as a non-admin closure, although consensus was far from clear. There was only one !vote to redirect, which doesn't seem appropriate, since it's an implausible search term not mentioned anywhere in the target article. Paul_012 ( talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC) PS I'm not necessarily contesting the outcome; this is more of a procedural request, since I don't think consensus was clear then. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Deletion Review should not be used:
| |||
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 page above. Please do not modify it. |
Even though it had been outlined how this song does not meet notability criteria per WP:NSONGS, none of the "keep" voters had rationales complying with notability criteria for songs, and thus their rationales were unconvincing. To be specific, it states Coverage of a song within the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. All but one "keep" voter completely overlooked this. There is also a note saying The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. Aside from album reviews, this only gets brief mentions in sources. This is the part that was completely overlooked by all voters. One voter did acknowledge there were mostly album sources, but overlooked the fact that the non-album review sources only mentioned the song briefly. I told this to the non-admin who closed the discussion, but the closer stood by the decision to keep. Given the notability criteria outlined above and how Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, this should NOT have been closed as a "keep" when it clearly failed the inclusion criteria. This should be overturned to redirect, though no prejudice against deletion of article. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |