30 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Broken Cyde ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Requesting Unsalting so that the title may be redirected to Brokencyde. Chubbles ( talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (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. |
|
No indication that the nominator even attempted to determine the image's copyright before listing it for deletion. Ricky28618 ( talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (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. |
|
The page was deleted under the reasoning that fictional characters must not be categorized as villains per WP:POV and OR. However, The Walt Disney Company has released a franchise named "Disney Villains", which is more than just characters who are antagonists, witches, etc. There are direct-to-video films, video games and other merchandise by the franchise that can be categorized under "Category:Disney Villains", other than just characters in the official line-up. Therefore, the category would be named after an existing franchise and not as a way to label characters as villains only because they are "bad guys". -- LoЯd ۞pεth 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 June 2009
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
StarM
No indication nominator followed WP:BEFORE. TheGriefer ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate to mix completely separate articles into a single AFD discussion. Suggest restoring and then nominating separately (along with a warning to the editor who merged the mess together). TheGriefer ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No indication nominator adequately searched for sources, nor followed WP:BEFORE. Systemic bias concerns about an editor with a negative view of Eastern Europeans. TheGriefer ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
DJ Smallz article can never really grow without the image. Poor reasoning by nominator. TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The closing admin didn't even offer one day for discussion. -- TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The deleting admin didn't even offer one day for discussion. -- TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I was told about this deletion and wanted to protest. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie and was closed in 3 days, so there was a lack of time to discuss the issues anyways. None of the main page editors joined the discussion or stated any opinions on the matter yet. The discussion deserves a full seven days and it's clear that the people who know the subject should be given their proper weight. It is clear from this personal attack that people are putting politics above becoming the source of ALL human knowledge. Also, could someone temporarily undelete the article so that people can see the history? TheGriefer ( talk) 22:03, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
The at Afd listed article was incorrectly been speedy deleted per A7 and BLP1E. A7 and BLP1E are not valid reasons for a speedy deletion. The deletion was clearly incorrect and the deleting admin concedes he acted hastily. Proposed solution. Relist at Articles for deletion. Iqinn ( talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deleted due to having few articles to link to - but there seems to be enough now ( comic book, the movie, video game, the main characters article and the seven protagonists, soundtrack albums, and possibly two parodies), and Template:V for Vendetta shows a proper way to build it. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
28 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
"Fantastico (web hosting)" already exist separately. Surely it would make sense to redirect from "Fantastico De Luxe", and yet this article has an ugly history. My interest in Fantastico De Luxe derives from cPanel, which is used by Webhostingpad.com. I'd like to figure out whether I should be using CGI, Perl, PHP, Ruby, RVSiteBuilder, or Fantastico De Luxe. So I've been checking each one at Wikipedia. With all due respect, the reason that any modestly, useful information ever has to be deleted escapes me, but this seems to be the protocol. For my part, I have done my best to meet that protocol. This is the result. C-U RPCV ( talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (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. |
|
Another problematic close from the same admin who brought us the problematic close of Surnames by country. The decision by User:Good Olfactory to upmerge this into Category:Surnames tosses hundreds of surnames with thoroughly-documented Jewish connections into a useless catchall category with more than 14,000 entries. While the closing admin acknowledges that "This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed", the decision to delete and upmerge was made in the face of clear consensus to keep. The nomination offered rather muddled reasons for deletion, and the only participant supporting deletion voted based it on the claim that "names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense", which is rebutted by the rather obvious observation that the use of names by different religions is rather easily handled by using multiple categories for each name/religion combination that can be documented by reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, a dozen published books on the background and history of Jewish surnames makes it clear that this is a well-defined field of study that constitutes a strong defining characteristic of such names. It appears that the closing administrator has a rather strong bias towards deletion of such categories, even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. In classic We had to destroy the village to save it style, we are now left with the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a rather clear category and plucking the appropriate names from among the 14,000 in Category:Surnames because one admin decided he doesn't like it. Alansohn ( talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up comment (closer). Category has been re-created by a user not involved in this discussion, further rendering this discussion moot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (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. |
|
Person is not notable. Seriously, I don't see how this afd was not closed as Delete. Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why has this page been deleted? Please provide a legitimate reason. I have repeatedly provided three reliable sources to prove that Andrew Hsu is a real person and one who has contributed significantly both as a scientist and as a philanthropist, being the first to sequence the Homo Sapiens and Mus Musculus COL20A1 Gene and founding the World Children's Organization which has provided thousands of children with books and water filters. Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003752165_andrewhsu18m.html NBC Today Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OntiXRsuOY San Jose News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwh-_87a6_A I have not been given a legitimate reason for why this page has been repeatedly deleted. Att159 ( talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I deleted this article (slightly different name, essentially the same thing) under G4, which I pointed out on my talk page where this user asked me. Ged UK 12:59, 30 June 2009 (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. |
|
I submit that this should be overturned, because:
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't think good reasons were given in the discussion (eg, 'rather pointless article'). -Zeus- u| c 20:02, 26 June 2009 (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. |
I would like to request that this deletion be reviewed. I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log [4] and I understand that the bill has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that the bill is below the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is. I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:
Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times. To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability. Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, there were 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well. A recent story of June 20 even indicated that the bill may be responsible for a nationwide bullet shortage. If this is true, enough Americans are aware of the bill to create the shortage. As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor and no cosponsors, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress. The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General. Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration, J appleseed2 ( talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (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. |
|
Not a copyright vio, fair use under United States law and Wikipedia standards. All problems brought up in the deletion nomination were dealt with. Although the article itself is about Crayola, the image is used clearly in reference to the stamp in question in a section about the stamp, not as a primary means of identifying the subject of the stamp. The Wikipedia copyrighted U.S. stamp template clearly states that copyrighted U.S. stamps can be used here "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" under fair use if they are used to illustrate the stamp, not simply to illustrate the subject. Free images of Crayola crayons are in the article before the stamp image, so it's obviously not being used for that purpose, but to illustrate the stamp itself in its historical context. I would be grateful if the decision to delete this image was reviewed, I feel its deletion was unnecessary, not by consensus, and detrimental to the article and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. -- Dougie WII ( talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
25 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
At long, long last, these uber-hatable MySpace kings have released a full-length, which hit #86 on this week's Billboard 200. Now we can finally put aside the longstanding parade of assertions of non-notability. Requesting Unsalting of Brokencyde and BrokeNCYDE (the latter as a popular redirect). I have a copy of the deleted article in userspace (amazingly, it was nominated for deletion on its own, without anyone notifying me), and it's fairly well fleshed out (aside from very recent news). Chubbles ( talk) 15:30, 25 June 2009 (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. |
|
A case of destroying the village in order to save it. The discussion had nothing approaching a consensus for nuking the entire surname categorization system, landing us with a single category with some 14000 names. While the now deleted system may not have been ideal and needed refinement (it was missing clear guidelines on what makes a surname associated enough with a country to categorize that way) or restructuring (many have suggested categorizing by language rather than country - though of course there'll be gray areas and tricky cases there too, as in most of our categorization schemes) deleting it wholesale destroys an enormous amount of information and makes it much more difficult to create an improved system. Haukur ( talk) 11:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I'm asking for the decision to be overturned and the categories restored without prejudice. We can work to improve the system from there. Haukur ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:09, 27 June 2009 (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. |
|
Closing admin did not interpret the fairly clear consensus for deletion correctly, closing the discussion by saying "It is not causing any harm." The arguments in favor of keeping are it's not hurting anything and people find it useful. For the former, WP:NOHARM is an exceedingly weak argument, one that should generally be avoided (yes, that is an essay and not binding but it is illustrative of a fairly widespread feeling about the merits of "it's not hurting anything"). WP:USEFUL is also an extremely weak argument. It appears that one editor's claim, based on page view statistics, that editors other than himself find it useful was sufficient to keep based on item five: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." However, PaulGS is not saying that he personally finds it useful. He is saying that he assumes that because it's been clicked on some number of times someone somewhere finds it useful. I submit that this doesn't meet the meaning of item five because there is no way to know why or how editors ended up at the redirect. For all PaulGS or any other editor knows, those editors had no intention of going to the redirect at all and do not find it in any way useful. The arguments against the redirect, particularly the argument raised by WaysToEscape, are both numerically superior by a 2-1 margin (yes, I know XfD is not a vote) but also logically sounder. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:54, 25 June 2009 (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. |
|
I wasn't finished creating the page... I had an under construction notice up... now someone marked it for deletion and all the content I was working on is gone! It said the page was deleted because it was web content related and it didn't state it's importance. Well, theres a lot of articles here that don't state their importance. The article is about an independent music site that provides podsafe music and concert listings for indie bands only... it's important because it's part of the independent music revolution. There are sites like SoundClick.com that have a wikipedia page and they don't state their "importance". Besides, the bottom line is, I wasn't finished with the page. It will take me weeks to finish. Lennonno9 ( talk) 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(Deletion log); 08:03 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:IndieShows" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (Deletion log); 08:03 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "IndieShows" (A7: No indication that the article may meet (Deletion log); 13:56 . . NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "IndieShows" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) Lennonno9 ( talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 June 2009
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
There were only three contributors to the AfD of the 15th; the nominator and one other voted to delete, I voted to keep. The article was relisted at 0:40 on the 22nd by User:Juliancolton. Twelve hours and thirty four minutes later, with an admittedly impressive, if officially irrelevant six to two total to delete (the decision to delete being based solely on the merits of the arguments for and against, supposedly), the AfD was closed by User:Stifle. I ask that the AfD be reopened; as of the end of the 21st, there was no consensus, and 13 hours is a laughable amount of time. Such a short span of time is extremely vulnerable to statistical anomalies and even more so to out-of-wiki-space canvassing. I take it from a discussion below, that closing the AfD as soon as a consensus forms is not considered, by one user at least, unusual, but it is incomprehensible to me that this should be so. It is like rolling a dice and waiting until you have a majority of sixes rolled, and then stating, the most common roll of a die is a six. From the AfD: ..."The mission statement is standard...(for pages of groups such as NOW)..." I reworked the header. The notability is instantly apparent upon following the links already provided. A quick followup revealed the group's involvement in the South Carolina state legislature's proposition of HB 1682...Anarchangel (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" HB 1682 was the response of the SC legislature to the success of the books Ghost Plane and Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights, to be sure. However, the grassroots activism by SCSTN against the Aero base in NC, and other Carolina businesses connected with the post-2002 version of extraordinary rendition, not only gave additional impetus to this legislation, and public support, but gains additional notability by being part of these reactions to this most notable of events. Contributions Anarchangel ( talk) 10:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The media coverage was not restricted to either state; both HB 1682 and the org themselves were mentioned. Should this be relisted, we can hopefully see some attention paid to the facts and thus a counter to the proof by assertion that has dominated this discussion, and in fact seems to dominate the majority of discussions at WP. Anarchangel ( talk) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, four people who prefer to ignore the citations in the article, or parrot others saying that there are no citations, all show up in thirteen hours, is even less of a significant result, for our purposes, than a number showing up several times when rolling dice. That is because the substance of arguments is to be considered over the number of arguments. WP:N always requires some value judgement; the citations are solid evidence and there to be seen. Note that I had considered and will continue to consider the previous AfD period of the 15th, contrary to Uncle G's assertion; however, its results were inconclusive, and Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD.
...I would request that consideration be given to the additional citations and material involving a second bill that should be added to the article:
Since no other assertions were made other than Notability and Verification by sources, I propose that the above evidence is proof that the AfD was not only, voted on by a majority of people employing only their PoV to assess the article, not only wrongfully closed, but that it was wrongfully opened, and that the article should be restored. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There are many comments I could, and most likely will, make about this exchange. For now, suffice it to say that there has never been a substantive debate on any time period preceeding the closure of relisted AfDs, and yet everyone here, including the person who entered it into mainspace, is acting as though it were the Holy Words of Moses handed down from on high. Immediately affecting my petition here, I retract my statement "Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD", except for as it pertains to the inconclusiveness of the debate at the end of seven days after the initial AfD of the 15th. The existing rule, as this discussion page listing indicates (they are for the substance of my argument identical) states that AfDs should not be relisted if more than one editor has commented with substantive policy based arguments. The inconclusiveness of the debate goes to the argument that the AfD was improperly relisted. The AfD should have been closed, per WP:RELIST, for reasons of 'no consensus'. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Meets WP:MUSIC; please evaluate my draft. The page is salted because previous creations were speedily deleted for lack of citations. But that was before Brisco had any charted songs on the Billboard chart.
|
| 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. |
|
Youth United ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10 I, being a different individual seek to recreate the article of this organization with all the Wikipedia policies to be taken into consideration, so unprotection of the page Youth United is sought to create this page again as per Wikipedia policies. Regards Maihunggogoi ( talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (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. |
|
There was never a deletion discussion, it was just nominated for deletion, and then I was notified. Also it was deleted within a week, so it was undeleted, and then Speedy Deleted but it does not meet the requirements for Speedy Deletion, so it should be undeleted and discussed on it's talk page. MahaPanta ( talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
22 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
All items regarding Billy Linds life history are factual and establish credibility to a listing on wikipedia due to subject matter regarding Mr. Linds prior life and new purpose with his organization - Andrealind ( talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted for not being notable, but upcoming feature film District 9 makes it so, IMHO. 213.21.98.80 ( talk) 11:38, 21 June 2009 (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. |
|
I lodged an article deletion review because the article's deletion seemed questionable. The article was restored by Aervanath to one of my user pages. I moved it from my user page back to Theodore Kowal and it was deleted again within about an hour. It seems strange to have been deleted again, and so soon, after it was restored. Next time, could the article be restored directly to Theodore Kowal with a note that it has been recently restored and to hold off deletion. NB: I did not create the article but thought the content seemed interesting enough to retain. Frei Hans ( talk) 11:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
DRV_1, closed Userfy, Aervanath
|
| 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. |
|
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I disagree with the article CodeineFree not being deleted. It is blatant advertising only, with unencylopedic content, not a single citation, and written nearly solely by the person who runs the site. I say we delete... Can the powers that be, please review this? thanks :) Dvmedis ( talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
20 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was redirected because it " doesn't meet with the notability status " which is unreasonable. Facha93 ( talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (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. |
|
Article was deleted without ANY advanced warning or discussion (see my talk page). Please restore article so it can be listed for discussion. Rterrace ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Quite frankly, using NFCC#2 as the primary reason to delete is a display of pitifully poor ethics. Seriously, we are concerned here as #2 states about "the original market role of the original copyrighted media" of a possibly murdered and definitely tortured U.S. detainee who's whereabouts until close to death were unknown and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's only image? This is a sad matter. If these rationales for deletion are sufficient then every non-free image in wikipedia should probably be deleted. - Steve3849 talk 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
18 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Far too few people commented (3, with a 2-1 majority to delete) for any conclusions to be drawn about what the community thinks about the long-term usefulness of this template. Also no reasons of any merit were given as to why it should be deleted (we have many complex templates, so complexity is clearly not a ground for deletion, and the user who claimed that the information produced by the template was "not useful" failed to respond when asked to be specific, and clearly some of the information produced is useful, so this comment can hardly be considered fully thought-out). Please relist so that more can comment and so that we can be sure that there are genuine grounds to delete it, and that we know what we want instead. ( Closing admin has been requested to change decision but declined.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Kotniski ( talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (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. |
|
The AfD discussion was relisted on 13 May. It was closed by a non-admin on 15 May with the comment "The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) 10 days is enough. Weighing the arguments, I don't think a consensus has been reached". I believe the closure was procedurally incorrect (it should have run for the full seven days after relisting and have been closed by an admin since it wasn't an unambiguous result). I reverted the closure and informed the editor, who was offline, that I had done this. Since I had voted in the AfD, this was reverted by another editor (see pointlessly long discussion here). I ask that this be relisted (or closed as a delete based on the lack of referencing and lack of policy-based arguments in the keep !votes, but I'm not out to re-run the AfD here). Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. The same has been the case for last three-four images uploaded by me. I have asked the admin to refrain from speedy deletion and inform in advance if he wishes to do so after a mutual discussion. I had also posted a hang on on the page still the file is missing. Seems like no image I post is valid enough for other users to see. Vertical.limit ( talk) 10:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know if the need be to do so. Vertical.limit ( talk) 07:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have applied to license out the images on CC-BY-SA lets hope it goes through. Thanks your advice has helped. -- Vertical.limit ( talk) 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Speedily deleted with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:58, 17 June 2009 (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. | ||
|
Listing one of my speedy deletions for review here, to save the new user who created the article the trouble of coming here. I deleted it as a A7 group, with a dash of G11 advertising for the first-person tone in places. The "hangon" said (for non-admins) "I have just created this page for our new Non Profit Organization. I plan on spending a little time every week adding to its content. It should be up to your standards within a few months tops. Thank you for your consideration." Elluminati ( talk · contribs) asked me why I had deleted it, so I replied, referring him to the need to show importance [and yes I foolishly also referred to the need to show notability, but I know that's not the test for a speedy deletion] and guidance on advertising and COI. His reply says that if I don't think the mission of the group is notable or important, I need to get a new hobby, and that he is not advertising but making known a worthy cause. I have suggested he leave the subject alone, and stop trying to promote his group, but if he can't do that, to write a neutrally-worded version in his userspace with references. Your thoughts please. Bencherlite Talk 20:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, My name is Jesus Rodriguez and I am the President of a newly formed NON-PROFIT organization called the "Hispanic Commonweal". It is our mission to bring the necessary resources of information of Education, Health care, Faith and Politics to local Hispanic Communities, one family at a time in order to better the lives of those in our community. To cut to the chase, I think the main issue we are having here is that this person who has brought us to this point seems to think that everyone is some kind of expert in Wikipedia contributing or is otherwise a spammer. I have never contributed anything before to Wiki and therefore am very new to the process. He/She is using terms and "Wiki" language that I am not familiar with. I am quite certain that a person does not have to be a Wiki "insider" to contribute worthy information. This idea that since I am closely involved with the organization that I cannot make the contribution to Wikipedia myself is understandable under normal circumstances but in this particular situation is an outrage and I am sure against the fundamental spirit of this encyclopedic website. I understand that this is a community of volunteers and the need to weed out a bunch of spammers is constantly necessary. So I am not yet at a point of making this a public issue. I am a very determined Hispanic activist who is merely trying to make known an organization that is for the preservation of Traditional Hispanic Values. I am only wanting to post the facts about the organization. Where it was founded, who founded it and what it's mission statement is. I am also prepared to or have other people make pertinent updates to the page as we continue to move forward. I hope that something can be worked out here. This idea, from the person who brought us here, that I am "advertising" is another outrage. This is an organization that not only pays no salaries but all the expenses, which has been thousands of dollars, have come out of my own pocket specifically. So I do not see any other reason why I can't be helped in this matter. I am willing, as I told the person, to make the proper adjustments and work on making it a very good "Wiki" page. I ask for the support of this community to be able to make a page that allows the facts to be shown about our organization. If it is the insinuation for this person that everything in Wiki is established worthy and "notable" then we all know that is just not true. In closing, I hope that this is not because we are a conservative organization. I have heard rumors about bias here in Wiki, and hope that those are just conspiracy freaks. Just tell me what I need to do, without assuming that I speak Wiki language. Thank you, Jesus Rodriguez, President Hispanic Commonweal Oak Creek, WI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elluminati ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 June 2009. Moved from DRV talk page. Bencherlite Talk 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to most of you. However, it is clear that this community is not interested in helping those who are not already familiar with how Wikipedia works (very hostile and defensive to "newbies" and that is not appropriate, especially when the person identifies themselves clearly and open to verification from the start). I have no problem with most of what is being said and or with the guidelines and I agree with much of the reasoning. However, to the person who felt the need to lecture me and insinuate that I was "threatening", you can save the drama, I don't have the time and definitely not the temperament to be talked down to by some volunteer at wikipedia. If anyone is interested in helping me please come talk to me on my talk board, I am interested in placing the facts of Hispanic Commonweal on Wikipedia not to promote. I understand it is a fine line, but the Hispanic Commonweal has already been recognized by very influential Hispanic organizations, such as C.A.L.L (Catholic Association of Latino Leaders)and Local and National politicians here in Wisconsin, like congressman Paul Ryan and County Executive Scott Walker (who is running for Governor). Certainly you can't expect those people to take the time to write a facts article about the organization. Anyways, the assertion that according to the moderators at Wikipedia the Hispanic Commonweal is not yet "notable" is obviously relative and simply a false accusation. I am not sure what the criteria to becoming "Notable" for you guys is, but when very influential people like the US Marshal of Central California is going to do an interview with us and support our cause, I am sure that that type of "notability" should suffice. Could someone who would like to help me start working on a legitimate "Facts" Article for Wikipedia please come talk to me on my elluminati talk page? I don't care if it takes 6 months, I just want to start the process. Thank you. Elluminati ( talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)elluminati
| ||
| 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. |
|
Deletion was unreasonable Nathanlgordon ( talk) 16:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Please revisit the issue of the redstone commercial real estate page. All content was verifiable, the company was notable as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the page was not an advertisement, and not attempting to sell anything, nor link to any external sales sites.
Please discuss differences between that page and any other company pages that haven't been deleted. The content on those pages mirror their websites (for example, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters). The tone was informational, just like it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanlgordon ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Delete, User has a conflict of interest. Doesn't get that he shouldn't write self promotional; articles. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. 24.14.132.100 ( talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) The Mikie Da Poet page has been blocked for many years, reading the editors comments, they stated he needs to be mentioned on a news segment as proof of his status, well he was! the instructions said to be bold, well here it is. Mikie da Poet was called the new Eminem by Fox News when he performed live on Fox News and was called a superstar by FOX anchor David Navarro years before the block was ever put on, if a good editor reads this, not only should they take off the block, but they should send an im sorry email to the person who was trying to despute the block. The first guy desputing this was perfectly correct, Mikie Da Poet is a well known well respected artist all over the world. heres the link to the live Fox News performance. thank you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1lWbt3bk8
Im not a editor, just a music fan, I dont know why Mikie was blocked to begin with, the proof the second editor ask for was sothing solid, solid proof, like a news segmant as he worded it, I provided that news segmant that shows Mikie is a established artist at the least. I dont know what page protection is, im asking that the block be lifted and Mikie Da Poet's name be aloud to sit with the other great names from Chicago and all over the world that he has worked with without being distured or deleted. Business as usual "trailer" search it anywhere, the most anticipated hip hop documentary ever, and they asked mikie to do the soundtrack, you can watch this and hear his song playing see his name in the credits, krs1, kanye west, dr cornell west, every big name in hip hop is on this project, and they used Mikie's old song from 7 years ago as the soundtrack. what is the reason why his name is blocked to begin with, this man has three albums in stores that can be purchased now, are you saying that this man is not worthy or does not have the credits to be on this websight? I have provided you with more credit then earlier editors asked from the other person desputing this artists name, his accomplishments in music deserve to be witness by the world. and to the nice professional person who wrote above, thank you for the advice, but when i click the links, I get lost, im not good at this, but i believe the public should see that they blocked Mikie, his fans would find it insulting, just because a man retires, doesnt mean block him for know reason and act like he never was great when the credits and albums are right in the editors lap.
I love this guys music and thought he should have a page, I read the old logs on why this artist was deleted, and it makes no sense, the Fox News performance above, link included, should be enough to lift the block and give this guy a page or what ever its called, im disapointed in your ability to guide me in the right direction the help this artist get his name up with the other greats, us everyday people dont understand directions that just take you in circles and lead to more messages and bigger words. he should have never been blocked to begin with, this block was done on purpose in my oppinion, so Mikie if you ever read this, get someone real smart that understands this process, cause i dont.
|
| 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. |
This page was speedy deleted even after a third editor had removed the speedy tag because it didn't have merit. The reason given for deletion "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" هis simply wrong since the article is sourced and the organization in question is signficant and is the parent organization of several other groups that have articles in wikipedia. Dodge rambler ( talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
16 June 2009
15 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion was made within mere 5 days without any input from the author. All the deleted pages were in the Sandbox area. Policies mentioned in the discussions do not apply. -- Kvasir ( talk) 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The Sandbox was created as a place with fewer rules and policies than any other pages on Wikipedia. For example, you don't have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making a major change. However, it must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks and civility still apply. No one is saying my pages violated the above. So what was the problem? Why not just move those pages to user:kvasir/sandbox/etc for lower visibility. I don't understand why people should get upset what's in people's sandbox area anyway. -- Kvasir ( talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (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. |
|
First time the article was created, text was copied from a source leading to the article's deletion. The second time however, the text was entirely original. Roaring Siren ( talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
Licensing still being resolved. The image contained an element that another user (who had no part in the creation of the element) contested was unlicensed. When the image file was deleted I was still in the process of checking licensing with the creator of that element - who I originally attributed in uploading the image. An associated article, Telepathy and war, was also nominated for deletion and then deleted unreasonably after the page was vandalised several times. Frei Hans ( talk) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
I uploaded the wrong file... please can you remove? -- Daniel Jones ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC). |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 June 2009
13 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I personally think Wikipedia can sometimes be unfair to articles that meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines My reason for undeletion is that this BLP meets WP:VERIFY, from personal experiences her recent song is getting heavy airplay by BBC Radio 1 and 4Music, plus some other music stations and 55,400 ghits. But on the other hand, I feel that it is due to poor editing that caused it to be deleted, though I have never seen the article before. Donnie Park ( talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (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. |
|
This is protected from being recreated for some reason from a long time ago for spam being posted there. Dotty••| ☎ 08:08, 13 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was completely unreasonable. Deletion should only be by concensus, but there were two votes to keep and two to delete. Furthermore WP:PORNBIO says that a porn star is notable if they have been nominated for a major award. One of the people voting delete said she was nominated for an AVN award for Best New Starlet, which is a fairly major award. However he voted delete because she wasn't nominated in multiple years! Was this a recent change because I don't remember it, and in any case it sounds stupid; would you say that someone who was nominated for a Best New Artist Grammy isn't notable because they weren't nominated more than once? This needs to be undone and the deletor needs to be trout slapped! SPNic ( talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The creators and main editors of the article were not notified. It was nominated before and there was a strong concensus to keep. There was no OR or SYNTH, it was simply a presentation of facts. Straw polls are an important part of American elections, especially the coverage that follows such polls as the Texas Straw Poll and Ames Straw Poll. William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
At a minimum, I respectfully request immediate userfication to myself of all 3 articles, because the amount of good-faith compilation and collation effort alone on part of both myself and Southern Texas, undone by a few rogue edits, is worth at least that much. JJB 23:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) ADD: I appreciate the restoration of the main article; I have asked the restorer also to restore the two transcluded articles, which had most of the content, as well as the two maps and talk. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
I have many more media article sources to back up the article and to meet criteria for the notability guidelines. I have articles/appearances from The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. The Press Association will also be putting out a video and wire story about it, so that is another reference source. -- Scott ( talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (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. |
|
Should be unprotected and redirected to Escape the Fate, which is his primary reason for notability (and why the article kept getting recreated). He was their lead singer for their first two releases, and received a lot of media coverage. Chubbles ( talk) 11:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
11 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Looking at it purely in voting terms, consensus comes out at 8 delete, 5 keep. Cutting out "it just is notable" "it just isn't notable", we come out with 7 delete, 4 keep. Seems to be consensus to me. Ironholds ( talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
Talk page should be archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive TimeSplitters, not deleted, as per other pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. SharkD ( talk) 05:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
10 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Artist page Original Flavor was deleted via PROD, and then this album was A9'ed. The artist page has been restored, and so the A9 is now invalid. This is sort of an extension of a contested prod and hopefully is not controversial. Chubbles ( talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
As I previously mentioned, this image is not replaceable because you're never going to otherwise get the seven justices in one place to take their pictures. It is arguably in public domain, although I don't think it actually is. (Compare with File:Supreme_Court_US_2006.jpg.) Nevertheless, I think there is no doubt that using it is fair use. Further, as it is the case with Supreme Court of the United States, I think having the justices' group portrait substantially enhances the article's vividness and is necessary to give flesh and blood to the article. Nlu ( talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
for entry Sonic Erotica. ESkog takes too many liberties and makes too many assumptions.-- Mirror Man ( talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
MusicMatch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) History-only undeletion. This was deleted years ago without any discussion that I could find. ~ Paul T +/ C 05:41, 10 June 2009 (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. |
Closer dismissed valid arguments based on
wp:notability,
wp:episode and other policies. Sides with nom despite lack of deletion rationale. Nom's reasoning and those of deleters are largely based on
|
| 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. |
|
The article was based on information that i myself submitted and contributed to my article. It was definently original work and should not have been deleted, almost immediately after it's posting. I submitted the article on Aug 21, 2007 and it was deleted immediately. I disputed the deletion with the (deletor/i.e.edior?)....but he never responded. And then i read over other request and based on information from other contributors, this individual is somewhat of a serial deletor. He has deleted a number of other articles that author's disputed were in violation of any of Wikipedia's article rules.. I just hope this can be resolved in a somewhat timely manner. I am relying on this submission to use as a guideline to account on when and how i acquired the material for the overall L-Cat project. User-Soulsearchers Soulsearchers03 ( talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Deleted by Irishguy
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am afraid you have committed a mistake. The files were rather to be kept as they are, or shortened at worst, but nobody voted for their deletion, except the nominator. I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia rules...* The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru alltogether goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?-- Rubikonchik ( talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) -- Rubikonchik ( talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The argument applies to two more files 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg Rubikonchik ( talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the track "Circus" reflected by the file File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg is not mentioned in the Sofia Rotaru article at all, and has never been mentioned in the history, so the talk pages are the only location where one can find the episodes in the singer's career that the clips should illustrate. Not that the inclusion of these facts would create a necessity for the clips to be included. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
Back in February 2008, a dozen categories related to fictional characters by religion were deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_24#Category:Fictional_characters_by_religion this CfD with the closing administrator arguing that The strongest argument either way came from the last sentence of the nomination itself: It's pretty unlikely that someone looking for the Rocky, Michael Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara or Eric Cartman will look it up through fictional catholics. While true, these characters are fictional catholics, that is not what they are known for. And for those characters who religion is the main defining trait, as discussed, there are better categories that can be used. While all of these categories have been recreated -- and promptly deleted without discussion or explanation -- as a recreation of deleted material, the Category:Fictional Jews has been recreated almost a dozen times, more than any of the other categories. I believe this pattern of recreation reflects the belief of many different editors that this category should exist. I don't know much about what unites Catholic fictional characters, and I have little reason to believe that there is anything religious about fictional Anglicans or Methodists. But I do know that fictional Jews from William Shakespeare's Shylock to Rebecca from Ivanhoe to the title character Daniel Deronda by George Eliot to Philip Roth's Alexander Portnoy and even cartoon characters Kyle Broflovski and Krusty the Clown are distinguished by their Jewishness, for those who have appeared in print this is probably their most defining characteristic. While authors may select hair color, place of origin or even name on an entirely arbitrary basis, the choice to make a character Jewish is a quite often a rather deliberate and defining choice on the part of the author. It seems ludicrous, at best, to categorize Shylock, the quintessential Jewish character in fiction, solely in Category:Italian characters in written fiction after Act III, Scene I's famed speech from him that begins "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?", described in the Merchant of Venice article as one of Shakespeare's "most eloquent speeches". Even South Park's Kyle Broflovski would be more usefully put into Category:Fictional Jews than Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. Part of the problem with laundry list nominations at XfD is that useful articles and categories get deleted when the dross is collectively tossed out. While articles at AfD can be readily recreated with the addition of the sources and claims of notability that had been lacking, DRV is the only means of recreating deleted categories. Given the fact that the proffered explanation for deletion does not fit the world of Fictional Jews, and given that there have been numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject, the proper action should be to allow recreation of the category. Alansohn ( talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
Contesting PROD per charting record. Chubbles ( talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
Contesting PROD per charting record and single. Chubbles ( talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
The Afd is out of date (decision was redir). National tour, new record, passes WP:BAND #4. She has signed with RCA and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Biographies of contestants, she also passes notability (Yanks consider anyone making the live shows as a finalist) and passes WP:BIO basic criteria having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject with numerous WP:REFS. Some feel it time to get on with article. Others are enforcing the redir without discussion and biting a poor new editor. That is not the wikiway. So I come here to get proper discussion and consensus. Triwbe ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some sources regarding Diana's album:
This source shows how popular Diana is:
The following source refers to Diana being signed by RCA http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/diana-vickers-lands-record-dealbut-not-with-cowell/ . - T2h2o2m2a2s
-- Sumeet 92 ( talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
If you are going to delete Barack Obama administration controversies then why is there a whole category for George W. Bush administration controversies? Danvers ( talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Danvers
Relist
could all be considered controversies and ALL happened during the administration. The name of the page was not MAJOR controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danvers ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (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. |
It is the habit of the project to preserve task force and wikiproject talk pages as a record of past history. See here for a related discussion. "Not useful" is not sufficient criteria for deletion. SharkD ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
| 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. |
|
A search of "Theodore Kowal"and NASA returned 149 google hits - enough to be considered notable although the article was deleted because it was at the time considered un-notable (a user cited only 17 google hits). Frei Hans ( talk) 08:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although numerically there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, and Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. What is being called trivia is the same outline used at various government websites including the US State Department when discussing bilateral relationships. The first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars reads as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This certainly is an almanac entry, and a Wikipedia Pillar should trump denigrating it as "trivia". Another argument was that the word "relations" itself doesn't appear in a media report, so the article is original research. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations as defined at international relations and any Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) talk 13:05, 8 June 2009 (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. |
|
World wide reported event about a police officer beating up an Afro-American recorded by a surveillance camera. R. Rios III (google news shows how often it is reported) Was speedily deleted as "attack page or unsourced" although source was provided and nothing else than the widely reported events were included. I don't think the information is at the right place where it currently is - Passaic, New Jersey - because it is just a coincidence that it happened just there. It would certainly not be covered in the article about New York City, had it happened there. Restore. Xodó ( talk) 09:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
| :
And thus starts round three of the discussion of this image. It's a non-free image, sure, but of a dead person, Diego Corrales. It was kept unanimously at this FFD. I was requested to reconsider my decision by a number of editors, and while I didn't feel it appropriate to restore on my own motion, I brought the discussion to DRV, where the discussion (third item at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 28) endorsed the decision. However, within three hours of this closure, Carnildo popped up and unilaterally deleted the image (against the consensus of both FFD and DRV), on the supposition that the image was replaceable and that "it is reasonable to expect that there aren images out there that people are willing to license freely". Not only was this expressly refuted at the FFD (the DRV discussion was solely on whether the image passed WP:NFCC#2 as a press agency photo), but even if the image had never been up for discussion before, it requires a 48-hour tagging period. I, along with another user, requested Carnildo to reverse this decision, but theyhas declined to do so. Requesting overturn of the deletion in line with the consensus of the two discussions. Stifle ( talk) 12:59, 7 June 2009 (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. |
|
The discography has been forked out from the main Flo Rida article as it was outweighing the prose section. Originally the discography was deleted for lack of depth, but now I feel that it's deep enough to warrant its own article. I moved it away from an improper title "Flo Rida Discography". Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2009 (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. |
|
Times change. While this article has been moldering in Wikipedia's graveyard for the past few years, an entire system of articles like these has been developed. This article falls within the scope of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge and WP:WPOOK, and it would make a respectable addition to Wikipedia's outline pages. Please restore it, so that work can resume upon it. The OOK's Religion and belief systems section is particularly scant and needs pages like this! Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
6 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Hello, I am back at DRV with an updated version of the roblox article. Previously it was deleted for advertising and because the article did not indicate the importance of the subject. I have since found new references and feel that this notable game should have a Wikipedia article. I am hopefull that the article now meets your standards. If not, ideas and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! gordonrox24 ( talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with doing this, I don't even see why your comment was necessary.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 16:24, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
This article should have been deleted per WP:BLP1E, and I'm aware that DRV is not AFD 2: Electric Boogaloo, but at most, this AFD should have been relisted (again), or the keep overturned and the article deleted. Whichever makes the most sense.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Used in for example the weekday article Saturday Nsaa ( talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Article was originally deleted for having no third-party sources to show notability. At that AfD, there were only three !votes, two to delete and one to keep. The article is now sourced with multiple reliable sources, including New York Times, Miami Herald, TimesOnline, and more. See User:Priyanath/Sandbox for draft of new article. Priyanath talk 16:11, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
List of MXC episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Article has no sources and "" wp:v states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.""". Prevous discussion with closing admin. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-06-06t15:02z 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 June 2009
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page has been deleted as the page was created/deleted too many times perviously. The relevant sources are now available and so i have created a draft of the page here User:lolenelolene/draft. rootology ( C)( T) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC) told me to reference his reply to me at the unprotection section - [1] . rootology ( C)( T) said - "Please draft a copy of the page with sourcing in someplace like User:lolenelolene/draft, and reference my edit response to you here in case someone tries to delete that work in progress. When it's done, post a request to WP:DRV for review. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)." I think i have done everything he told me to do...so could you please reinstate the page? Thanks very much! lolenelolene ( talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was unreasonable as no links or subjective material was used in the creation of this page, and new content was provided each time in order to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia and its administrators. If necessary, would be interested in having a trusted Wikipedia author prepare the page to make sure that it’s completely compliant and objective. Thewizetradegroup ( talk) 02:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This AFD debate, with 9 arguments for deletion and 4 for rentention, was just closed as keep by a longstanding admin (since 2003), Altenmann ( talk · contribs). The article has only one reliable independent source, which notes that a french explorer was the 3rd european to land at the island, more than 200 years before PNG was independent. That says nothing about bilateral relations. The rational provided was simply "The result was keep; rescued." I would need a better rational to be convinced that there really was some "strength in argument not numbers" closure here and this just looks like another case of an admin basing a decision on his own opinion (which he was free to do by contributing to the debate itself) rather than doing his job, which is interpreting consensus and policy. Here's why he was wrong. One "keep" argument hinged on the brief visit of the french explorer 200 years before PNG was a state, and at least 150 years before one could imagine any sort of polity that aspired to being a state on the island. The second did as well (i.e. "per the excellent sources added." Since the only reliable independent source was this landing of a french explorer 200 years before independence, i presume that's what he meant). The 3rd said "you don't need secondary sources for an article," a clear failure to understand our notability guidelines for articles, i.e. "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine). The fourth keep argument appeared to hinge on A. Insisting that independent sources are not needed to establih a topic's notability and, B. That France controls New Caledonia, which is near PNG. The delete arguments hinged on a failure of the GNG, since no reliable independent sources that discuss the topic of the article could be found, let alone multiple ones. These sorts of closes make a mockery out of good-faithed participation in this process. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (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. |
|
This image (which, I understand, was fair use) was - until it was deleted - the only image of the cover of John Steinbeck's book The Log from the Sea of Cortez included in the featured article of that name. On that basis, I think there is a justifiable fair use rationale to keep it. There is a cover image remaining in that article - File:Sea-of-cortez-cover.jpg - but this is a different book, published by Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts in 1941, some 10 years before The Log from the Sea of Cortez. As the featured article explains, Steinbeck published The Log from the Sea of Cortez in 1951, after Ricketts was killed in 1948. It includes the narrative portion of Sea of Cortez, but excludes some material and adds other material. It is considered to be a completely separate work, published under Steinbeck's name alone. The article is about this second work, not the earlier one. The image was either deleted pursuant to the FfD, or as a CSD G7 - see related discussion at User talk:Drilnoth. I'm not convinced there was consensus to delete in the FfD, or that it was eligible as a G7. In any event, I think there are good reasons why it should be restored and replaced in the article. Testing times ( talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The AfD was closed by the closing administrator with "delete" consensus and merge to Mahmudiyah killings. I and other strongly disagree with this outcome (read here). I then discussed the desicion with the closing administrator. Sandstein to understand the reason for his decision. He kindly explained, we discussed and after that i ask him, to either extend the discussion or to declare "Keep" consensus. So both article can be developed separately, what would increase the quality of Wikipedia. He disagreed. Please read about it here. Sandstein - (User Talk). From his explanation i understand that he has based his decision on the number of people who made policy-based arguments and did not take in consideration the strength of the arguments. The arguments for a "delete" consensus outcome were weak and the arguments for a Keep very strong. So that the AfD outcome needs to be overturned. Because we can not ignore the strength of the argument and we can not ignore the secondary sources and according to them her role in the Mahmudiyah killings was tremendous. Not to grant her notability and to delete the article could be damaging to Wikipedia. Finally i would like to thank everybody who takes the time to review the AfD. Iqinn ( talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (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. |
|
Austria–Georgia relations ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) This AFD was just closed by User:Docu with the following rational: "The result was No consensus found for deletion. Discussion provided reliable resources for expansion, article was kept." However, in the AFD itself eight arguments were made for deletion against 3 for keeping the article. This outcome seems to me (at least it should be) well outside admin discretion (and his "analysis" of the sources provided, if one can call it that, seems odd -- only one source about a minor matter was found.) User:Docu has done this before in the recent past with Estonia–Luxembourg relations (now a dab page) which yielded at DRV a rather overwhelming consensus that not only was his close wrong but that he was acting well outside of his community granted authority. DRV here [45]. On a small procedural point, even though the sound round of admonishments he recieved at DRV over his last close like this led to him technically saying "no consensus" instead of "keep" this time, he edited the talk page of the article to say "the outcome of the discussion was keep." [46] I'll probably be seeking community input elsewhere on his behavior once i figure out the best venue, but i start here. As a wikipedia editor, I have to abide by consensus when it goes against what I think is the best course and i try to. That an admin, like User:Docu ignores consensus when it goes against what he thinks is best is demoralizing. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Fram ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to delete this page per Wikipedia:CSD#U2. It's blatantly obvious that U2 does not apply here, therefore I request speedy overturn of the deletion. — Aitias // discussion 15:10, 2 June 2009 (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. |
|
The nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008, and a robust debate about the nature of this association followed. The creator of the category made a strong case for its inclusion, and the result of this CfD was "Keep". TPH then nominated it again for deletion in May 2009 with the thinnest of reasoning and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote (" per nom") in a sham deletion attempt shouldn't have changed that. (when did one vote become consensus, anyway?) I would like to have the category Restored and Repopulated. Chubbles ( talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page was kept on the basis on a no concensus on WP:N supercedes WP:ATHLETE. This is true, but the AfD gave no examples of how the references provided in this revision passed general notability. The only two reliable sources about the footballer fail WP:SPECULATION, as well as the footballer failing WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition. -- Jimbo [online] 20:11, 1 June 2009 (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. |
|
Jonathan Kotula is a World Series of Poker Bracelet winner. While the outcome of was delete and I am not questioning the verdict based upon the AFD itself; neither WP:POKER nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people were made aware of this AFD, thus the two projects with the most insight and potential interest in the project did not know about this AFD. Being a WSOP bracelet winner is considered to be the pentacle of the poker world It is easily on par with the WP:Athlete's notion of participating at the highest level. The Poker project easily considers this as notable enough for an article. We are not talking about an event that nobody has ever heard of, we are talking about a World Series of Poker Champion. I considered simply recreating the article, but it would boil down to the same issues---he is only known for one event, but that event is a WSOP championship. And while I am certain we can find more sources [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] most will be trivial in nature. As a WSOP champion, however, any event where he participates, it will be news. If he doesn't defend his title, it is reported! --- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) notifying WP:Poker of this DRV
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
30 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Broken Cyde ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Requesting Unsalting so that the title may be redirected to Brokencyde. Chubbles ( talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (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. |
|
No indication that the nominator even attempted to determine the image's copyright before listing it for deletion. Ricky28618 ( talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (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. |
|
The page was deleted under the reasoning that fictional characters must not be categorized as villains per WP:POV and OR. However, The Walt Disney Company has released a franchise named "Disney Villains", which is more than just characters who are antagonists, witches, etc. There are direct-to-video films, video games and other merchandise by the franchise that can be categorized under "Category:Disney Villains", other than just characters in the official line-up. Therefore, the category would be named after an existing franchise and not as a way to label characters as villains only because they are "bad guys". -- LoЯd ۞pεth 18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
29 June 2009
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
StarM
No indication nominator followed WP:BEFORE. TheGriefer ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate to mix completely separate articles into a single AFD discussion. Suggest restoring and then nominating separately (along with a warning to the editor who merged the mess together). TheGriefer ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No indication nominator adequately searched for sources, nor followed WP:BEFORE. Systemic bias concerns about an editor with a negative view of Eastern Europeans. TheGriefer ( talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
DJ Smallz article can never really grow without the image. Poor reasoning by nominator. TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The closing admin didn't even offer one day for discussion. -- TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The deleting admin didn't even offer one day for discussion. -- TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) TheGriefer ( talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I was told about this deletion and wanted to protest. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie and was closed in 3 days, so there was a lack of time to discuss the issues anyways. None of the main page editors joined the discussion or stated any opinions on the matter yet. The discussion deserves a full seven days and it's clear that the people who know the subject should be given their proper weight. It is clear from this personal attack that people are putting politics above becoming the source of ALL human knowledge. Also, could someone temporarily undelete the article so that people can see the history? TheGriefer ( talk) 22:03, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
The at Afd listed article was incorrectly been speedy deleted per A7 and BLP1E. A7 and BLP1E are not valid reasons for a speedy deletion. The deletion was clearly incorrect and the deleting admin concedes he acted hastily. Proposed solution. Relist at Articles for deletion. Iqinn ( talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deleted due to having few articles to link to - but there seems to be enough now ( comic book, the movie, video game, the main characters article and the seven protagonists, soundtrack albums, and possibly two parodies), and Template:V for Vendetta shows a proper way to build it. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
28 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
"Fantastico (web hosting)" already exist separately. Surely it would make sense to redirect from "Fantastico De Luxe", and yet this article has an ugly history. My interest in Fantastico De Luxe derives from cPanel, which is used by Webhostingpad.com. I'd like to figure out whether I should be using CGI, Perl, PHP, Ruby, RVSiteBuilder, or Fantastico De Luxe. So I've been checking each one at Wikipedia. With all due respect, the reason that any modestly, useful information ever has to be deleted escapes me, but this seems to be the protocol. For my part, I have done my best to meet that protocol. This is the result. C-U RPCV ( talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (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. |
|
Another problematic close from the same admin who brought us the problematic close of Surnames by country. The decision by User:Good Olfactory to upmerge this into Category:Surnames tosses hundreds of surnames with thoroughly-documented Jewish connections into a useless catchall category with more than 14,000 entries. While the closing admin acknowledges that "This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed", the decision to delete and upmerge was made in the face of clear consensus to keep. The nomination offered rather muddled reasons for deletion, and the only participant supporting deletion voted based it on the claim that "names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense", which is rebutted by the rather obvious observation that the use of names by different religions is rather easily handled by using multiple categories for each name/religion combination that can be documented by reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, a dozen published books on the background and history of Jewish surnames makes it clear that this is a well-defined field of study that constitutes a strong defining characteristic of such names. It appears that the closing administrator has a rather strong bias towards deletion of such categories, even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. In classic We had to destroy the village to save it style, we are now left with the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a rather clear category and plucking the appropriate names from among the 14,000 in Category:Surnames because one admin decided he doesn't like it. Alansohn ( talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up comment (closer). Category has been re-created by a user not involved in this discussion, further rendering this discussion moot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (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. |
|
Person is not notable. Seriously, I don't see how this afd was not closed as Delete. Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why has this page been deleted? Please provide a legitimate reason. I have repeatedly provided three reliable sources to prove that Andrew Hsu is a real person and one who has contributed significantly both as a scientist and as a philanthropist, being the first to sequence the Homo Sapiens and Mus Musculus COL20A1 Gene and founding the World Children's Organization which has provided thousands of children with books and water filters. Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003752165_andrewhsu18m.html NBC Today Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OntiXRsuOY San Jose News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwh-_87a6_A I have not been given a legitimate reason for why this page has been repeatedly deleted. Att159 ( talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I deleted this article (slightly different name, essentially the same thing) under G4, which I pointed out on my talk page where this user asked me. Ged UK 12:59, 30 June 2009 (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. |
|
I submit that this should be overturned, because:
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
26 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't think good reasons were given in the discussion (eg, 'rather pointless article'). -Zeus- u| c 20:02, 26 June 2009 (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. |
I would like to request that this deletion be reviewed. I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log [4] and I understand that the bill has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that the bill is below the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is. I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:
Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times. To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability. Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, there were 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well. A recent story of June 20 even indicated that the bill may be responsible for a nationwide bullet shortage. If this is true, enough Americans are aware of the bill to create the shortage. As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor and no cosponsors, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress. The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General. Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration, J appleseed2 ( talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (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. |
|
Not a copyright vio, fair use under United States law and Wikipedia standards. All problems brought up in the deletion nomination were dealt with. Although the article itself is about Crayola, the image is used clearly in reference to the stamp in question in a section about the stamp, not as a primary means of identifying the subject of the stamp. The Wikipedia copyrighted U.S. stamp template clearly states that copyrighted U.S. stamps can be used here "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" under fair use if they are used to illustrate the stamp, not simply to illustrate the subject. Free images of Crayola crayons are in the article before the stamp image, so it's obviously not being used for that purpose, but to illustrate the stamp itself in its historical context. I would be grateful if the decision to delete this image was reviewed, I feel its deletion was unnecessary, not by consensus, and detrimental to the article and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. -- Dougie WII ( talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
25 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
At long, long last, these uber-hatable MySpace kings have released a full-length, which hit #86 on this week's Billboard 200. Now we can finally put aside the longstanding parade of assertions of non-notability. Requesting Unsalting of Brokencyde and BrokeNCYDE (the latter as a popular redirect). I have a copy of the deleted article in userspace (amazingly, it was nominated for deletion on its own, without anyone notifying me), and it's fairly well fleshed out (aside from very recent news). Chubbles ( talk) 15:30, 25 June 2009 (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. |
|
A case of destroying the village in order to save it. The discussion had nothing approaching a consensus for nuking the entire surname categorization system, landing us with a single category with some 14000 names. While the now deleted system may not have been ideal and needed refinement (it was missing clear guidelines on what makes a surname associated enough with a country to categorize that way) or restructuring (many have suggested categorizing by language rather than country - though of course there'll be gray areas and tricky cases there too, as in most of our categorization schemes) deleting it wholesale destroys an enormous amount of information and makes it much more difficult to create an improved system. Haukur ( talk) 11:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I'm asking for the decision to be overturned and the categories restored without prejudice. We can work to improve the system from there. Haukur ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:09, 27 June 2009 (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. |
|
Closing admin did not interpret the fairly clear consensus for deletion correctly, closing the discussion by saying "It is not causing any harm." The arguments in favor of keeping are it's not hurting anything and people find it useful. For the former, WP:NOHARM is an exceedingly weak argument, one that should generally be avoided (yes, that is an essay and not binding but it is illustrative of a fairly widespread feeling about the merits of "it's not hurting anything"). WP:USEFUL is also an extremely weak argument. It appears that one editor's claim, based on page view statistics, that editors other than himself find it useful was sufficient to keep based on item five: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." However, PaulGS is not saying that he personally finds it useful. He is saying that he assumes that because it's been clicked on some number of times someone somewhere finds it useful. I submit that this doesn't meet the meaning of item five because there is no way to know why or how editors ended up at the redirect. For all PaulGS or any other editor knows, those editors had no intention of going to the redirect at all and do not find it in any way useful. The arguments against the redirect, particularly the argument raised by WaysToEscape, are both numerically superior by a 2-1 margin (yes, I know XfD is not a vote) but also logically sounder. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:54, 25 June 2009 (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. |
|
I wasn't finished creating the page... I had an under construction notice up... now someone marked it for deletion and all the content I was working on is gone! It said the page was deleted because it was web content related and it didn't state it's importance. Well, theres a lot of articles here that don't state their importance. The article is about an independent music site that provides podsafe music and concert listings for indie bands only... it's important because it's part of the independent music revolution. There are sites like SoundClick.com that have a wikipedia page and they don't state their "importance". Besides, the bottom line is, I wasn't finished with the page. It will take me weeks to finish. Lennonno9 ( talk) 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(Deletion log); 08:03 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:IndieShows" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (Deletion log); 08:03 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "IndieShows" (A7: No indication that the article may meet (Deletion log); 13:56 . . NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "IndieShows" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) Lennonno9 ( talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
24 June 2009
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
There were only three contributors to the AfD of the 15th; the nominator and one other voted to delete, I voted to keep. The article was relisted at 0:40 on the 22nd by User:Juliancolton. Twelve hours and thirty four minutes later, with an admittedly impressive, if officially irrelevant six to two total to delete (the decision to delete being based solely on the merits of the arguments for and against, supposedly), the AfD was closed by User:Stifle. I ask that the AfD be reopened; as of the end of the 21st, there was no consensus, and 13 hours is a laughable amount of time. Such a short span of time is extremely vulnerable to statistical anomalies and even more so to out-of-wiki-space canvassing. I take it from a discussion below, that closing the AfD as soon as a consensus forms is not considered, by one user at least, unusual, but it is incomprehensible to me that this should be so. It is like rolling a dice and waiting until you have a majority of sixes rolled, and then stating, the most common roll of a die is a six. From the AfD: ..."The mission statement is standard...(for pages of groups such as NOW)..." I reworked the header. The notability is instantly apparent upon following the links already provided. A quick followup revealed the group's involvement in the South Carolina state legislature's proposition of HB 1682...Anarchangel (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" HB 1682 was the response of the SC legislature to the success of the books Ghost Plane and Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights, to be sure. However, the grassroots activism by SCSTN against the Aero base in NC, and other Carolina businesses connected with the post-2002 version of extraordinary rendition, not only gave additional impetus to this legislation, and public support, but gains additional notability by being part of these reactions to this most notable of events. Contributions Anarchangel ( talk) 10:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The media coverage was not restricted to either state; both HB 1682 and the org themselves were mentioned. Should this be relisted, we can hopefully see some attention paid to the facts and thus a counter to the proof by assertion that has dominated this discussion, and in fact seems to dominate the majority of discussions at WP. Anarchangel ( talk) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, four people who prefer to ignore the citations in the article, or parrot others saying that there are no citations, all show up in thirteen hours, is even less of a significant result, for our purposes, than a number showing up several times when rolling dice. That is because the substance of arguments is to be considered over the number of arguments. WP:N always requires some value judgement; the citations are solid evidence and there to be seen. Note that I had considered and will continue to consider the previous AfD period of the 15th, contrary to Uncle G's assertion; however, its results were inconclusive, and Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD.
...I would request that consideration be given to the additional citations and material involving a second bill that should be added to the article:
Since no other assertions were made other than Notability and Verification by sources, I propose that the above evidence is proof that the AfD was not only, voted on by a majority of people employing only their PoV to assess the article, not only wrongfully closed, but that it was wrongfully opened, and that the article should be restored. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There are many comments I could, and most likely will, make about this exchange. For now, suffice it to say that there has never been a substantive debate on any time period preceeding the closure of relisted AfDs, and yet everyone here, including the person who entered it into mainspace, is acting as though it were the Holy Words of Moses handed down from on high. Immediately affecting my petition here, I retract my statement "Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD", except for as it pertains to the inconclusiveness of the debate at the end of seven days after the initial AfD of the 15th. The existing rule, as this discussion page listing indicates (they are for the substance of my argument identical) states that AfDs should not be relisted if more than one editor has commented with substantive policy based arguments. The inconclusiveness of the debate goes to the argument that the AfD was improperly relisted. The AfD should have been closed, per WP:RELIST, for reasons of 'no consensus'. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
23 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Meets WP:MUSIC; please evaluate my draft. The page is salted because previous creations were speedily deleted for lack of citations. But that was before Brisco had any charted songs on the Billboard chart.
|
| 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. |
|
Youth United ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10 I, being a different individual seek to recreate the article of this organization with all the Wikipedia policies to be taken into consideration, so unprotection of the page Youth United is sought to create this page again as per Wikipedia policies. Regards Maihunggogoi ( talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (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. |
|
There was never a deletion discussion, it was just nominated for deletion, and then I was notified. Also it was deleted within a week, so it was undeleted, and then Speedy Deleted but it does not meet the requirements for Speedy Deletion, so it should be undeleted and discussed on it's talk page. MahaPanta ( talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
22 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
All items regarding Billy Linds life history are factual and establish credibility to a listing on wikipedia due to subject matter regarding Mr. Linds prior life and new purpose with his organization - Andrealind ( talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted for not being notable, but upcoming feature film District 9 makes it so, IMHO. 213.21.98.80 ( talk) 11:38, 21 June 2009 (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. |
|
I lodged an article deletion review because the article's deletion seemed questionable. The article was restored by Aervanath to one of my user pages. I moved it from my user page back to Theodore Kowal and it was deleted again within about an hour. It seems strange to have been deleted again, and so soon, after it was restored. Next time, could the article be restored directly to Theodore Kowal with a note that it has been recently restored and to hold off deletion. NB: I did not create the article but thought the content seemed interesting enough to retain. Frei Hans ( talk) 11:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
DRV_1, closed Userfy, Aervanath
|
| 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. |
|
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I disagree with the article CodeineFree not being deleted. It is blatant advertising only, with unencylopedic content, not a single citation, and written nearly solely by the person who runs the site. I say we delete... Can the powers that be, please review this? thanks :) Dvmedis ( talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
20 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Article was redirected because it " doesn't meet with the notability status " which is unreasonable. Facha93 ( talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (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. |
|
Article was deleted without ANY advanced warning or discussion (see my talk page). Please restore article so it can be listed for discussion. Rterrace ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
19 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Quite frankly, using NFCC#2 as the primary reason to delete is a display of pitifully poor ethics. Seriously, we are concerned here as #2 states about "the original market role of the original copyrighted media" of a possibly murdered and definitely tortured U.S. detainee who's whereabouts until close to death were unknown and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's only image? This is a sad matter. If these rationales for deletion are sufficient then every non-free image in wikipedia should probably be deleted. - Steve3849 talk 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
18 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Far too few people commented (3, with a 2-1 majority to delete) for any conclusions to be drawn about what the community thinks about the long-term usefulness of this template. Also no reasons of any merit were given as to why it should be deleted (we have many complex templates, so complexity is clearly not a ground for deletion, and the user who claimed that the information produced by the template was "not useful" failed to respond when asked to be specific, and clearly some of the information produced is useful, so this comment can hardly be considered fully thought-out). Please relist so that more can comment and so that we can be sure that there are genuine grounds to delete it, and that we know what we want instead. ( Closing admin has been requested to change decision but declined.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Kotniski ( talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (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. |
|
The AfD discussion was relisted on 13 May. It was closed by a non-admin on 15 May with the comment "The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) 10 days is enough. Weighing the arguments, I don't think a consensus has been reached". I believe the closure was procedurally incorrect (it should have run for the full seven days after relisting and have been closed by an admin since it wasn't an unambiguous result). I reverted the closure and informed the editor, who was offline, that I had done this. Since I had voted in the AfD, this was reverted by another editor (see pointlessly long discussion here). I ask that this be relisted (or closed as a delete based on the lack of referencing and lack of policy-based arguments in the keep !votes, but I'm not out to re-run the AfD here). Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. The same has been the case for last three-four images uploaded by me. I have asked the admin to refrain from speedy deletion and inform in advance if he wishes to do so after a mutual discussion. I had also posted a hang on on the page still the file is missing. Seems like no image I post is valid enough for other users to see. Vertical.limit ( talk) 10:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know if the need be to do so. Vertical.limit ( talk) 07:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have applied to license out the images on CC-BY-SA lets hope it goes through. Thanks your advice has helped. -- Vertical.limit ( talk) 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
17 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Speedily deleted with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:58, 17 June 2009 (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. | ||
|
Listing one of my speedy deletions for review here, to save the new user who created the article the trouble of coming here. I deleted it as a A7 group, with a dash of G11 advertising for the first-person tone in places. The "hangon" said (for non-admins) "I have just created this page for our new Non Profit Organization. I plan on spending a little time every week adding to its content. It should be up to your standards within a few months tops. Thank you for your consideration." Elluminati ( talk · contribs) asked me why I had deleted it, so I replied, referring him to the need to show importance [and yes I foolishly also referred to the need to show notability, but I know that's not the test for a speedy deletion] and guidance on advertising and COI. His reply says that if I don't think the mission of the group is notable or important, I need to get a new hobby, and that he is not advertising but making known a worthy cause. I have suggested he leave the subject alone, and stop trying to promote his group, but if he can't do that, to write a neutrally-worded version in his userspace with references. Your thoughts please. Bencherlite Talk 20:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, My name is Jesus Rodriguez and I am the President of a newly formed NON-PROFIT organization called the "Hispanic Commonweal". It is our mission to bring the necessary resources of information of Education, Health care, Faith and Politics to local Hispanic Communities, one family at a time in order to better the lives of those in our community. To cut to the chase, I think the main issue we are having here is that this person who has brought us to this point seems to think that everyone is some kind of expert in Wikipedia contributing or is otherwise a spammer. I have never contributed anything before to Wiki and therefore am very new to the process. He/She is using terms and "Wiki" language that I am not familiar with. I am quite certain that a person does not have to be a Wiki "insider" to contribute worthy information. This idea that since I am closely involved with the organization that I cannot make the contribution to Wikipedia myself is understandable under normal circumstances but in this particular situation is an outrage and I am sure against the fundamental spirit of this encyclopedic website. I understand that this is a community of volunteers and the need to weed out a bunch of spammers is constantly necessary. So I am not yet at a point of making this a public issue. I am a very determined Hispanic activist who is merely trying to make known an organization that is for the preservation of Traditional Hispanic Values. I am only wanting to post the facts about the organization. Where it was founded, who founded it and what it's mission statement is. I am also prepared to or have other people make pertinent updates to the page as we continue to move forward. I hope that something can be worked out here. This idea, from the person who brought us here, that I am "advertising" is another outrage. This is an organization that not only pays no salaries but all the expenses, which has been thousands of dollars, have come out of my own pocket specifically. So I do not see any other reason why I can't be helped in this matter. I am willing, as I told the person, to make the proper adjustments and work on making it a very good "Wiki" page. I ask for the support of this community to be able to make a page that allows the facts to be shown about our organization. If it is the insinuation for this person that everything in Wiki is established worthy and "notable" then we all know that is just not true. In closing, I hope that this is not because we are a conservative organization. I have heard rumors about bias here in Wiki, and hope that those are just conspiracy freaks. Just tell me what I need to do, without assuming that I speak Wiki language. Thank you, Jesus Rodriguez, President Hispanic Commonweal Oak Creek, WI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elluminati ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 June 2009. Moved from DRV talk page. Bencherlite Talk 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to most of you. However, it is clear that this community is not interested in helping those who are not already familiar with how Wikipedia works (very hostile and defensive to "newbies" and that is not appropriate, especially when the person identifies themselves clearly and open to verification from the start). I have no problem with most of what is being said and or with the guidelines and I agree with much of the reasoning. However, to the person who felt the need to lecture me and insinuate that I was "threatening", you can save the drama, I don't have the time and definitely not the temperament to be talked down to by some volunteer at wikipedia. If anyone is interested in helping me please come talk to me on my talk board, I am interested in placing the facts of Hispanic Commonweal on Wikipedia not to promote. I understand it is a fine line, but the Hispanic Commonweal has already been recognized by very influential Hispanic organizations, such as C.A.L.L (Catholic Association of Latino Leaders)and Local and National politicians here in Wisconsin, like congressman Paul Ryan and County Executive Scott Walker (who is running for Governor). Certainly you can't expect those people to take the time to write a facts article about the organization. Anyways, the assertion that according to the moderators at Wikipedia the Hispanic Commonweal is not yet "notable" is obviously relative and simply a false accusation. I am not sure what the criteria to becoming "Notable" for you guys is, but when very influential people like the US Marshal of Central California is going to do an interview with us and support our cause, I am sure that that type of "notability" should suffice. Could someone who would like to help me start working on a legitimate "Facts" Article for Wikipedia please come talk to me on my elluminati talk page? I don't care if it takes 6 months, I just want to start the process. Thank you. Elluminati ( talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)elluminati
| ||
| 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. |
|
Deletion was unreasonable Nathanlgordon ( talk) 16:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Please revisit the issue of the redstone commercial real estate page. All content was verifiable, the company was notable as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the page was not an advertisement, and not attempting to sell anything, nor link to any external sales sites.
Please discuss differences between that page and any other company pages that haven't been deleted. The content on those pages mirror their websites (for example, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters). The tone was informational, just like it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanlgordon ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Delete, User has a conflict of interest. Doesn't get that he shouldn't write self promotional; articles. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. 24.14.132.100 ( talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) The Mikie Da Poet page has been blocked for many years, reading the editors comments, they stated he needs to be mentioned on a news segment as proof of his status, well he was! the instructions said to be bold, well here it is. Mikie da Poet was called the new Eminem by Fox News when he performed live on Fox News and was called a superstar by FOX anchor David Navarro years before the block was ever put on, if a good editor reads this, not only should they take off the block, but they should send an im sorry email to the person who was trying to despute the block. The first guy desputing this was perfectly correct, Mikie Da Poet is a well known well respected artist all over the world. heres the link to the live Fox News performance. thank you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1lWbt3bk8
Im not a editor, just a music fan, I dont know why Mikie was blocked to begin with, the proof the second editor ask for was sothing solid, solid proof, like a news segmant as he worded it, I provided that news segmant that shows Mikie is a established artist at the least. I dont know what page protection is, im asking that the block be lifted and Mikie Da Poet's name be aloud to sit with the other great names from Chicago and all over the world that he has worked with without being distured or deleted. Business as usual "trailer" search it anywhere, the most anticipated hip hop documentary ever, and they asked mikie to do the soundtrack, you can watch this and hear his song playing see his name in the credits, krs1, kanye west, dr cornell west, every big name in hip hop is on this project, and they used Mikie's old song from 7 years ago as the soundtrack. what is the reason why his name is blocked to begin with, this man has three albums in stores that can be purchased now, are you saying that this man is not worthy or does not have the credits to be on this websight? I have provided you with more credit then earlier editors asked from the other person desputing this artists name, his accomplishments in music deserve to be witness by the world. and to the nice professional person who wrote above, thank you for the advice, but when i click the links, I get lost, im not good at this, but i believe the public should see that they blocked Mikie, his fans would find it insulting, just because a man retires, doesnt mean block him for know reason and act like he never was great when the credits and albums are right in the editors lap.
I love this guys music and thought he should have a page, I read the old logs on why this artist was deleted, and it makes no sense, the Fox News performance above, link included, should be enough to lift the block and give this guy a page or what ever its called, im disapointed in your ability to guide me in the right direction the help this artist get his name up with the other greats, us everyday people dont understand directions that just take you in circles and lead to more messages and bigger words. he should have never been blocked to begin with, this block was done on purpose in my oppinion, so Mikie if you ever read this, get someone real smart that understands this process, cause i dont.
|
| 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. |
This page was speedy deleted even after a third editor had removed the speedy tag because it didn't have merit. The reason given for deletion "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" هis simply wrong since the article is sourced and the organization in question is signficant and is the parent organization of several other groups that have articles in wikipedia. Dodge rambler ( talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
16 June 2009
15 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion was made within mere 5 days without any input from the author. All the deleted pages were in the Sandbox area. Policies mentioned in the discussions do not apply. -- Kvasir ( talk) 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The Sandbox was created as a place with fewer rules and policies than any other pages on Wikipedia. For example, you don't have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making a major change. However, it must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks and civility still apply. No one is saying my pages violated the above. So what was the problem? Why not just move those pages to user:kvasir/sandbox/etc for lower visibility. I don't understand why people should get upset what's in people's sandbox area anyway. -- Kvasir ( talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (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. |
|
First time the article was created, text was copied from a source leading to the article's deletion. The second time however, the text was entirely original. Roaring Siren ( talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
Licensing still being resolved. The image contained an element that another user (who had no part in the creation of the element) contested was unlicensed. When the image file was deleted I was still in the process of checking licensing with the creator of that element - who I originally attributed in uploading the image. An associated article, Telepathy and war, was also nominated for deletion and then deleted unreasonably after the page was vandalised several times. Frei Hans ( talk) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
I uploaded the wrong file... please can you remove? -- Daniel Jones ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC). |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 June 2009
13 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I personally think Wikipedia can sometimes be unfair to articles that meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines My reason for undeletion is that this BLP meets WP:VERIFY, from personal experiences her recent song is getting heavy airplay by BBC Radio 1 and 4Music, plus some other music stations and 55,400 ghits. But on the other hand, I feel that it is due to poor editing that caused it to be deleted, though I have never seen the article before. Donnie Park ( talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (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. |
|
This is protected from being recreated for some reason from a long time ago for spam being posted there. Dotty••| ☎ 08:08, 13 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was completely unreasonable. Deletion should only be by concensus, but there were two votes to keep and two to delete. Furthermore WP:PORNBIO says that a porn star is notable if they have been nominated for a major award. One of the people voting delete said she was nominated for an AVN award for Best New Starlet, which is a fairly major award. However he voted delete because she wasn't nominated in multiple years! Was this a recent change because I don't remember it, and in any case it sounds stupid; would you say that someone who was nominated for a Best New Artist Grammy isn't notable because they weren't nominated more than once? This needs to be undone and the deletor needs to be trout slapped! SPNic ( talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The creators and main editors of the article were not notified. It was nominated before and there was a strong concensus to keep. There was no OR or SYNTH, it was simply a presentation of facts. Straw polls are an important part of American elections, especially the coverage that follows such polls as the Texas Straw Poll and Ames Straw Poll. William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
At a minimum, I respectfully request immediate userfication to myself of all 3 articles, because the amount of good-faith compilation and collation effort alone on part of both myself and Southern Texas, undone by a few rogue edits, is worth at least that much. JJB 23:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) ADD: I appreciate the restoration of the main article; I have asked the restorer also to restore the two transcluded articles, which had most of the content, as well as the two maps and talk. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
I have many more media article sources to back up the article and to meet criteria for the notability guidelines. I have articles/appearances from The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. The Press Association will also be putting out a video and wire story about it, so that is another reference source. -- Scott ( talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (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. |
|
Should be unprotected and redirected to Escape the Fate, which is his primary reason for notability (and why the article kept getting recreated). He was their lead singer for their first two releases, and received a lot of media coverage. Chubbles ( talk) 11:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
11 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Looking at it purely in voting terms, consensus comes out at 8 delete, 5 keep. Cutting out "it just is notable" "it just isn't notable", we come out with 7 delete, 4 keep. Seems to be consensus to me. Ironholds ( talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
Talk page should be archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive TimeSplitters, not deleted, as per other pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. SharkD ( talk) 05:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
10 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Artist page Original Flavor was deleted via PROD, and then this album was A9'ed. The artist page has been restored, and so the A9 is now invalid. This is sort of an extension of a contested prod and hopefully is not controversial. Chubbles ( talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
As I previously mentioned, this image is not replaceable because you're never going to otherwise get the seven justices in one place to take their pictures. It is arguably in public domain, although I don't think it actually is. (Compare with File:Supreme_Court_US_2006.jpg.) Nevertheless, I think there is no doubt that using it is fair use. Further, as it is the case with Supreme Court of the United States, I think having the justices' group portrait substantially enhances the article's vividness and is necessary to give flesh and blood to the article. Nlu ( talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
for entry Sonic Erotica. ESkog takes too many liberties and makes too many assumptions.-- Mirror Man ( talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
MusicMatch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) History-only undeletion. This was deleted years ago without any discussion that I could find. ~ Paul T +/ C 05:41, 10 June 2009 (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. |
Closer dismissed valid arguments based on
wp:notability,
wp:episode and other policies. Sides with nom despite lack of deletion rationale. Nom's reasoning and those of deleters are largely based on
|
| 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. |
|
The article was based on information that i myself submitted and contributed to my article. It was definently original work and should not have been deleted, almost immediately after it's posting. I submitted the article on Aug 21, 2007 and it was deleted immediately. I disputed the deletion with the (deletor/i.e.edior?)....but he never responded. And then i read over other request and based on information from other contributors, this individual is somewhat of a serial deletor. He has deleted a number of other articles that author's disputed were in violation of any of Wikipedia's article rules.. I just hope this can be resolved in a somewhat timely manner. I am relying on this submission to use as a guideline to account on when and how i acquired the material for the overall L-Cat project. User-Soulsearchers Soulsearchers03 ( talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Deleted by Irishguy
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
9 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am afraid you have committed a mistake. The files were rather to be kept as they are, or shortened at worst, but nobody voted for their deletion, except the nominator. I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia rules...* The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru alltogether goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?-- Rubikonchik ( talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) -- Rubikonchik ( talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The argument applies to two more files 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg Rubikonchik ( talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the track "Circus" reflected by the file File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg is not mentioned in the Sofia Rotaru article at all, and has never been mentioned in the history, so the talk pages are the only location where one can find the episodes in the singer's career that the clips should illustrate. Not that the inclusion of these facts would create a necessity for the clips to be included. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
Back in February 2008, a dozen categories related to fictional characters by religion were deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_24#Category:Fictional_characters_by_religion this CfD with the closing administrator arguing that The strongest argument either way came from the last sentence of the nomination itself: It's pretty unlikely that someone looking for the Rocky, Michael Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara or Eric Cartman will look it up through fictional catholics. While true, these characters are fictional catholics, that is not what they are known for. And for those characters who religion is the main defining trait, as discussed, there are better categories that can be used. While all of these categories have been recreated -- and promptly deleted without discussion or explanation -- as a recreation of deleted material, the Category:Fictional Jews has been recreated almost a dozen times, more than any of the other categories. I believe this pattern of recreation reflects the belief of many different editors that this category should exist. I don't know much about what unites Catholic fictional characters, and I have little reason to believe that there is anything religious about fictional Anglicans or Methodists. But I do know that fictional Jews from William Shakespeare's Shylock to Rebecca from Ivanhoe to the title character Daniel Deronda by George Eliot to Philip Roth's Alexander Portnoy and even cartoon characters Kyle Broflovski and Krusty the Clown are distinguished by their Jewishness, for those who have appeared in print this is probably their most defining characteristic. While authors may select hair color, place of origin or even name on an entirely arbitrary basis, the choice to make a character Jewish is a quite often a rather deliberate and defining choice on the part of the author. It seems ludicrous, at best, to categorize Shylock, the quintessential Jewish character in fiction, solely in Category:Italian characters in written fiction after Act III, Scene I's famed speech from him that begins "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?", described in the Merchant of Venice article as one of Shakespeare's "most eloquent speeches". Even South Park's Kyle Broflovski would be more usefully put into Category:Fictional Jews than Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. Part of the problem with laundry list nominations at XfD is that useful articles and categories get deleted when the dross is collectively tossed out. While articles at AfD can be readily recreated with the addition of the sources and claims of notability that had been lacking, DRV is the only means of recreating deleted categories. Given the fact that the proffered explanation for deletion does not fit the world of Fictional Jews, and given that there have been numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject, the proper action should be to allow recreation of the category. Alansohn ( talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
Contesting PROD per charting record. Chubbles ( talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
Contesting PROD per charting record and single. Chubbles ( talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
The Afd is out of date (decision was redir). National tour, new record, passes WP:BAND #4. She has signed with RCA and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Biographies of contestants, she also passes notability (Yanks consider anyone making the live shows as a finalist) and passes WP:BIO basic criteria having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject with numerous WP:REFS. Some feel it time to get on with article. Others are enforcing the redir without discussion and biting a poor new editor. That is not the wikiway. So I come here to get proper discussion and consensus. Triwbe ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some sources regarding Diana's album:
This source shows how popular Diana is:
The following source refers to Diana being signed by RCA http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/diana-vickers-lands-record-dealbut-not-with-cowell/ . - T2h2o2m2a2s
-- Sumeet 92 ( talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (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. |
|
If you are going to delete Barack Obama administration controversies then why is there a whole category for George W. Bush administration controversies? Danvers ( talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Danvers
Relist
could all be considered controversies and ALL happened during the administration. The name of the page was not MAJOR controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danvers ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (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. |
It is the habit of the project to preserve task force and wikiproject talk pages as a record of past history. See here for a related discussion. "Not useful" is not sufficient criteria for deletion. SharkD ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (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. |
|
| 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. |
|
A search of "Theodore Kowal"and NASA returned 149 google hits - enough to be considered notable although the article was deleted because it was at the time considered un-notable (a user cited only 17 google hits). Frei Hans ( talk) 08:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although numerically there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, and Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. What is being called trivia is the same outline used at various government websites including the US State Department when discussing bilateral relationships. The first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars reads as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This certainly is an almanac entry, and a Wikipedia Pillar should trump denigrating it as "trivia". Another argument was that the word "relations" itself doesn't appear in a media report, so the article is original research. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations as defined at international relations and any Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) talk 13:05, 8 June 2009 (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. |
|
World wide reported event about a police officer beating up an Afro-American recorded by a surveillance camera. R. Rios III (google news shows how often it is reported) Was speedily deleted as "attack page or unsourced" although source was provided and nothing else than the widely reported events were included. I don't think the information is at the right place where it currently is - Passaic, New Jersey - because it is just a coincidence that it happened just there. It would certainly not be covered in the article about New York City, had it happened there. Restore. Xodó ( talk) 09:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
| :
And thus starts round three of the discussion of this image. It's a non-free image, sure, but of a dead person, Diego Corrales. It was kept unanimously at this FFD. I was requested to reconsider my decision by a number of editors, and while I didn't feel it appropriate to restore on my own motion, I brought the discussion to DRV, where the discussion (third item at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 28) endorsed the decision. However, within three hours of this closure, Carnildo popped up and unilaterally deleted the image (against the consensus of both FFD and DRV), on the supposition that the image was replaceable and that "it is reasonable to expect that there aren images out there that people are willing to license freely". Not only was this expressly refuted at the FFD (the DRV discussion was solely on whether the image passed WP:NFCC#2 as a press agency photo), but even if the image had never been up for discussion before, it requires a 48-hour tagging period. I, along with another user, requested Carnildo to reverse this decision, but theyhas declined to do so. Requesting overturn of the deletion in line with the consensus of the two discussions. Stifle ( talk) 12:59, 7 June 2009 (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. |
|
The discography has been forked out from the main Flo Rida article as it was outweighing the prose section. Originally the discography was deleted for lack of depth, but now I feel that it's deep enough to warrant its own article. I moved it away from an improper title "Flo Rida Discography". Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 06:18, 7 June 2009 (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. |
|
Times change. While this article has been moldering in Wikipedia's graveyard for the past few years, an entire system of articles like these has been developed. This article falls within the scope of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge and WP:WPOOK, and it would make a respectable addition to Wikipedia's outline pages. Please restore it, so that work can resume upon it. The OOK's Religion and belief systems section is particularly scant and needs pages like this! Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
6 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Hello, I am back at DRV with an updated version of the roblox article. Previously it was deleted for advertising and because the article did not indicate the importance of the subject. I have since found new references and feel that this notable game should have a Wikipedia article. I am hopefull that the article now meets your standards. If not, ideas and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! gordonrox24 ( talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with doing this, I don't even see why your comment was necessary.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 16:24, 15 June 2009 (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. |
|
This article should have been deleted per WP:BLP1E, and I'm aware that DRV is not AFD 2: Electric Boogaloo, but at most, this AFD should have been relisted (again), or the keep overturned and the article deleted. Whichever makes the most sense.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Used in for example the weekday article Saturday Nsaa ( talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Article was originally deleted for having no third-party sources to show notability. At that AfD, there were only three !votes, two to delete and one to keep. The article is now sourced with multiple reliable sources, including New York Times, Miami Herald, TimesOnline, and more. See User:Priyanath/Sandbox for draft of new article. Priyanath talk 16:11, 6 June 2009 (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. |
|
List of MXC episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Article has no sources and "" wp:v states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.""". Prevous discussion with closing admin. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-06-06t15:02z 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 June 2009
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page has been deleted as the page was created/deleted too many times perviously. The relevant sources are now available and so i have created a draft of the page here User:lolenelolene/draft. rootology ( C)( T) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC) told me to reference his reply to me at the unprotection section - [1] . rootology ( C)( T) said - "Please draft a copy of the page with sourcing in someplace like User:lolenelolene/draft, and reference my edit response to you here in case someone tries to delete that work in progress. When it's done, post a request to WP:DRV for review. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)." I think i have done everything he told me to do...so could you please reinstate the page? Thanks very much! lolenelolene ( talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (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. |
|
Deletion was unreasonable as no links or subjective material was used in the creation of this page, and new content was provided each time in order to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia and its administrators. If necessary, would be interested in having a trusted Wikipedia author prepare the page to make sure that it’s completely compliant and objective. Thewizetradegroup ( talk) 02:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This AFD debate, with 9 arguments for deletion and 4 for rentention, was just closed as keep by a longstanding admin (since 2003), Altenmann ( talk · contribs). The article has only one reliable independent source, which notes that a french explorer was the 3rd european to land at the island, more than 200 years before PNG was independent. That says nothing about bilateral relations. The rational provided was simply "The result was keep; rescued." I would need a better rational to be convinced that there really was some "strength in argument not numbers" closure here and this just looks like another case of an admin basing a decision on his own opinion (which he was free to do by contributing to the debate itself) rather than doing his job, which is interpreting consensus and policy. Here's why he was wrong. One "keep" argument hinged on the brief visit of the french explorer 200 years before PNG was a state, and at least 150 years before one could imagine any sort of polity that aspired to being a state on the island. The second did as well (i.e. "per the excellent sources added." Since the only reliable independent source was this landing of a french explorer 200 years before independence, i presume that's what he meant). The 3rd said "you don't need secondary sources for an article," a clear failure to understand our notability guidelines for articles, i.e. "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine). The fourth keep argument appeared to hinge on A. Insisting that independent sources are not needed to establih a topic's notability and, B. That France controls New Caledonia, which is near PNG. The delete arguments hinged on a failure of the GNG, since no reliable independent sources that discuss the topic of the article could be found, let alone multiple ones. These sorts of closes make a mockery out of good-faithed participation in this process. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (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. |
|
This image (which, I understand, was fair use) was - until it was deleted - the only image of the cover of John Steinbeck's book The Log from the Sea of Cortez included in the featured article of that name. On that basis, I think there is a justifiable fair use rationale to keep it. There is a cover image remaining in that article - File:Sea-of-cortez-cover.jpg - but this is a different book, published by Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts in 1941, some 10 years before The Log from the Sea of Cortez. As the featured article explains, Steinbeck published The Log from the Sea of Cortez in 1951, after Ricketts was killed in 1948. It includes the narrative portion of Sea of Cortez, but excludes some material and adds other material. It is considered to be a completely separate work, published under Steinbeck's name alone. The article is about this second work, not the earlier one. The image was either deleted pursuant to the FfD, or as a CSD G7 - see related discussion at User talk:Drilnoth. I'm not convinced there was consensus to delete in the FfD, or that it was eligible as a G7. In any event, I think there are good reasons why it should be restored and replaced in the article. Testing times ( talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The AfD was closed by the closing administrator with "delete" consensus and merge to Mahmudiyah killings. I and other strongly disagree with this outcome (read here). I then discussed the desicion with the closing administrator. Sandstein to understand the reason for his decision. He kindly explained, we discussed and after that i ask him, to either extend the discussion or to declare "Keep" consensus. So both article can be developed separately, what would increase the quality of Wikipedia. He disagreed. Please read about it here. Sandstein - (User Talk). From his explanation i understand that he has based his decision on the number of people who made policy-based arguments and did not take in consideration the strength of the arguments. The arguments for a "delete" consensus outcome were weak and the arguments for a Keep very strong. So that the AfD outcome needs to be overturned. Because we can not ignore the strength of the argument and we can not ignore the secondary sources and according to them her role in the Mahmudiyah killings was tremendous. Not to grant her notability and to delete the article could be damaging to Wikipedia. Finally i would like to thank everybody who takes the time to review the AfD. Iqinn ( talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (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. |
|
Austria–Georgia relations ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) This AFD was just closed by User:Docu with the following rational: "The result was No consensus found for deletion. Discussion provided reliable resources for expansion, article was kept." However, in the AFD itself eight arguments were made for deletion against 3 for keeping the article. This outcome seems to me (at least it should be) well outside admin discretion (and his "analysis" of the sources provided, if one can call it that, seems odd -- only one source about a minor matter was found.) User:Docu has done this before in the recent past with Estonia–Luxembourg relations (now a dab page) which yielded at DRV a rather overwhelming consensus that not only was his close wrong but that he was acting well outside of his community granted authority. DRV here [45]. On a small procedural point, even though the sound round of admonishments he recieved at DRV over his last close like this led to him technically saying "no consensus" instead of "keep" this time, he edited the talk page of the article to say "the outcome of the discussion was keep." [46] I'll probably be seeking community input elsewhere on his behavior once i figure out the best venue, but i start here. As a wikipedia editor, I have to abide by consensus when it goes against what I think is the best course and i try to. That an admin, like User:Docu ignores consensus when it goes against what he thinks is best is demoralizing. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Fram ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to delete this page per Wikipedia:CSD#U2. It's blatantly obvious that U2 does not apply here, therefore I request speedy overturn of the deletion. — Aitias // discussion 15:10, 2 June 2009 (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. |
|
The nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008, and a robust debate about the nature of this association followed. The creator of the category made a strong case for its inclusion, and the result of this CfD was "Keep". TPH then nominated it again for deletion in May 2009 with the thinnest of reasoning and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote (" per nom") in a sham deletion attempt shouldn't have changed that. (when did one vote become consensus, anyway?) I would like to have the category Restored and Repopulated. Chubbles ( talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
1 June 2009
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page was kept on the basis on a no concensus on WP:N supercedes WP:ATHLETE. This is true, but the AfD gave no examples of how the references provided in this revision passed general notability. The only two reliable sources about the footballer fail WP:SPECULATION, as well as the footballer failing WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition. -- Jimbo [online] 20:11, 1 June 2009 (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. |
|
Jonathan Kotula is a World Series of Poker Bracelet winner. While the outcome of was delete and I am not questioning the verdict based upon the AFD itself; neither WP:POKER nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people were made aware of this AFD, thus the two projects with the most insight and potential interest in the project did not know about this AFD. Being a WSOP bracelet winner is considered to be the pentacle of the poker world It is easily on par with the WP:Athlete's notion of participating at the highest level. The Poker project easily considers this as notable enough for an article. We are not talking about an event that nobody has ever heard of, we are talking about a World Series of Poker Champion. I considered simply recreating the article, but it would boil down to the same issues---he is only known for one event, but that event is a WSOP championship. And while I am certain we can find more sources [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] most will be trivial in nature. As a WSOP champion, however, any event where he participates, it will be news. If he doesn't defend his title, it is reported! --- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) notifying WP:Poker of this DRV
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |