|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Article has been cleaned up, rewritten. I don't think this revised page content was reviewed despite calls for this to happen. I've spoken to the editor who deleted it and he's restored it to here /info/en/?search=User:Lancshero/Skiddle - please can this be reviewed and the page be restored? Happy to see another vote on this new content if needed - but seems like a waste of time asking for someone to work on it only for it then to be deleted. Thanks Lancshero ( talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what sort of timeframe the deletion review works on, or how it comes to a close? Do two editors saying 'allow recreation' mean I should recreate or do I need to wait for a set amount of time? Sorry - not done this before! Thanks Lancshero ( talk) 15:14, 2 December 2015 (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. |
Basis solely on the arguments provided in the discussion the closed should be no other than no consensus. Source provided by Dual Freq suggest notability, this maybe an administrative supervote. If considering the votes is to 3 in favor of keep, 1 merge and 3 delete including the nominator, a clear lack of consensus. Valoem talk contrib 09:27, 30 November 2015 (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. | ||
Discussion with closing admin:
Restore the article's history under a redirect to C Spire Wireless so I can do a selective merge of a few sentences and their sources. Cunard ( talk) 00:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What's definitely not okay is to delete the history and then re-use the content. See
WP:RUD. The real expert on this area is
User:Flatscan, who sadly no longer edits, but he gave us a lot of wisdom on this point historically and looking at his contribution history will uncloak quite a lot of subtle thought about attribution in relation to deleted content. I also think it's plausible that in relation to close paraphrasing of deleted material, there's a gulf between behaviour that's technically within the rules, and behaviour that's up to the expected standards we enforce at DRV. This part of the encyclopaedia does have standards, and custom and practice, that's not written down and has to be learned through experience. It's also not particularly constrained; deletion review is the "highest court", to use a decidedly inappropriate metaphor, and so it has wide latitude to come to decisions which improve the encyclopaedia's deletion processes. Generally, I would repeat my suggestion to Dirtlawyer1 that for his first little while at Deletion Review it would be appropriate to use a little less of the imperative and the emphatic declarative, and a little more of the interrogative, when speaking to those with a lot of experience here.—
S Marshall
T/
C 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that. Can you check again? I see no opposition to the merge suggestion. Maybe DreamGuys "A merge would have a lot of useless info", but I don't agree that there was a rejection of merge. The Delete !voters seemed to be looking at a keep/delete dichotomy.
| ||
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. |
Only one person suggested deleting the available information before turning into a redirect. The information and edit history should be restored, the redirect can stay. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:19, 28 November 2015 (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. |
She seems notable. Taku ( talk) 03:14, 28 November 2015 (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. |
The deleter argues that I am currently banned from new article creation, but this was created long before I was banned. If restored it should be "List
|
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. |
I've updated the page content to reflect notes form previous deletion discussions including additions to citations and removal of non neutral text Idaho.jim ( talk) 23:25, 24 November 2015 (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 page was recently deleted, erroneously in my view. It was an important blog, and many people supported retention of the page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.189.82.66 ( talk) 00:56, 25 November 2015 (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. |
I've contacted ( talk) for undelete an for reasons I do not understand he has denied. Eric is followed by 100,000's of people, on Major TV shows, in magazines like GQ, Time, US Weekly and widely considered a fashion icon by the fashion industry. I appose to it as with Eric West there is more than enough coverage to warrant a keep. "world's ultimate Renaissance man" Complex magazine. [8], "influencers" [9], "The 25 Hottest Actors Under 35" Vibe [10], "Expect Big Things from this Hollywood Star, Eric West has been on our radar for a while now, his spot on our list of ones to watch was recently cemented in place." Barneys New York [11], "Style Icon" Askmen [12], "A-list" China Daily [13] US Weekly [14] Esquire [15] InStyle [16] Time [17] various issues of GQ [18] [19], followed up 100,000's of people on social media, face of huge campaigns [20] [21]. Stars as Garrett on Satisfaction on USA Network and many other shows. [22] "Prince of Fashion Week" [23] Shorty Award nomination for Actor of the Year Hollywood Reporter [24] For him to not have even a stub doesn't seem right. Alejandrad117 ( talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You'd allow creation of Huccah over Eric and he doesn't even register in Google Trends [27]. So your reason is because of comments on his IMDB message board as a reason why someone on a major TV show who also ranks as one of the most influential people on Social Media as well the reason why? [28]. I think you need to start realizing that his success will continue and find better reasons for someone that is clearly notable. Alejandrad117 ( talk) 04:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Like I said it seems like you're the only one here starting false information other than focusing on fact which is why I sent an email to a bunch of contacts I found last night and I just got an email back from someone directly at Wiki who is going to look into all of the users above who are making decisions when there is clearly enough to warrant an article. His words exactly were "Eric West is article worthy, I will investigate and get back to you." Alejandrad117 ( talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Alejandrad117 ( talk) 17:48, 25 November 2015 (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. |
Article rewritten with substantial references from various reliable and reputed sources. Rajannamysore ( talk) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (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. |
Request by Sydney59 for undeletion (incorrectly) at Refund and then my talk page as the deleting admin. I'm okay with my deletion, but I am happy if people think this should be relisted. -- KTC ( talk) 02:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/808CBF9D-D8E6-44A7-AE13-41A70645A525/v12n1_Teaching.pdf (page 13) This has been further edited by others since this article was first placed on Wikipedia...but the point is it was not written as publicity. Finally if it was "designed exclusively to advertise the event" what evidence is there from the article that this is advertising? What phrases and quotes are there in the article that indicate it is anything more than an account of the history and nature of the event? It has never been stated by any editors what exactly is promotional...in which case it could be removed. Suffice to say it is not advertising nor was it ever intended to be. Sydney59 ( talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
John Kleinig Emeritus Professor, Department of Criminal Justice John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2411N 524 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 USA Phone: +1 212 237-8415 Email: jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/john-kleinig =[email]='jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu' https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Philosophy/Faculty-Bios/John-Kleinig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.101.134 ( talk) 22:31, 24 November 2015 (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. |
Wrong to NAC a dispute, especially with a delete and then closing with a redirect and not a delete. 166.176.59.169 ( talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (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. |
Page was deleted after only 2 users contributed. Both Different answers. One was delete. One was redirect. There is no harm in redirecting the page as the previous info could be used if the subject becomes noticeable, instead of recreating the entire page. Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 November 2015 (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. |
Disclaimer: I created the incarnation of this article that was most recently deleted. The reason given in the deletion log was "attack page", but I don't think that the article, although admittedly a probable violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP, qualified as an attack page (though I don't remember exactly what it looked like prior to it being deleted recently). The content was well sourced and not negative enough to warrant being speedied under this criterion. Given that this speedy deletion seems, at least to me, to have been unwarranted under the criterion used by the deleting admin, I think the page should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (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. |
Surprising how many Wikipedians don't understand that notability doesn't require coverage in English-language media, and that a Google search has to take different translations (
such as "Folk Museum of Velvendo") into regard.
|
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. |
Marianna Yarovskaya page which was created through the AFC process on 9th November 2015, with different content and references, but deleted again as per previous discussion in 2012. Iamothers ( talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
She also produced and directed a feature film Women of the Gulag (in post-production), based on Paul Gregory’s Hoover book of the same title. This feature-length documentary is supported by a media grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. She has also received National Endowment for Democracy Grant, Pacific Pioneer Grant, and many other awards and commendations. She was one of the producers of media for the Russian Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center, which opened in Moscow in 2012. She is a member of PGA ( Producers Guild of America) since 2015. Her partial list of credits in research/ archival producing include such award-winning feature films as God the Father, Vessel, Swift Current, Red Army, Merchants of Doubt, Spirit of the Marathon II, and many others. In addition Yarovskaya worked in research on an Academy Award nominated Last Days in Vietnam by Rory Kennedy (2014). Iamothers ( talk) 09:25, 12 November 2015 (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 template was deleted by User:Bgwhite citing CSD:G6. I have contacted User:Bgwhite to ask for it to be restored, and my request was denied. As I attempted to explain to Bgwhite, what I created was a "substitution only template" which may be used to translate articles from the German Wikipedia to this Wikipedia. This is very similar to Template:Infobox Burg, which was created by Bermicourt for translating pages articles about castles. To make sure it could not be used directly, I specifically wrapped the output in a parserfunction which prevented the template from producing any output if it was not substituted. Hence, it is important to note that what I created is completely useless if it's not substituted. Despite all of this, User:Bgwhite insists that I created to help XaviYuahanda. this is clearly not the case since the template is useless if it's not substituted. I am unable to demonstrate this fact while the template is deleted. the thread where I tried to explain all of this to Bgwhite can be found here. as I stated there, if there is a fundamental problem with this type of translation tool, then we should discuss it at WP:TFD. any deletion of this type of template should be bundled with all the other "shimming templates" (as Bermicourt calls them). Frietjes ( talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I said Frietjes can restore it after the 15th, when the ban was over. User XaviYuahanda has been banned on dewiki 5 times for adding/creating non-notable people to football articles and not listening to advice given to them. They are currently under their second one month ban and it is set to expire on the 15th. The template was created after an interaction between Friejtes and the banned user. The only non-talk pages that link to the template are the ~50 articles created by the user. User stated on their dewiki talk page, that Frietjes "was kind enough to create a BNR template" and has said he wants the template back. I looked at several of the articles and they are about footballers who haven't played a pro game yet. It appears the user's intention is to copy the articles to dewiki after their ban is done. A notice was placed on the dewiki admin board by another user that talks about XaviYuahanda's actions on enwiki. I don't understand why this template, which hasn't been around for several years, has to be restored now for a banned user who wants it back. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (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 seems to me a clear case of a closer putting their own opinions before those of the majority. Yes, yes, we all know it's not just about numbers voting, but nine keeps against five deletes? Come on, that's a clear consensus to keep; no consensus at the very outside. If a closer can discount this level of support for keeping and just decide to delete anyway then what on earth is the point of having an AfD discussion in the first place? Incidentally, I think I've only brought one other case to deletion review in all the years I've been here - two in one day is pure coincidence and not a campaign against deletion! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (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. |
Seems to me a clear no consensus close - three keeps against two deletes. The closer has said he's discounted keep opinions as there is no presumption of notability for ambassadors. However, it is AfD discussion that largely shapes guidelines and AfD discussion is largely about opinion as to a subject's notability. If editors' opinions are going to be discounted in this way then there really is no point in having AfD discussions - we may as well just let admins delete any articles which do not fit within rigidly defined criteria as they see fit. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (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. |
more reliable sources have appeared since last deletion, [35] [36] [37] [38] Prisencolin ( talk) 09:11, 4 November 2015 (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. |
The original deletion request may have been politically motivated and therefore highly inappropriate for a page of this type. The National Assembly Elections in Wales are to take place in 2016, News stories have published that Wales Green Party are polled to gain seats in this election for the first time in Wales, therefore this page will become ever more necessary in the coming months. There are also many links to this page from constituency pages and Assembly Regional pages so a delete would create many dead links as well. Jimmy3d0 ( talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Back to the Talk page would just point out that those of us in favour of retention were advised to set up this deletion review page. but ok guys then guys, will now return to the talk page and put the arguments for a stand alone page there again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (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. |
I started working on
User:Geo Swan/Caroline Mulroney today. I request the deleted revision history be grafted on the userspace file I started. Note: the AFDs are very old, and predate Lapham's appointment to the Windsor Detroit Bridge Authority, and her founding of the non-profit The Shoebox Project. Since the basic argument for delete had been that there was nothing noteworthy to cover, beyond her ties to notable people, and she now has independent notability factors, I think it is worth considering whether she now measures up to our current notability criteria. Fwiw, there had been an earlier AFD WP:Articles for deletion/Caroline Mulroney. Fwiw, if an article belongs in article space, it should probably be at Caroline Mulroney Lapham. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:14, 2 November 2015 (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. | ||
Discussion with closing admin:
Here are the sources I provided in the discussion:
Spartaz closed as "delete" writing: There is no evidence that the other editors found the sources I found. No one mentioned the in-depth sources I found from The Age and The Australian. Perhaps they found passing mentions. No one explained why the sources I provided don't meet the "deep coverage" criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage. Overturn to no consensus. Cunard ( talk) 22:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC) I am also fine with an "overturn to relist" (see Hobit's edit summary). Cunard ( talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment from closing admin Please can
cunard tone down their badgering overly formatted responses to every comment here as I'm finding it impossible to follow the flow of the discussion here. My rationale when I closed the discussion was that two users had already considered the sources properly and found them routine and not up to snuff. Cunard disputes this but the evidence of this review and in the actual AFD was that both users considered the sources Cunard provided and were not persuaded against their original view. My role in closing a discussion is to assess the arguments provided and not put in my own opinion.
The votes were:-
Nomination -
SwisterTwister provided clear evidence they had properly sought sources and found them lacking Bjelleklang - Searched for sources and found them inadequate. Reviewed Cunard's sources in the AFD and found them unpersuasive<br /> IP editor - found the sources mundane<br /> {{u|Hydronium Hydroxide}} provided sources for a previous company - which to my mind is not about this company and does not count<br /> {{u|Onel5969}} reviewed sources and confirmed here that Cunards sources did not persuade him<br /> Sock vote discarded<br /> {{u|Cunard}} provided a long list of sources that was dismissed as routine by Bjelleklang. <br /> The only way I could not find a delete consensus would be to discard the majority of the votes despite clear evidence that these voters had properly sought sources and evaluated what was there and found it lacking.~~~~
| ||
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. |
Article has been cleaned up, rewritten. I don't think this revised page content was reviewed despite calls for this to happen. I've spoken to the editor who deleted it and he's restored it to here /info/en/?search=User:Lancshero/Skiddle - please can this be reviewed and the page be restored? Happy to see another vote on this new content if needed - but seems like a waste of time asking for someone to work on it only for it then to be deleted. Thanks Lancshero ( talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what sort of timeframe the deletion review works on, or how it comes to a close? Do two editors saying 'allow recreation' mean I should recreate or do I need to wait for a set amount of time? Sorry - not done this before! Thanks Lancshero ( talk) 15:14, 2 December 2015 (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. |
Basis solely on the arguments provided in the discussion the closed should be no other than no consensus. Source provided by Dual Freq suggest notability, this maybe an administrative supervote. If considering the votes is to 3 in favor of keep, 1 merge and 3 delete including the nominator, a clear lack of consensus. Valoem talk contrib 09:27, 30 November 2015 (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. | ||
Discussion with closing admin:
Restore the article's history under a redirect to C Spire Wireless so I can do a selective merge of a few sentences and their sources. Cunard ( talk) 00:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What's definitely not okay is to delete the history and then re-use the content. See
WP:RUD. The real expert on this area is
User:Flatscan, who sadly no longer edits, but he gave us a lot of wisdom on this point historically and looking at his contribution history will uncloak quite a lot of subtle thought about attribution in relation to deleted content. I also think it's plausible that in relation to close paraphrasing of deleted material, there's a gulf between behaviour that's technically within the rules, and behaviour that's up to the expected standards we enforce at DRV. This part of the encyclopaedia does have standards, and custom and practice, that's not written down and has to be learned through experience. It's also not particularly constrained; deletion review is the "highest court", to use a decidedly inappropriate metaphor, and so it has wide latitude to come to decisions which improve the encyclopaedia's deletion processes. Generally, I would repeat my suggestion to Dirtlawyer1 that for his first little while at Deletion Review it would be appropriate to use a little less of the imperative and the emphatic declarative, and a little more of the interrogative, when speaking to those with a lot of experience here.—
S Marshall
T/
C 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that. Can you check again? I see no opposition to the merge suggestion. Maybe DreamGuys "A merge would have a lot of useless info", but I don't agree that there was a rejection of merge. The Delete !voters seemed to be looking at a keep/delete dichotomy.
| ||
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. |
Only one person suggested deleting the available information before turning into a redirect. The information and edit history should be restored, the redirect can stay. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:19, 28 November 2015 (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. |
She seems notable. Taku ( talk) 03:14, 28 November 2015 (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. |
The deleter argues that I am currently banned from new article creation, but this was created long before I was banned. If restored it should be "List
|
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. |
I've updated the page content to reflect notes form previous deletion discussions including additions to citations and removal of non neutral text Idaho.jim ( talk) 23:25, 24 November 2015 (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 page was recently deleted, erroneously in my view. It was an important blog, and many people supported retention of the page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.189.82.66 ( talk) 00:56, 25 November 2015 (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. |
I've contacted ( talk) for undelete an for reasons I do not understand he has denied. Eric is followed by 100,000's of people, on Major TV shows, in magazines like GQ, Time, US Weekly and widely considered a fashion icon by the fashion industry. I appose to it as with Eric West there is more than enough coverage to warrant a keep. "world's ultimate Renaissance man" Complex magazine. [8], "influencers" [9], "The 25 Hottest Actors Under 35" Vibe [10], "Expect Big Things from this Hollywood Star, Eric West has been on our radar for a while now, his spot on our list of ones to watch was recently cemented in place." Barneys New York [11], "Style Icon" Askmen [12], "A-list" China Daily [13] US Weekly [14] Esquire [15] InStyle [16] Time [17] various issues of GQ [18] [19], followed up 100,000's of people on social media, face of huge campaigns [20] [21]. Stars as Garrett on Satisfaction on USA Network and many other shows. [22] "Prince of Fashion Week" [23] Shorty Award nomination for Actor of the Year Hollywood Reporter [24] For him to not have even a stub doesn't seem right. Alejandrad117 ( talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You'd allow creation of Huccah over Eric and he doesn't even register in Google Trends [27]. So your reason is because of comments on his IMDB message board as a reason why someone on a major TV show who also ranks as one of the most influential people on Social Media as well the reason why? [28]. I think you need to start realizing that his success will continue and find better reasons for someone that is clearly notable. Alejandrad117 ( talk) 04:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Like I said it seems like you're the only one here starting false information other than focusing on fact which is why I sent an email to a bunch of contacts I found last night and I just got an email back from someone directly at Wiki who is going to look into all of the users above who are making decisions when there is clearly enough to warrant an article. His words exactly were "Eric West is article worthy, I will investigate and get back to you." Alejandrad117 ( talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Alejandrad117 ( talk) 17:48, 25 November 2015 (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. |
Article rewritten with substantial references from various reliable and reputed sources. Rajannamysore ( talk) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (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. |
Request by Sydney59 for undeletion (incorrectly) at Refund and then my talk page as the deleting admin. I'm okay with my deletion, but I am happy if people think this should be relisted. -- KTC ( talk) 02:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/808CBF9D-D8E6-44A7-AE13-41A70645A525/v12n1_Teaching.pdf (page 13) This has been further edited by others since this article was first placed on Wikipedia...but the point is it was not written as publicity. Finally if it was "designed exclusively to advertise the event" what evidence is there from the article that this is advertising? What phrases and quotes are there in the article that indicate it is anything more than an account of the history and nature of the event? It has never been stated by any editors what exactly is promotional...in which case it could be removed. Suffice to say it is not advertising nor was it ever intended to be. Sydney59 ( talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
John Kleinig Emeritus Professor, Department of Criminal Justice John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2411N 524 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 USA Phone: +1 212 237-8415 Email: jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/john-kleinig =[email]='jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu' https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Philosophy/Faculty-Bios/John-Kleinig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.101.134 ( talk) 22:31, 24 November 2015 (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. |
Wrong to NAC a dispute, especially with a delete and then closing with a redirect and not a delete. 166.176.59.169 ( talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (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. |
Page was deleted after only 2 users contributed. Both Different answers. One was delete. One was redirect. There is no harm in redirecting the page as the previous info could be used if the subject becomes noticeable, instead of recreating the entire page. Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 November 2015 (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. |
Disclaimer: I created the incarnation of this article that was most recently deleted. The reason given in the deletion log was "attack page", but I don't think that the article, although admittedly a probable violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP, qualified as an attack page (though I don't remember exactly what it looked like prior to it being deleted recently). The content was well sourced and not negative enough to warrant being speedied under this criterion. Given that this speedy deletion seems, at least to me, to have been unwarranted under the criterion used by the deleting admin, I think the page should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (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. |
Surprising how many Wikipedians don't understand that notability doesn't require coverage in English-language media, and that a Google search has to take different translations (
such as "Folk Museum of Velvendo") into regard.
|
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. |
Marianna Yarovskaya page which was created through the AFC process on 9th November 2015, with different content and references, but deleted again as per previous discussion in 2012. Iamothers ( talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
She also produced and directed a feature film Women of the Gulag (in post-production), based on Paul Gregory’s Hoover book of the same title. This feature-length documentary is supported by a media grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. She has also received National Endowment for Democracy Grant, Pacific Pioneer Grant, and many other awards and commendations. She was one of the producers of media for the Russian Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center, which opened in Moscow in 2012. She is a member of PGA ( Producers Guild of America) since 2015. Her partial list of credits in research/ archival producing include such award-winning feature films as God the Father, Vessel, Swift Current, Red Army, Merchants of Doubt, Spirit of the Marathon II, and many others. In addition Yarovskaya worked in research on an Academy Award nominated Last Days in Vietnam by Rory Kennedy (2014). Iamothers ( talk) 09:25, 12 November 2015 (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 template was deleted by User:Bgwhite citing CSD:G6. I have contacted User:Bgwhite to ask for it to be restored, and my request was denied. As I attempted to explain to Bgwhite, what I created was a "substitution only template" which may be used to translate articles from the German Wikipedia to this Wikipedia. This is very similar to Template:Infobox Burg, which was created by Bermicourt for translating pages articles about castles. To make sure it could not be used directly, I specifically wrapped the output in a parserfunction which prevented the template from producing any output if it was not substituted. Hence, it is important to note that what I created is completely useless if it's not substituted. Despite all of this, User:Bgwhite insists that I created to help XaviYuahanda. this is clearly not the case since the template is useless if it's not substituted. I am unable to demonstrate this fact while the template is deleted. the thread where I tried to explain all of this to Bgwhite can be found here. as I stated there, if there is a fundamental problem with this type of translation tool, then we should discuss it at WP:TFD. any deletion of this type of template should be bundled with all the other "shimming templates" (as Bermicourt calls them). Frietjes ( talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I said Frietjes can restore it after the 15th, when the ban was over. User XaviYuahanda has been banned on dewiki 5 times for adding/creating non-notable people to football articles and not listening to advice given to them. They are currently under their second one month ban and it is set to expire on the 15th. The template was created after an interaction between Friejtes and the banned user. The only non-talk pages that link to the template are the ~50 articles created by the user. User stated on their dewiki talk page, that Frietjes "was kind enough to create a BNR template" and has said he wants the template back. I looked at several of the articles and they are about footballers who haven't played a pro game yet. It appears the user's intention is to copy the articles to dewiki after their ban is done. A notice was placed on the dewiki admin board by another user that talks about XaviYuahanda's actions on enwiki. I don't understand why this template, which hasn't been around for several years, has to be restored now for a banned user who wants it back. Bgwhite ( talk) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (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 seems to me a clear case of a closer putting their own opinions before those of the majority. Yes, yes, we all know it's not just about numbers voting, but nine keeps against five deletes? Come on, that's a clear consensus to keep; no consensus at the very outside. If a closer can discount this level of support for keeping and just decide to delete anyway then what on earth is the point of having an AfD discussion in the first place? Incidentally, I think I've only brought one other case to deletion review in all the years I've been here - two in one day is pure coincidence and not a campaign against deletion! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (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. |
Seems to me a clear no consensus close - three keeps against two deletes. The closer has said he's discounted keep opinions as there is no presumption of notability for ambassadors. However, it is AfD discussion that largely shapes guidelines and AfD discussion is largely about opinion as to a subject's notability. If editors' opinions are going to be discounted in this way then there really is no point in having AfD discussions - we may as well just let admins delete any articles which do not fit within rigidly defined criteria as they see fit. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (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. |
more reliable sources have appeared since last deletion, [35] [36] [37] [38] Prisencolin ( talk) 09:11, 4 November 2015 (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. |
The original deletion request may have been politically motivated and therefore highly inappropriate for a page of this type. The National Assembly Elections in Wales are to take place in 2016, News stories have published that Wales Green Party are polled to gain seats in this election for the first time in Wales, therefore this page will become ever more necessary in the coming months. There are also many links to this page from constituency pages and Assembly Regional pages so a delete would create many dead links as well. Jimmy3d0 ( talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Back to the Talk page would just point out that those of us in favour of retention were advised to set up this deletion review page. but ok guys then guys, will now return to the talk page and put the arguments for a stand alone page there again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (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. |
I started working on
User:Geo Swan/Caroline Mulroney today. I request the deleted revision history be grafted on the userspace file I started. Note: the AFDs are very old, and predate Lapham's appointment to the Windsor Detroit Bridge Authority, and her founding of the non-profit The Shoebox Project. Since the basic argument for delete had been that there was nothing noteworthy to cover, beyond her ties to notable people, and she now has independent notability factors, I think it is worth considering whether she now measures up to our current notability criteria. Fwiw, there had been an earlier AFD WP:Articles for deletion/Caroline Mulroney. Fwiw, if an article belongs in article space, it should probably be at Caroline Mulroney Lapham. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:14, 2 November 2015 (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. | ||
Discussion with closing admin:
Here are the sources I provided in the discussion:
Spartaz closed as "delete" writing: There is no evidence that the other editors found the sources I found. No one mentioned the in-depth sources I found from The Age and The Australian. Perhaps they found passing mentions. No one explained why the sources I provided don't meet the "deep coverage" criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage. Overturn to no consensus. Cunard ( talk) 22:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC) I am also fine with an "overturn to relist" (see Hobit's edit summary). Cunard ( talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment from closing admin Please can
cunard tone down their badgering overly formatted responses to every comment here as I'm finding it impossible to follow the flow of the discussion here. My rationale when I closed the discussion was that two users had already considered the sources properly and found them routine and not up to snuff. Cunard disputes this but the evidence of this review and in the actual AFD was that both users considered the sources Cunard provided and were not persuaded against their original view. My role in closing a discussion is to assess the arguments provided and not put in my own opinion.
The votes were:-
Nomination -
SwisterTwister provided clear evidence they had properly sought sources and found them lacking Bjelleklang - Searched for sources and found them inadequate. Reviewed Cunard's sources in the AFD and found them unpersuasive<br /> IP editor - found the sources mundane<br /> {{u|Hydronium Hydroxide}} provided sources for a previous company - which to my mind is not about this company and does not count<br /> {{u|Onel5969}} reviewed sources and confirmed here that Cunards sources did not persuade him<br /> Sock vote discarded<br /> {{u|Cunard}} provided a long list of sources that was dismissed as routine by Bjelleklang. <br /> The only way I could not find a delete consensus would be to discard the majority of the votes despite clear evidence that these voters had properly sought sources and evaluated what was there and found it lacking.~~~~
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |