User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)) User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)) ( MfD2) (added MfD2 at 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼)

I believe the deletion of the last draft was not a right decision for many reasons which include among others:

• The page exists only in my account pages, no other articles link to it, marked as draft on the user's main page and it is clearly still under development.
• This is a draft for an article. The original article was deleted from the wikipedia and before that it lacked a lot of materials. Because of that, and because I know that Zionists in general are very sensitive to this topic. I decided to make a draft for the article in my account and tried to develop it as much as possible before transfering it to the main articles space.
• The draft was put for MfD debate under a request from a pro-zionism wikipedian( Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism_and_racism_allegations) and the final result was Keep with almost consensus.
• After failing in first MfD, another one was made ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)). Only 3 persons participated in the voting and there decision was to delete the draft.
• Recently I decided to make a new version of the draft and to begin working on it again, to remove substantial blocs of the original draft and to add entirely new sections, but for sorrow, Jayjg -who is a well respected wikipedian but a very biased one when it is related to Zionism or Israel- deleted the new draft while I was still in the early steps.
• The page was deleted under the claim that it as a Recreation of deleted material, while it is not, and the two materials differ substantially. (you may compare the original draft and the new draft that you deleted). According to Wikipedia:CSD#G4 ...a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version... doesn't appply in this case.

For all the above reasons and many others, I hope you will undelete the new draft and will give me the chance to work on it until it becomes suitable to be transfered to the main space Aaronshavit ( talk) 19:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - I've reviewed the deleted versions, and I'm satisfied that they're close enough to one another to qualify for G4. As for the argument that it was userfied, that was also true of the version deleted at MFD. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - No point in reviewing all the previous deleted versions. Please note that I am only talking here about the last draft, it differs substantially from the previous version that was deleted by the MfD vote. -- Aaronshavit ( talk) 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The MFD was fine and the message is clear — this type of content isn't wanted in userspace. Please use your own website. Stifle ( talk) 21:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support re-instatement of this article and defend such use of UserSpace. I don't have great hopes for this article, but I have and will contribute again, trying to improve it and/or keep it to policy. It's a valid use for a modest portion of disk-space. It's certainly much, much more valid than this, which seems aimed at damaging AGF. If that other editor, GHcool is being treated differently because he's contributed generously to the funding drive, then that's perfectly proper - but I've never yet noticed my contributions making any difference to how I'm treated. PR ^talk 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • WP:WAX arguments don't tend to cut it; you can feel free to MFD User:GHcool/Views if you wish; please don't, however, accuse the WMF of simony. Stifle ( talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: Aaronshavit has notified several editors of this thread. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 23:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Procedurally proper, content appeared to be exactly what's not wanted here. IronDuke 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - MfD deletions are different from AfD deletions. Both include content deletion, but MfD outcomes can extend well beyond that. MfD can even stop work on fundamental, longterm projects at Wikipedia (see, e.g., Wikipedia:BJAODN). From the comments of the others above, MfD2 appears to have been sufficent reason to delete the user subpage because MfD2's outcome extended well beyond mere recreation of deleted material. Here, the deletion was not a speedy deletion (even those G4 was the reason given); the deletion was an enforcement of the outcome of MfD2. If the outcome were otherwise, users could play follow the bouncing ball by making changes to user content that was deleted at MfD and posting that content to their user pages. -- Suntag ☼ 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Not sure if this is relevant, but see User:GHcool/Opinions on Zionism and User:Aaronshavit/Zionists and antisemitism. -- Suntag ☼ 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist at mfd It's a different article and needs a new discussion. Preventing such discussions means preventing the improvement of articles. DGG ( talk) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  This isn't an article. Stifle ( talk) 10:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

August 1, 2003 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Wikipedia has NEVER had a provision for articles about individual dates. At best, there are articles for individual months, like August 2003. The closing administrator in this case seems to be unaware of the Wikipedia format on this, and closed this as a "no consensus" with a default to keep something that isn't permitted at all. To me, it doesn't even appear that the administrator read the discussion, which suggested merging these back to the parent article. While there could be a policy change that allows for articles about August 1, 2003; August 2, 2003; August 3, 2003; etc., something like that should be done in the form of a discussion, not by a lone person who is unaware of how things have been done. Mandsford ( talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

NOTE - For this topic, there was a 13 March 2008 centralized discussion at Removal of many individual date articles. -- Suntag ☼ 12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I am in the habit of reading the discussions that I close. What I see is a number of "delete" and a number of "merge" opinions, along with a few "keep"s. Given that "delete" and "merge" are incompatible outcomes, and that there appears to be no project-wide consensus on how to deal with such articles (see Grutness on my talk; Mandsford has unfortunately not provided links to the apparently pertinent policy that he refers to in the AfD and on my talk), I was compelled to close the AfD as a technical "no consensus." As I have mentioned on my talk as well, though, most participants of the AfD would probably not mind if someone were to boldly merge these articles to August 2003.  Sandstein  23:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. The principal use of AfD is determining whether there is consensus for deleting the article or not. There is clearly no such consensus here. As the closing admin says, "no consensus" allows the community to decide what flavour of keep (keep, merge, redirect) it wants. There is no need to reopen the deletion discussion to decide that. -- Jao ( talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no-consensus closure as there was no consensus to delete, and that is all an AfD closing administrator really needs to determine. Nothing in that closure said a merge was inappropriate, and a merge requires neither AfD, nor a DRV of a no-consensus close. Either just do it, or discuss on talk pages, WT:DAYS, WP:PM, Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles or any other more appropriate forum if you wish to seek consensus for a merge. DHowell ( talk) 00:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close As one of the few keeps, I note that Wikipedia has always had a provision for articles like these. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and any (registered) user can create any article they like. These articles have been around for several years, long enough for them to be part of "the way things are done." Such decisions should not be matters of policy, but of consensus, and there was no delete consensus. Jao mentioned transclusion at the AfD, which is sometimes done and seems to me the ideal way to organize things, transcluding all or some of the content into a month article. John Z ( talk) 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I understand that 'merge' is generally recognised as a variant of a 'keep' !vote, so I am not surprised at the closure, nor do I disagree with it on that basis. I would however say that looking at the discussion again, the actual consensus ought to have been 'merge', if it was treated not as a black or white delete/keep. Ohconfucius ( talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the March AfD cited by the closer shows that there is no consensus as to how to treat these articles. While merge is probably the plurality position (and something of a compromise between the Keep and Delete camps) a plurality isn't necessarily consensus and an "outside the box" idea such as transclusion may be a better way forward. In such cases I feel that it is better to close as no consensus (or Keep) and leave merge discussions to another venue where straight deletion is not on the table since that can distort positions (especially when determined by the lables of the bullet points). Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse non consensus close It's usually not all that productive to bring a non-consensus close here. If one thinks it should have been delete, one can try again in a few months, in the hope that consensus will have formed. In my opinion these articles are appropriate content, and further discussion will I hope lead to an undoubted keep for them all. But I wouldn't want to bring a new AfD, because we first need a more general discussion about them. Wikipedia does fill some of the functions of an almanac, & almanacs have always included chronological lists of important news events. There is no requirement that "notability" be proved for the dates, because the articles are essentially lists--if there are notable things happening on a day, as shown by Wikipedia articles on them, the days are notable. The approximate rule used for other chronological articles, that the dates must be such as there will generally be 2 or more listings for each in a series, would seem to hold I don't think the true implication of not-paper combined with Moore's Law have been understood yet. (In terms of how discussions should be closed, I heartily endorse the Sandstein did this, and the explicit criteria he used, which I suggest be incorporated into our guidelines-- non-consensus is often the exact statement of a situation). However, I do not agree with his suggestion of a merge, since we could rapidly find many more articles to list on these. DGG ( talk) 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - My understanding of the bulk of the 'merge' votes in this case is that the information should be kept, but that the individual day articles are too specific. I perceive the strict 'keep' position as being a clear minority, and I'm not sure I accept the reasoning given in the closure notice. AlexTiefling ( talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I suspect whichever way this had been closed it would have come here; no consensus is correct. Users can and should consider merging the articles to a monthly one. Stifle ( talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - In follow up of this 00:58, 18 November 2008 post, Grutness redirected the articles listed in the "August 1, 2003" AfD to the August 2003 article. -- Suntag ☼ 12:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Sandstein extension of his close (above) that "delete" and "merge" are incompatible outcomes gives a valid no consensus close. While I think "delete" and "merge" can be compatible outcomes that leave executing the merge in the hands of the closer, a merge position at AfD also can be vague because it leaves unresolved decisions in the hands of the closer. In otherwords, Sandstein's view that "delete" and "merge" are incompatible outcomes is not wrong, even if others might disagree with it. The AfD closer is entitled to exercise their jugdment. In this case Sandstein acted on a valid understanding of policy interaction to justify a no consensus close. Further, Sandstein's taking the copending March 1 AfD into account showed exceptionally good judgment since both delection discussions were similarly situated. As for Grutness redirecting of the articles after the AfD close, I don't think it can be reverted based on a no consensus outcome at AfD. In other words, I don't think that the no consensus AfD for this particular topic can be used at DRV as a basis to act on Grutness's redirect. -- Suntag ☼ 12:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Brando Advertising Agency (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Official website

User:Pegasus deleted Brando Advertising Agency stating it was blatant advertising. However after talking with him he stated that he might have been overly harsh and to talk to you. I understand that when I 1st posted the page it was not in the proper wikipedia style of writing but I have now made several edits and the contribution is completely factual based now. I think the last edit which was deleted was unfair as it is exactly the same as the other Ad Agencies you have listed in your Advertising Agency category and therefore should be included. I don't think the latest edit is at all advertising for the agency, it's only listing the facts for people who maybe interested in Ad Agencies in Dublin which I don't think there is enough of (if any) listed in wikipedia. I would greatly appreciated if you would review this deletion based on the last edit and re-add it to the advertising agency category list. Thank you for your time. Creativeboxes ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia reliable source material that could be used to write such an article. See Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The ad agency may be important, but if no published source independent of Brando Advertising Agency is writing about Brando Advertising Agency, then there is no source material that could be added to such an article under Wikipedia's article content policies. -- Suntag ☼ 18:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The deleted article listed [1], [2], [3], and [4] as sources. Apparently, the sources call the ad firm just "Brando". Rather than listing the facts, the cached article listed opinions about Brando made by the Brando Advertising Agency:

  Brando want to be Ireland’s biggest and most creative Tradigital agency and they are hiring people who can help make this happen. They are an agency driven by what they do and they are passionate about making the very best of their skills and expertise. And they want to attract people and businesses that feel the same way.

  -- Suntag ☼ 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The last deleted revision isn't quite what I would call blatant advertising; rather, the advertising is relatively veiled. It's well within the limit where I'd just decline the speedy and move on. So, I'm afraid I'll have to advise that we overturn the deletion, and allow Creativeboxes to work on the article to avoid an AfD (which, if nothing about the article changes, seems likely). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Lifebaka; didn't meet G11. I live near the quoted address and can confirm it exists; hopefully CreativeBoxes will be able to keep the article from being deleted at an AFD. Stifle ( talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The version last deleted was not exclusively promotional, and did contain at least the core of an article. The initial version first deleted as G11 was appropriate for speedy deletion, and I too would have deleted it as such. I don't think the improvements were adequately taken into account. The sources in the latest version are perhaps not totally independent of public relations, but inadequacies in sourcing are not reason for speedy. Its unpredictable what will be happen at afd, but people need time to write articles & one ought to recognize efforts at improvement. DGG ( talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - G11 applies to a page as a whole. While the page contained sentences that exclusively promote Brando Advertising Agency in a way that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic, the page as a whole did not. The siliconrepublic.com news artice cited in the deleted article does contain some reliable source material, which was used in the article. The page easily could have been stubbed rather than deleted. The view above that "listing the facts for people who maybe interested in Ad Agencies in Dublin which I don't think there is enough of (if any) listed in wikipedia" shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not here to provide information to any particular group of people or to fill in the gaps other media may miss. Wikipedia is noting more than a summary of existing source material that is independent of a topic. Developing the Brando Advertising Agency article along these lines will help ensure it's presence in Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

File:HecateDieuxAntiques.gif ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)| IfD| article)

This image was converted to PNG and moved to commons. The commons image was lost by the 5 September 2008 image loss [5]. It is used on several wikis, so please undelete. Would be great if anybody could even move it to commons again. Thank you! Ukko.de ( talk) 10:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'd call this pretty uncontroversial, so I'm gonna' go ahead and undelete it for the interim, until the Commons version starts working again at least. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

List of left-handed people (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

( AfD1, 7 September 2004), ( AfD2, 28 September 2006 ), ( AfD3, 30 May 2007), ( AfD4, 4 September 2007).

The AFD is here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Following a question on Mathematics reference desk I found there there was no no way in wikipedia to find any info on people who are left handed. While there are problems with the list as of its last revision: it is unreferenced and its inclusion criteria is too wide. These problems can be overcome, List of people diagnosed with dyslexia has been kept well referenced, and a stricter inclusion criteria could be devised. There is interesting information such as the fact that the a large number of recent US presidents and candidates (HW Bush, Clinton, Regan, Ford, Obama, McCain) and some of our most famous artists (Dürer, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso, Raphael) have been lefties. Salix ( talk): 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• If you think you can write one which doesn't have the same failings, feel free to try it. Consensus was properly read in the AfD, so there's not much more I can tell you. Well, except that I personally think that a category can just as well do what you're looking for here, and wouldn't have the same sourcing burdens (if one doesn't already exist, it probably should, too). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - The AfD could not have been closed any other way. Recreating would require substantial new information. "Problems can be overcome" was known at the time of the AfD and is not substantial new information. Rather than using the intersection (i) they are famous and (ii) happen to be left handed, I think that the sourcing would have to be limited to those that show that the person's handedness was responsible for or at least influenced the reason why they became notable. You can always start a draft article at User:Salix alba/List of left-handed people (draft). -- Suntag ☼ 16:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Further, it may be better to expand the article left-handedness with prose that uses left-handed people examples to flesh out the points in that article. Handedness and sexual orientation and Handedness of Presidents of the United States are prose articles that address the handedness topic without the use of lists. On the other hand, there is List of musicians who play left handed and List of left-handed athletes. -- Suntag ☼ 17:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. No reason has been presented why the previous consensus should not be maintained. Stifle ( talk) 21:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Overturn t et it be worked on before another afd. The relationship between left-handedness and success at various professions has been discussed in bios of many people. I think a suitable list could be prepared. No serious defense of the article was attempted at the afd over a year ago. If articles that pass afd can be renominated after a time to see if consensus has changed, the same should happen in the inverse case. DGG ( talk) 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Comment - Category:Left handed athletes was listified by cfd of 2008 May 21 (to List of left-handed athletes) so it is unlikely that Category:Left handed people would survive. (There is Category:Southpaw boxers.) Occuli ( talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• One point that is perhaps being overlooked here is that a list of left-handed people wouldn't have helped the reader at the reference desk. Xe was looking for information that connects left-handedness and mathematical ability. Ironically, that is something that has been a subject of serious study, and an article on handedness and mathematical ability, based upon things such as the works by Geschwind, Galaburda, Annett, Kilshaw, and others would have actually helped the reader more than a simple list of mathematicians who happened to be left-handed (especially given that any conclusions drawn from the list wouldn't have neutrally represented scholarship on the subject, which in fact has mixed opinions). It would certainly have helped the reader more than a grab-bag list of people who happened to be left-handed, from which the reader would have had to pick out the mathematicians, and make guesses as to the links or otherwise between the twain. Uncle G ( talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The vote count at the final debate was 20 delete (plus the nom) and 2 keep. I can't imagine how this article could be anything outside of an indiscriminate collection of information. Themfromspace ( talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Why are we even wasting time on this? JBsupreme ( talk) 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG. When harmless, wikipedia processes should attempt to be symmetric. Allow for the reciprocity of application in testing consensus. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Information such as that discussed by the nominator is best described in prose in any of the various articles on handedness. Chick Bowen 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Vince Mira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I believe he is, indeed, notable enough for an article. Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

This was originally deleted by User:Malcolmxl5. I requested over two weeks ago that he reconsider. He appears not to have edited since that time, and I really have no idea if he's coming back, so I figured this was the place to take it up. Here is what I originally wrote on his user talk page:

BEGIN COPIED MATERIAL

Hi, I just went looking for an article on country rock musician Vince Mira and noticed you had deleted it as non-notable. I think that was probably a wrong verdict, though the article as written may not have established notability. I recently took (and uploaded to Commons) three pictures of him performing as part of the launch event of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' "Seattle, City of Music" intiative, a reasonably prestigious gig (others on the bill included Blue Scholars, Tilson of The Saturday Knights, and New Faces; photos in Commons:Category:Launch of Seattle, City of Music, city gov't press release about the event at http://www.cityofseattle.net/mayor/issues/cityofmusic/ (weirdly) gives him top billing & has his photo, news coverage mentioning Mira at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/musicnightlife/2008330176_zmus30cityofmusic.html and http://lineout.thestranger.com/2008/10/notes_from_the_seattle_city_of_music_pre (the latter a blog, but one written by the staff of The Stranger). I think that's enough; if you don't, I could try to research him more. I didn't know his music until Wednesday: all I'd heard before that was "young guy, sounds like Johnny Cash".

If you could reply on my talk page, that would be appreciated so I don't have to watch yours. Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

END COPIED MATERIAL - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, no evidence or suggestion given that he meets WP:NMG. Stifle ( talk) 10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a valid A7 (though refusing to delete would probably have been better, since the guy appears notable). If you really want an article on the guy, go ahead and write it. An A7 deletion does not at all preclude later recreation of the article (hoping, of course, that A7 wouldn't still apply). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 14:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply